Letters to the Editor for Feb. 3

Carol T.
02/08/2010 11:28 PM

Marc: You really seem like a fair-minded person, and your comments are right-on. In your defense here- we've been told repeatedly to not be so "lazy," and to pick up the phone and check things out for ourselves. So (on a snowy day) you took people at their word and did. But maybe they weren't serious. Thank you.

Report a Violation

Marc D.
Woodbury, MN     02/08/2010 10:37 PM

You know, you're right. I don't know exactly what happened, so I'm going to shut up now. I think we could all benefit by not talking about a situation that is really between individuals, without airing parts of that story in order to attack people and score political points or try to make some point about some larger political truth. I'd probably be upset if I were in your shoes, too, Paul. I didn't mean to make an awkward situation, worse--I was just trying to find out what people were talking about--but if I did, my apologies. I hope Marisa is able to find good ways to contribute to the community, and if she wants to share her thoughts on politics and policy, that she continues to do so, whether people agree or disagree with those thoughts. Best wishes in all you do. Really.

Report a Violation

Paul N.
02/08/2010 9:16 PM

It’s a shame that some people choose to publish information before they have all the facts, which is what Marc D. self-admittedly does. And those clearly are not the facts. I typically do not venture into the political realm but need to speak up here to ensure that Marisa Novak’s story is not lost to half-truths. Here are the facts, plain and simple: 1 - Mrs. Novak was acting in a director role in a non-partisan organization as a volunteer. 2 - She was told by the lead of that organization to step down from that position specifically because her latest Woodbury Bulletin viewpoint, which referenced Sen. Saltzman, as well as her conservative blog posts was offensive to some of the members of the organization. 3 – Senator Saltzman was given an opportunity to publicly state that Mrs. Novak’s Viewpoint was not offensive, simply questioning public policy, and that she should remain a part of the organization; the Senator chose not to do that. 4 – She never once used her position in the organization in any of her writings, nor did she bring political discussion/debate into the organization itself. If these are not the facts, then someone is not telling Marisa Novak the entire truth as this was the reason given to her when she was told to step down. I know these facts as I am Marisa’s husband as well as an active participant in the network. I cannot stand by and let blatant lies be spread across the internet and the community.

Report a Violation

Marc D.
Woodbury, MN     02/08/2010 5:50 PM

As suggested, I did a bit of investigating, and I understand why people don't want to name the organization involved. But while I still need to learn more, it's also quite clear that only part of the story is being told. To imply that Marisa Novak said some things, and so she got kicked out of this organization, and to blame this on Sen. Saltzman, who I know to be a good person who is working hard for our community (whether you agree with her or not), is not accurate at all, from what I understand. I don't believe it's even accurate to imply Marisa Novak was asked to leave the organization: it appears her role within the organization was a concern due to various circumstances, and when concerns were raised about that role, she chose to leave the organization. Undoubtedly there is more to the story than what I presently know, but it still remains that this is not a free speech issue. People have the right to say whatever they want. Marisa Novak did. That doesn't mean that speech doesn't have consequences, though again, I don't believe it was speech alone that led to what happened. While people are trying to make a big public hullaboo about this, maybe it would be better to just let the people involved deal with these issues. If people don't want to discuss the full circumstances, and I understand why, then perhaps it's just best not to discuss it all. Making unsubstantiated accusations, when people aren't willing to bring to light the actual facts so that all can examine them in an objective light, is part of the sort of gotcha politics that we could use a lot less of in our society.

Report a Violation

Carol T.
02/08/2010 5:17 PM

TT C: Once more: I really don't particularly care about the details (as I said, this reminds me of junior high). And stop assuming what I or anyone else would do if a volunteer organization kicked us out. If that happened, for one, I wouldn't be complaining publicly without at least naming the organization. But in fairness to Ms. Novak, she's not the one who has written to the editor, or posted here. Of course somebody is trying to "get" Sen. Saltzman (I believe your comment was something like "Of course it's political - duh!")

