Fourteen years of being an ‘obstructionist’ is 14 too many
To the editor:
Elect Colin Lee, who has lived in Lakeville’s District 58A for over a decade, as your state representative. Lee is opposing 14-year incumbent state representative Mary Liz Holberg, who is moving into 58A from a different district to maintain her power for another two years.
After 14 years, Holberg is chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which made her the highest-ranking budget official in the Legislature when the shutdown occurred.
Holberg is rightly named an “obstructionist” for another reason besides the shutdown. For 14 years, she single-handedly blocked a bill supported by many adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive families. This bill would grant adoptees their right to their original birth certificate. This session, she used her chair position to block our bill from even receiving a hearing.
Holberg said she wanted “sunshine” on the stadium issue. She claims she does not trust government to make decisions. However, she opposes “sunshine” and routinely makes bureaucratic, heavy-handed decisions for adoptees and their birth parents. She cited “personal privacy rights” in spite of a provision which would allow birth parents to remain anonymous and block the release of the certificate.
Her behavior shows she cannot be trusted to use her position wisely. At least eight states have restored this right to adoptees with no problems, yet Holberg continues to oppose it. Elect Colin Lee to right this wrong and end her obstructionism.
I choose to fight for this bill because my three children were happily reunited with their birth families after 20 years. It was a precious moment in their lives. An adoptee’s original birth certificate is vital to them. Let their reunion properly be their decision. Don’t leave it to lifelong politicians.
EUNICE ANDERSON
Burnsville
One of 201 legislators “single-handedly” blocked a bill for 14 years? Through changes in membership, committee leadership, and even party control of the chambers? Not likely. In fact, records show that a significant number of legislators opposed this bill when it did come up for a vote.
Holding a principled position on an issue that is different from someone else’s does not make one an “obstructionist.” It’s unfortunate that Anderson carelessly tosses around labels like this and then directs voters of another district to base their decisions on such mischaracterization.
You’re right Jim, holding a position on an issue that is different from someone else’s does not make one an “obstructionist”. However, not allowing a bill to receive a hearing within your committee because you hold a different “principled” position on the issue does make you an obstructionist. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Guttmann carelessly tosses around terminology in his responses to mischaracterize the point of the writer’s letter.
The writer made the assertion that an “obstructionist” label is deserved because “for 14 years”, one legislator “single-handedly blocked a bill”. I’m still not seeing how that claim could be true.
Mary Liz Holberg has ignored the residential railcar storage issue for years. Progressive Rail has stored railcars in Lakeville neighborhoods for three years and making money at our expense. Our properties have been devalued as a result. The railcars are a blight on our community and they attract crime. From what I can tell, Mary Liz Holberg gave up on this issue, and will not be getting my vote.
This is a FEDERAL statute issue and has nothing at all to do with a local elected official. And it begs the question, “Why did you buy your homes along a railroad track?” Progressive Rail is not doing a thing wrong. Perhaps you will be careful next time you locate your family, I hear there are some homes for sale in Richfiled on the runway approach. Will you buy a home there and then complain that Delta should not use that runway for take offs and landings?
I believe I read somewhere that John kline and Amy klobuchar are taking this issue up in Washington D.C.,
If this were a local or state issue, wouldn’t you think that the city council or the mayor would have done something about it, by now?
I am not sure, but I think railroads and related issues are handled by the feds.
Glad you brought up the airport Rosie. I believe airlines are asked by MAC to not land between certain hours at night, and they pretty much adhere to that. Homes near MSP were retro-fitted with new windows and air conditioning to combat noise. Good old NWA retro-fitted old noisy DC9′s with hush kits to reduce noise, and furthermore, airplanes are not flying by your kitchen window with all manner of profanity painted on the sides of them, are they? Residents near the airport have protections. What protection does Lakeville have against a crappy little railroad company? NONE. Lakeville neighborhoods are not a railyard. Progressive Rail needs to operate within the constraints of what exists here NOW. Not what was here in the early 1900′s. That’s just a ridiculous argument Rosie. Furthermore, Lakeville knows full well this is a FEDERAL issue, but our city, state and U.S. respresentatives need to advocate for us. That is what we elected them to do. Lastly, Progressive Rail was fined for environmental/wetland violations in both MN & WI in 2005, 2008 & 2011. You don’t have to live next to the tracks to be a victim of their garbage. Progressive Rail’s hazmat is coming to the ground water, a wetland or a lake near you. Oops, guess you shouldn’t have bought your house there:(
Colin Lee has publicly and unabashedly proclaimed his contempt for rugged American individualism. If you are looking for a big government type who isn’t at all concerned with protecting “personal privacy rights” or the rights of the individual in general, he might just be your man.
Spoken like the true ideologue you are, Jan. …consistency…
You seem to be into applying labels, RollieB. I’m more about definitions.
–If by ideologue you mean someone whose moral code is based on “live and let live,” that is, the recognition of and respect for the rights of the individual, then I’m an ideologue.
