Herald Journal Blogs & News » Viewpoints

McLeod County residents have a heart

Staff — Fri, 11 May 2012 17:43:09 +0000

From: Marietta Neumann McLeod Emergency Food Shelf
Oh, am I ever proud to say that I live in McLeod County, a county with so many caring people. The response for the March drive really proved the point.
The challenge between the towns put all the towns on an equal level, with the challenge being how many pounds of food were collected per person. Plato, the smallest town, was the winner, but the spirit in every town made all the rest of them winners also.
Some of the towns and organizations did not bring their donations in on time, so the totals for March could have been different, but all of them were very important. The Feinstein family Foundation Challenge Drive also included the donations from both March and April, so all donations counted in that grant.
The response from the many individual groups, such as the challenge between ambassadors representing different towns, the drive the residents from the treatment center had, the Boy Scout drives, or what some of the 4-H groups, and what the many individuals did, was really inspiring.
With the total of cash and food that was collected from the two months the food shelf will be able to supply 131,425 meals. This was awesome. Words alone cannot express the thanks and appreciation for what everyone did to make this possible.
McLeod County residents are caring people.

Wisdom and truth needed

Staff — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:38:51 +0000

From: Kristen M. Soley, Waverly
I am writing this in response to the article entitled “Why are we arguing about women’s rights?”, written by Maria Stoltz, published in the March 12 edition of the Herald Journal.
Maria asks the question, “Why are we arguing about women’s rights” and I presume she is asking this in regards to the US Department of Health and Human Services recent mandate and the onslaught of criticism it is receiving from the Catholic bishops and other communities of faith in the US. Maria does a wonderful job of highlighting all of the achievements our nation has made for women’s rights, some more noble than others. This, however, is not a women’s rights issue. This is a civil rights issue, a direct infringement of our rights under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”[11]
The Catholic bishops have been very clear on what this debate is — and is not —about. “This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the church’s hand and with the church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the bishops somehow “banning contraception,” when the US Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago.
Indeed, this is not about the church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the church — consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions — to act against church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we wanted or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.” [12]
The debate is about:
1. “An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption – employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith . . . Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry . . . and if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All — not just some — of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally-recognized right “not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs. [12]
2. A mandate to act against our teachings.  Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. [12]
3. A violation of personal civil rights. The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all, individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing “services” contrary to those values . . . This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.” [12]
The Obama administration did announce a change in the HHS mandate, resulting from the strong opposition. “The new policy will still mandate that women who work for such religiously-affiliated institutions get their birth-control products with no out-of-pocket costs. The insurance companies, instead of the institutions, will pay.” [17] As it stands, it still requires contraceptive coverage, but allows women to obtain it directly from their insurance companies — which still wouldn’t be allowed to charge for it. The change essentially added a degree of separation between faith-based organizations and birth control. [12]
Bishop Burbidge, in discussing this change, points out his concerns. “Catholic hospitals and universities will not be required to provide contraceptives free of charge, now insurance companies will. The Catholic hospitals and universities, etc. do not need to directly provide the contraceptives, but must show you how and where to get these items. Ultimately, someone has to pay for it; our concern is that the cost for these free services will be put back onto these faith-based organizations (premiums).[17] These questions need to be answered and clarified.”
I recently listened to a very powerful homily by Father Maletta, given Feb. 5 at St. John the Evangelist Parish, St. John, IN. It addresses how the HHS mandate has taken abortion and sterilization (coined “women’s health”) and included it in legislation that “compromises our Catholic conscience.” [13] Not everybody believes what we Catholics believe, and we are not asking anybody to believe as we do. We are simply asking that we not be forced to compromise on what we believe, “forcing us to go against our faith.” [13]