Report a Violation

Carol T.
02/08/2010 12:01 PM

TT C: Why do you start out so many posts by assuming nobody will understand or agree with you? You made some points. However (again), free speech is not the issue here! (That is, except for the fact if we didn't have free speech, Sen Saltzman couldn't be criticized in the media w/o proof - or, maybe, even with proof.) And as for "full disclosure," that disclosure is incumbent on those making unsubstantiated accusations. We should all now run around "looking under rocks" (I believe that was your term) to prove or disprove vague claims made about a politician running for re-election?? The next week, of course, there would be some new claim to run around investigating. It was interesting (and encouraging) to see that Michelle thinks the "birthers" are nutjobs. Which they are, of course- but before her statement it had crossed my mind that this whole "tempest in a teapot" about Sen. Saltzman was reminiscent of the birthers' approach - that is, to keep repeating stuff until people start to believe "there must be someting there," and to encourage them all to bother the records department at the State of Hawaii to the point where they can't get their regular work done, etc. Show us the beef.

Report a Violation

Marc D.
Woodbury, MN     02/08/2010 11:53 AM

Thomas: You never now what might surprise you on a snowy day like today. You might find this shocking, but I think you make some fair points. You're right, a federal appointee is not the equivalent of a volunteer community organization (whatever that organization might be, I still don't know). That's the problem with any analogy, really: no situation is precisely analogous to another. I think it's a bit of a stretch to bring supposed partisan indoctrination into this particular discussion, but your argument seems to be that there is too much politics in our schools, and this is analogous to people judging community organizations by political standards. I think one could make the counterargument that if you think it is bad for schools to have too much partisan commentary, that perhaps it would be bad if a community organization, that is supposed to be nonpartisan, might be seen in a partisan light, and that this is exactly the problem that led to the issue we are discussing. But again, I don't really know, because I don't know the facts involved. I'll do my best to make a few calls to see what I can learn, as you suggest. Enjoy the snow.

Report a Violation

michelle v.
02/08/2010 11:45 AM

HA HA HA HAAA! thank you carol T. didnt bother to read and yet your judge? you affirm my point perfectly! TTC: you are spot on here. these people have no interest in doing any fact finding themselves, they have no desire to seek the truth. It serves no purpose to argue with closed minds.

Report a Violation

Carol T.
02/07/2010 11:22 PM

Thanks, Marc D! Great job.

Report a Violation

Marc D.
Woodbury, MN     02/07/2010 10:30 PM

Thomas claims that this is an issue of free speech. I'm not sure what this is, but it's not that. Marisa Novak has had every chance to express herself in public (and assumedly in private as well). Kudos to her for sharing her thoughts, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. That said, we have the right to speak in public. That right does not mean that nobody else can react to what we say in public. People have every right to not like what somebody says in public. That's about all I can say here, because everything else is innuendo. I don't know what the organization is. I don't know what its purpose is. I don't know how that organization's mission might or might not have been in conflict with the things Marisa Novak has written in public. And I don't know exactly what happened in relation to why Marisa Novak is no longer with that organization. If I knew, I might even sympathize: I would be dismayed if I was doing something I cared about and couldn't do so anymore because of something I had said. But again, I don't know the circumstances, so it's hard to say more. Some people reading this might know what's going on, but I don't, and I have no intention of trying to judge actions that I don't know the details about, simply because of the insinuations being made. But if the principle of the thing is that nobody should be kicked out of an organization because of something somebody said, because that would abridge their rights of free speech, I assumed that would mean it would be reprehensible to force Van Jones out of his office, even if you think what he said was really beyond the pale as far as you believe, because that would abridge his rights to free speech. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with everything he has ever said: I'm certain I don't. The question is, is the principle being stated applicable in all circumstances or simply because you are defending somebody who is conservative rather than liberal? (By the way, answers that aren't condescending or filled with personal insults get double points! I think we can all try to have a civil discussion with the understanding that we may disagree with each other, but that we are all trying to lead good and decent lives, doing the best we can with our knowledge and experience and values. We probably all have plenty of valuable things to do with our time, think it valuable to debate issues we care about, but don't really need to be insulted after taking the time to do so.)

Report a Violation