–If by ideologue you mean someone who supports the promise of the Declaration of Independence and wants to ensure that the US Constitution remains the law of the land, then I’m an ideologue.
–If by ideologue you mean someone who believes that the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, American style free enterprise and rugged American individualism are responsible for bringing about the most productive, prosperous and moral state mankind has ever known, then I’m an ideologue.
–If by ideologue you mean someone who KNOWS that any society on Earth will prosper if it faithfully operates under the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, American style free enterprise and rugged individualism, then I’m an ideologue.
Colin Lee has openly proclaimed his contempt for rugged American individualism. One must infer that his contempt extends to those things that allowed the development of rugged American individualism in the first place, which are the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and American style free enterprise.
So, do you label Colin Lee an ideologue? Also, is there a label that you apply to yourself? If so, what is it?
Nice words, hard to argue against them. But I do have a question for you: Just how, specifically, has Colin Lee “…openly proclaimed his contempt for rugged American individualism.” I’m not in 58A so it really isn’t my issue. Oh, I keep hearing dog whistles when you post.
Colin Lee’s past ultraliberal writings in this newspaper, including a scathing condemnation of American individualism (“We bleed together,” letter to the editor, 2010) reveal his true collectivist ideology in his own words.
I have no idea what the dog whistle crack is supposed to mean. If it’s an insult I’m afraid it missed its mark.
Jan, “rugged American individualism” is a dog whistle phrase. It secretly means something to supporters. It was neither written nor implied in any founding documents of our great nation. President Herbert Hoover coined the phrase to explain his social Darwinist ideas which plunged our country into its deepest Depression ever. Ayn Rand used it to push her extreme and atheist ideology promoting selfishness, not kindness, as its highest form of morality.
I do not and will never support social Darwinism. Social Darwinism did not create the lasting successes in this country. Unlike nations overseas, free education, free land policies, and strong infrastructure allowed massive opportunity for Americans to climb the social ladder from a lowly birth and launch successful businesses. Taking that opportunity away due to tax-dodging hermitism is un-American and insulting to our values.
To quote Thomas Jefferson’s final letter in 1826: “The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
1. You are talking in circles, Colin. You wrote what you wrote, that cannot be changed.
And what you wrote excoriated American individualism.
2. To obscure the issue you have introduced Ayn Rand. That’s odd since you’re grasp of Rand is loose to nonexistent. Selfishness is NOT the opposite of kindness. Let’s say I choose to perform acts of kindness because it gives me personal pleasure. To derive more personal pleasure I perform more acts of kindness. Does that make me selfish? Of course it does. I am selfishly doing what makes me happy, which just happens to be being kind. The concept that selfishness is NOT the opposite of kindness probably seems foreign to you because it doesn’t fit the time honored greed/envy, shame-on-you, give-me-your-money-to-absolve-your-sinful-selfishness liberal narrative.
3. How do you define Social Darwinism? In the name of promoting the general welfare, liberal progressives have created a subclass of nonproductive Americans citizens that is totally dependent on the government dole. Those citizens have been cajoled into relinquishing all control over their own lives. They have relinquished all freedom. In other words, those citizens, those human beings, have been reduced to the status of herd animals. If a person’s food, shelter, clothing and all else are provided by Big Gov that person is darn well going to do what Big Gov says. That person is darn well going to vote the way Big Gov tells him or her to vote. In essence, that person is living on Big Gov’s vote farm. Reducing human beings to the status of herd animals solely for the purpose of getting their votes is genocide of the human spirit.
4. Your habit of quoting the Founding Fathers to support collectivist claptrap is beyond offensive.
5. Thanks, though, for clearing up the dog whistle question. As I suspected, it was intended as an insult. Let’s see if I’ve got it. “Fair share” and “income equality” would be good examples of a dog whistle terminology, right?
Seems like a reasoned response.
Jan, I see no circular logic in Colin’s response. The founding documents are meant for all of us – not just for you and those of your point of view. Liberals can interpret and quote them as freely as a conservative. You don’t own them for your arguments only. They are not off limits to liberals.
I readily admit to being a Wellstone liberal – and proudly so. Wellstone’s interpretation and use of same for his purposes make excellant study. You might try a measure of at least attempting to understand opposing opinions. I’s what makes the U.S. great – civil discussion and debate.
I’m sorry you see the “dog whistle” reference as an insult. Both sides in a discussion do it. Myself included. I don’t see it as an insult. Relax a little.
The letter to the editor raised the issue of Mary Liz Holberg’s “obstructing” a bill that would restore an adult adoptee’s access to their own original birth certificate. THAT is “big government” – when a private citizen is blocked from seeing his/her own personal information by their government and their legislative representative!
“Protecting personal privacy rights”? When a person’s OWN birth certificate is denied to them, it seems to me that this is the biggest denial of “personal privacy rights” ever seen. Any document to whom one is the primary subject should be available to him or her on request, not systematically withheld from them and yet available to someone else.
Of course birth certificates also contain personal information about the parents. What privacy rights, if any, should they be afforded?