Because of our faith, we cannot and will not follow this law. The Catholic church is the largest non-government agency providing health and social services as well as education; these services, because we cannot go against what we believe is true, would be closed because we cannot support a culture of death. As Father Maletta says, “Let us provide these vital services to that segment of our nation that needs us most.” [13]
Now, back to women’s rights, yes, thank you God; I have enjoyed the right to vote, a college degree, and a large income in an industry that was predominately male-dominated. Women fought for me and women like me. Those victories are true, good, and just. The Bible and the Constitution agree, as well.
However, I do not see how contraception and abortion have helped women’s rights? How is preventing life, a gift, given from God; or worse yet, killing this precious life after God’s loving hand granted it, a right? Even Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) states that the court case in 1973 (Roe V. Wade), in which she pursued the right to abort her second child, (the case “that ultimately legalized abortion on demand), was the biggest mistake of my life.” She, in fact, has three daughters and has never had an abortion. [16]
Contraceptives and abortion do not empower women to do what is true, good, and right and we are not better for them. They allow both men and women a right to share in a gift that was intended to create and promote life, out of love and mutual respect for one another. One of the fruits of that gift is a child. Because of contraception and abortion, both men and women endeavor into this act without having to consider the beauty, gravity, and commitment such a decision requires.
Furthermore, as Sheila Liaugminas writes “Providing free hormonal birth control to women under the guise of ‘preventative services’ and ‘women’s health’ is a lie and women of all faiths deserve to know the truth. [10]” An article by Jenn Giroux states that “for years, pro-life organizations refused to discuss or take on this topic despite the fact that free access to birth control increases the number of surgical abortions[1][2]. Most people repeat over and over that birth control decreases the number of abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, today for every child born in the US, there are an estimated two children killed in the womb from both surgical and chemical, abortifacient drug abortions [3]. What isn’t being talked about is that the new mandate also pre-disposes women to serious long-term and permanent health problems. In conjunction with the defense of both religious liberty and the spiritual well-being of women, we must also refute the absurd and deceptive statement that “women are healthier on birth control.”
Here are some very shocking, but true, statistics related to “women’s health:”
1. Fifty-five to 60 percent of women having abortions are on contraception. [14]
2. Alfred Kinsey, 1955: “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.” [14]
3. The pill can prevent pregnancy, true, but it can also cause abortions; causing (the lining of your uterus) to reject your child after conception. This means if you conceive while on the pill, your tiny baby will starve to death and his or her remains will be passed along in your next bleeding cycle. (The “Study of Abortion Deaths Commission” estimates that this happens in women in America who use the Pill approximately 1 to 4 million times each year.) The chemicals that cause these early abortions are called abortifacients which is the medical term for any chemical agent that causes an abortion. [15]
4. Since 1975, there has been a 400 percent increase in “in situ” breast cancer among pre-menopausal women under 50 years old. This mirrors the increased use of birth control over these same years. (“In situ” is a medical term which means “at the location” [4]  [18]
5. A Mayo Clinic study confirms that any young girl or woman who is on hormonal birth control for four years prior to her first full term pregnancy increases her breast cancer risk by 52 percent. [5] [18]
6. “Women who use hormonal birth control for more than five years are four times more likely to develop cervical cancer. [6] [18]
7. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, classifies all forms of hormonal contraception as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer-causing agents also includes cigarettes and asbestos. [7] Why is it that the FDA can require cigarette manufacturers to place warning labels and real life photos of corpses on cigarette packages to warn consumers of the health dangers, yet they, in turn, take an equally harmful substance (hormonal birth control) and force companies to give it away free to young girls without parental consent and woman of all ages? [18]
8. For high school boys and men to take steroid drugs, it is a crime. Whereas, girls and women taking steroid drugs (i.e. hormonal birth control) are now treated as if they are taking a sacred, life-preserving vitamin that women cannot live without. [8] [18]
