Unfortunate inferences made in last week’s letter

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to Mr. Bacon’s letter in last week’s paper. In his attempt to find a bright spot in what otherwise was likely a bitter election season for him, Mr. Bacon makes some unfortunate inferences.

Stating only 12 of 87 counties voted ‘no’ on the amendment questions, he suggests that most of Minnesota is conservative (and presumably in agreement with his personal views). Of course, votes are not cast by acreage but by people; it is irrelevant if there is more land area in Minnesota counties that went one direction or another in an election. As only the number of voters and their ballots count (in this election the majority did not support amending the constitution, nor did they support Mr. Romney or Mr. Cravaack), Mr. Bacon’s point is meaningless.

More disturbing is the way he blithely disdains those living in urban areas as ‘people who get something for nothing.’ Undoubtedly referring to those who receive some form of government assistance, Mr. Bacon insinuates that Minnesota residents in such circumstances do not contribute to their communities (untrue, as they pay sales taxes, FICA taxes, and so on) and are automatically democrats. It’s worth noting that on a national level, of the 15 states that receive the highest amount of federal aid per capita (according to the 2010 census), nine are reliably ‘red’ states (i.e. Mississippi, Louisiana; Alaska, etc.); his ‘logic’ doesn’t hold up.

Mr. Bacon is certainly entitled to be happy that a majority in Isanti County voted more in accordance with his views, but he is wrong to suppose that most of Minnesota supports his views. And he should think more carefully before insulting a significant portion of Minnesota’s voters. After all, it didn’t work out so well for Mr. Romney.

Ken Vaselaar