Privacy cannot be guaranteed. The State only releases birth certificates to SUBJECTS and designated others. Parents can always get a copy of the original birth certificate for their child whether or not they terminated their parental rights. The child/SUBJECT should also be able to get a copy of the original birth certificate whether or not they were adopted. It’s time we treated all people born in MN the same with regard to birth certificates.
1. Colin Lee’s anti “rugged American individualist” tirade introduced the term “rugged American individualist” in the first place, Rollie. In the above writing Lee for some reason points out that the term doesn’t appear in America’s founding documents. What’s that got to do with anything? He’s talking in circles. As a side note, in his tirade Lee even created a fictional (I assume) “rugged American individualist” to make fun of and named him “stupid Farmer Joe.”
2. Is a “Wellstone liberal” an ideologue? Does being a “Wellstone liberal” carry with any parameters for living your life and making decisions? Can the essence of what a “Wellstone liberal” is be concisely expressed?
3. Finally, Rollie, let me give you a little life advice. Using dog references—any sort of dog references—when speaking to a woman is risky business. Bowwow.
Ha! Good one, Jan! Having been married for nearly 46 years, I get it – no disrespect intended.
On liberalism: I’d be happy to loan you a book my daughter gave me, “The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda,” by Paul Wellstone. Yes! the younger generation gets liberalism! I’m so pleased! Paul articulates liberalism so much better than I ever could. Deal?
Thanks for your kind book lending offer, Rollie, but I’ll pass. The fact that you can’t define your belief system concisely suggests that it might be subjective rather than objective. Besides, just keeping my eyes open tells me all I need to know about liberals and the devastating effects of liberal thinking. Additionally, liberalism is dependent on the redistribution of wealth. I consider redistribution of wealth that isn’t associated with free market trading and/or voluntary to be immoral.
I speak for myself only, here are a few things i think are important:
I believe in clean air, diplomacy, stem cells, living wages, government accountability, exercising the right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism, reading actual books, going to war as a last resort, separating church and hate, doing what Jesus would actually do, instead of lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing about the apocalypse, civil rights, the right to privacy, that evolution and global warming aren’t just theories but incontrovertible scientific facts, supporting our troops means treating our wounded vets like the heroes they are – not leaving them to languish in rat-infested military hospitals, sex ed, solar panels, voting paper trails, and the common good. Maybe I should have started with the last one.
“…devastating effects of liberal thinking.”
Such as???
Genocide of the human spirit caused by liberal thinking was pointed out in a previous comment above. So was purposefully engineering of a sub category of American citizens to be lifelong dependents on the government dole. If you don’t consider those crimes against humanity to be devastating, then I guess further discussion isn’t going to get us anywhere.
I’m sorry, Jan, the “government dole” (welfare) argument used by conservatives has been exposed as a myth by countless studies, even the Cato Institute agrees it’s a myth. Any others you can think of?
Rollie, could I trouble you for the title and publication date of the Cato Institute study/report to which you refer?
My bad, it actually was a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which debunked the Cato analysis. Here’s their link: http://www.cbpp.org/
So, Rollie, you claim that the corrupt and broken US welfare system is actually a resounding success based of information you got from the far left-leaning, George Soros funded Center on Budget and Policy Priorities? Oh, come on now. That’s kind of like claiming it’s hazardous to one’s health to eat meat and backing it up with a quote from PETA.
Thanks for a good chuckle, though.
Happy to humor you!
Colin Lee’s anti-American Individualist attitude is where this windy exchange began. Lee’s own words published in this newspaper revealed that attitude. Voters who support the idea of American Individualism should keep Lee’s collectivist way of thinking in mind on Election Day.
“Collectivist” is not a real word. It’s only a slur always used by people espousing Social Darwinist ideas against Capitalists who also believe in the value of community service and caring for human beings.
“Individualist” is Orwellian Newspeak for “Social Darwinism.” It is whitewashing.
It is no different than using “Lean, Finely-Textured Beef” to refer to “Pink Slime.”
Colin’s anti-American individualist attitude was presented publicly, in print and in this very newspaper. (“We bleed together,” letter to the editor, 2010.) It’s time to man up. He needs to either stand behind his stated convictions or deny them. Colin Lee is asking voters to put him in charge of their lives. They deserve honesty from him, not a lot of dodgy double talk.
Incidentally, “collectivist” is a real word. In my dictionary it refers to someone that favors collective identity or action over individual identity or action. You know, like someone who denigrates the concept of “rugged American individualism.”
An admitted liberal’s view of poverty in the US and why neither party is willing to make a permanent fix.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/to-end-inequality-attack-poverty-not-the-1-percent.html
why would anyone vote for someone on just one single issue. only a fool would do that. for all anyone knows you could be a leftist socialist democrat, and i dont vote for those. i only vote for consevatives, and your article up there says little about you. when i vote, i research your background. if your a conservative you get my vote. if not, forget it. im sick of liberalism ruining our country.
correction=i meant vote for the candidate, not the letter writer,. after reading it again, sounds like this colin person is a leftist=no vote from me