9. In October 2010, the NY Times carried an article about hormone replacement therapy drugs. It quoted the America Medical Association (AMA) as warning women that these post-menopausal drugs which were originally marketed as keeping a women “young and sexy” were discovered instead to be more likely to cause advanced and deadly breast cancer.[9] It stopped short of making one other startling revelation: The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs (now mandated by the Obama administration) is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage — and are the very same drug! [18]
10. They found that women with HPV, a sexually transmitted disease (STD), who take the pill for less than five years, do not significantly increase their risk of developing cervical cancer. However, those who are on the pill for longer than five years are nearly three times as likely to develop the disease. Those who take it for more than 10 years quadruple their risk. Moreover, the increased danger persists for more than 15 years, even if a woman stopped taking the pill. [14] [18]. . . So let me get this straight . . . If a woman catches HPV, an STD proven to cause cervical cancer, and if you have HPV and take the pill, the risk of developing cervical cancer is even greater? So, taking a contraceptive, which encourages sexual activity by decreasing the risk of conceiving a baby, exposing women to STD’s thereby increasing their risk of cervical cancer, is good for women how? [20]
11.  If the health risks are not enough to make a woman think twice about contraceptives; there is also a direct link to dramatic increase in the divorce rate from 1965 (the year the one law remaining, prohibiting the use of contraceptives in married couples was struck down) to 1975, rising from 25 percent to 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce (same as today). The research of social scientist Robert Michael, “attributed 45 percent of this increase [in divorce] to increased use of contraceptives.” [19]
What can we conclude? Real-world studies show that contraception has not reduced, but has instead increased unintended births and does not promote women’s health. Women are not being warned that birth control methods are causing breast, liver, and cervical cancer. They are not being told about the “silent killer” effect which is causing them to unknowingly abort their babies. They are instead being told that they are healthier on birth control because it decreases ovarian and uterine cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, out of 100 women with cancer, 31 have breast cancer, six have uterine cancer, and three have ovarian cancer. This is not a healthy tradeoff of risks that is worth taking. [12]
Clearly, birth control does not help women at risk; it has proven itself to put women at risk, as well as their marriages.
Again, yes, praise God for women’s rights and the wonderful advancements our leading women and men have made for us in this great nation. Nevertheless, women’s health issues, related to the HHS mandate are not for the good of women. The HHS mandate is not a women’s rights issue. It is a civil rights issue, a direct infringement of our rights under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
As Maria points out, “every American has a mother, sister, niece, aunt or grandmother who relies on these rights”; they also have a right to the truth.
Personally, I do my best to live by faith and God’s laws. The Bible clearly teaches God’s opinion of contraceptives in the story of Genesis 1:28, as well as how He handles Onan in Genesis 38:9-10.
We humans can make mistakes, and often do. Just because it is law, does not make it right. Please pray for wisdom and truth.
Notes:
[1] http://www.guttmacher org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html ;
[2] Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303.
[3] International Pharmacists for Life 2003;http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient
[4] www.cancer.org
[5] Kahlenborn et al., “Oral Contraceptive Use — as a risk factor for pre-menopausal breast cancer: a meta analysis,” Mayo Clinic proceedings 2006 pp. 1290-1320, 2006
[6] Bosch, et al, “Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer…” International Agency of Research on Cancer, 2002
[7] International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization, 2010
[8] http:www.mayoclinic.com/health/performance-enhancing-drugs/SM00045
[9] New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010
[10] Sheila Reports, Sheila Liaugminas , March 13, 2012
[11] Wikipedia
[12] Source Catholic Culture.org, US bishops decry ‘illegal and unjust’ HHS mandate, call for prayer and penance, March 15, 2012
[13] Father Maletta given on February 5, 2012 at St. John the Evangelist Parish, St. John, Indiana, USA.
[14] Physiciansforlife.org
[15] “Birth Control” Pills cause early Abortions, By J.T. Finn (updated April 23, 2005), http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
[16] Youtube video of Norma McCorvy (AKA, Jane Roe)
[17] Feb 13, 2012 – “Response to HHS birth control mandate change” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AoESXrPitc
[18] Deadly health risks for women: The unspoken side of the Obama birth control mandate – By Jenn Giroux, Feb 14, 2012
[19] Rush Limbaugh, Divorce and Contraception, 6/18/2004, By Matt Abbott
[20] WebMd, Birth Control, HPV and Cervical Cancer, Oral Contraceptives Raise Risk of Cervical Cancer in Women With HPV, By Salynn Boyles, April 3, 2003

