Apathetic women with a sole purpose? 

With the change of one repeating word in this quote and its longer version, I could not have said it better ...

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke, 1770.

That’s the short version. A longer version reads as follows, same author.

“Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” –Edmund Burke

Quote below is by the same person:

“Woman is not made to be the admiration of all, but the happiness of one.” ― Edmund Burke

It’s as true today as it was 200 years ago — except for now, in modern times, the sin of giving into political apathy would be extended to women, too.

In my humble opinion, this — taken literally — is where we are in the U.S. today. Humans come in two genders for a purpose. For many reasons, neither should rule. 

Another quote, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Golden Rule ... practice it. 

Jan Carlson

White Bear Lake

 

About global warming

It looks like the city and citizens of River Falls, Wisconsin (population 15,000 and 36 miles from White Bear Lake), are doing something about “global warming.”

Starting small seems to be one answer.

Gary Zweig

White Bear Lake

 

Regarding the bike trail

North Branch, Stacy, Wyoming, Forest Lake, Hugo, Stillwater, Maplewood, North St. Paul: What do these towns have in common? A bike path that connects them to the 4,000 miles of bike trails running throughout Minnesota. What small town in this region doesn’t have such a connection? White Bear Lake.

Why does the city choose to cut itself off from the bike trail? Are its citizens, city planners and business owners so averse to the progressive, environmental and recreational movement of biking that the rest of the state is known for, that it intentionally shuns the idea of moving bikers through its downtown? I don’t believe that can be true. The citizens who live here burst with pride in bragging about White Bear Lake’s downtown.

The construction of a four-lane highway through this adorable downtown always seemed counter-intuitive to me, as it rushes car drivers past the businesses that make the city attractive. But one positive outcome to the behemoth of traffic running through the downtown would be to accommodate a bike path on one side, and there is room if the city wanted it, which I have to believe it does, for what city does not want to attract visitors of all kinds? It takes creative vision and a positive, bold attitude to rectify former decisions that excluded a bike path through the downtown.

Navigating bicyclists from areas around the metro region into our residential neighborhoods, which is a plan on the table, makes no sense whatsoever. I have lived in a town in which millions were spent on such a roundabout path, and no one uses it. Bicyclists still ride on the direct and more hazardous street to reach the downtown faster, because that is the more natural path to take. Bike racers want to stop for a beer or lemonade, but only if they can see the beer garden or pop shop.

Why cut White Bear Lake off from what our great Minnesota is known for around the country: 4,000 miles of trails and some of the best bicycling in the nation?

Jim Muellner

White Bear Lake

 

Not all voices are represented by East Goose Lake Homeowner Association

We have lived on East Goose Lake for 25 years but had no knowledge of a homeowner association until I recently read about it in the Press. I do not think that any of our seven nearest neighbors are aware of its existence, either. Thus, our voices regarding the treatment of our lake have not been represented. Plus, the number of homeowners on the lake (quoted as 19 by the association in the article) is short by at least eight more houses.

I am further puzzled as to how some who live on the lake were aware of public meetings regarding a possible treatment of the lake. If a mailing was sent out, to my knowledge none of us were notified.

My husband and I have thoroughly enjoyed living on the lake. The view is wonderful. But having heard about the lake’s pollution years ago, we never dared to put a toe in the water. Throughout our decades of living here, we have observed very little activity on the lake, which is not surprising, having smelled and seen the lake’s poor quality. Even the wildlife seems to have diminished.

Now reading in the Press that this is the sickest, most impaired lake in the entire watershed, we are extremely grateful that VLAWMO is making efforts to improve the quality of the lake. It seems all the more imperative to do so, learning that our lake is the headwaters for Lambert Creek and Vadnais Lake, which is the source of St. Paul’s drinking water. That is a scary awakening.

Improving the lake quality for the greater good seems the only logical option. The health of the lake is at stake and everyone throughout the watershed will benefit. The funding may not remain available for long. If we don’t take advantage of it, it will get diverted to another “sick” lake in about a nanosecond.

Thank you, VLAWMO, for your research, knowledge and commitment to come to an agreeable solution to best improve our beloved little lake. The benefit it will have for all of us and future generations cannot be measured or overstated.  

Dennis and Page Stevens

White Bear Lake

 

Facts are facts

Recent letters stated there’s no scientific consensus on humans causing climate change. They couldn’t be more wrong. The official position of the 13,000-member American Meteorological Society states that humans are a primary cause of global warming. Same thing for the Canadian, Australian and British Royal meteorological societies.

The 60,000-member American Geophysical Union is the main U.S. professional organization for earth science, including climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists and geologists. Their official positions state without doubt that humans are the primary driver of our current climate change, that we should act now to reduce the economic and societal damage, and that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of reducing greenhouse gasses. Folks are free to not believe the professional societies that develop and apply our knowledge about climate, but that is akin to not believing the American Medical Association when it says that smoking causes cancer.

Citing a single scientist shows a common misconception about science. There are always alternative hypotheses in science, and failed ones are discarded on the anvil of observation. We arrive at a general scientific consensus through thousands of studies, testing alternate explanations. Some scientists cling to pet theories long after they’ve been proven wrong by the mass of evidence. Why believe them, when they can’t even convince their thousands of scientific peers?

The writers also trot out statements by the thoroughly discredited “Lord” Monckton, an apologist for fossil fuels industries. Much like the tobacco companies before them, energy companies have an economic interest in the status quo, even though it will cost the rest of us in the long run. Their paid, nonscientist shills make up data, cherry-pick results and magnify uncertainty, all to sow confusion. 

Fact is, meteorological, climate and earth scientists have stated their consensus view that humans are a primary cause of climate change. Rather than believing armchair experts who’ve read a few op-ed pieces, shouldn’t we believe the official position of the scientific societies? Our kids and grandkids will pay for our folly of ignoring science.

Paul Bolstad

White Bear Lake 

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.