Petty is all in the eyes of the beholder

Staff — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:37:27 +0000

From: John Brunette
GOP Communication Committee chair, Carver County
I’d like to respond to Jennifer Wilson’s letter to the editor, entitled “Leidiger’s speeding ticket isn’t petty.”
My name is John Brunette, and yes, I am the communication committee chair for the Carver County GOP Basic Political Operating Unit. Jennifer took me to task over comments I made on Sean’s Olson’s blog site, regarding Leidiger’s speeding ticket.
I would first like to say, that this was not ever represented as official commentary regarding the ticket. The board doesn’t have any official comment on this matter to date. It’s not my job to perform public relations work for Rep. Leidiger, except perhaps during the period between his endorsement, and his re-election, where I may provide information regarding events to support him should he win endorsement.
As a friend to both Ernie Leidiger, and Steve Nielsen, his campaign treasurer, I made comments about the situation as a private citizen. I was defending my friends on an issue that I personally feel bears little or no merit. Indeed, my personal position is that this is a lot of petty nonsense. And as Jennifer mentions, this matter is being addressed by the OAH, and it is my personal estimation that this will never amount to much, having reviewed previous judgments by this board.
Jennifer also stated, “I don’t think breaking laws is petty nonsense, and I don’t think this should be shrugged off as a ‘petty nuisance.’” It’s ironic to me that, after all, a speeding ticket is actually classified as a petty misdemeanor. So it would seem to me that her assessment of breaking laws actually depends upon the law that is broken.
It has always been my personal position, knowing both of the individuals involved in this case, that none of this was ever intended to be in violation of any campaign finance law. I take Rep. Leidiger at his word, that he believes an expense obtained while getting to and from his job are legitimate campaign expenditures. And that speeding is often a passive crime, because yes, it is possible to speed without doing so on purpose (as anyone driving south through St. Boni can attest, coming down that steep hill). The same has occurred here, with a campaign finance report.
These friends who are working to serve their region are not criminals. They had no intention of breaking any laws, or campaign finance rules. And yet, when this matter arose, despite my assurances that these gentlemen were going to resolve the situation, others on the blog site decided that there must be criminal proceedings to take place. While these two were making this right, just in case there was a conflict, the DFL chose to quickly submit a complaint. And to me, that is petty.

Women, respect yourself

Staff — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:06:20 +0000

From: Margaret Jordan
Howard Lake
Arguments can be made as to what are women’s rights or reproductive rights. What are sometimes listed as women’s rights, seem to all be because of government actions. Rights do not come from government; rights are from God. Decisions rendered by courts do not grant rights. They give license. We know government can negotiate rights.
The Supreme Court took away the God given right to life from the youngest members of the human family. What the court did was give women license to have their bodies invaded in order to end the life of their baby. A baby created since Roe vs. Wade, no longer has a right to life.
Women have a need for true reproductive rights. The first and foremost reproductive right is not to be considered as female animals in constant heat and thus in need of sterilization, hormonal medication, devices and plugs. Women should be outraged at this inference.
The second reproductive right is not to have healthy women’s bodies considered so imperfect that drugs, devices, and surgeries are necessary for daily living. Women have free-will and the ability to choose the activity they wish to engage in.
It is never a reproductive right to kill a dependent baby or to engage in sexual activity and demand the taxpayer make it infertile.
None of this takes an act of government. What it takes is acts of will by people of rightly formed consciences. Women, respect yourselves, and others will, too.

Leidiger’s speeding ticket isn’t petty

Staff — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:54:45 +0000

From: Jennifer Wilson
New Germany
A few days ago, it was discovered that Rep. Ernie Leidiger (R), Mayer, had reported a speeding ticket as an expenditure on his campaign reporting form. This payment from his campaign account shows up on the report as “Hennepin County, $178.”
There were only eight expenditures from his campaign, so obviously this wasn’t an oversight. In fact, Leidiger told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he didn’t see the reimbursement as a problem and that nobody had complained. He said he donates more than $1,000 to his own campaign, so paying the ticket should not be a problem.
“To me,” he said. “It seems appropriate.”
It seems that this would have never been revealed to his constituents, until an outsider saw the report on the State of Minnesota website and questioned it.
How could this possibly be appropriate? It is expressly against campaign finance rules. Now his campaign is issuing an amended report, and calling the fine “just another cost of serving.” A reimbursement will be made.
This cavalier attitude and disregard of simple rules is very troubling. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I contributed to his campaign, I sure wouldn’t want my money used to pay for his speeding ticket. I would trust that my hard-earned dollars were going to ensure the success of his campaign. It’s kind of funny, in a way, that he serves on the Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee, as well as the Transportation Committee.
John Brunette, who I believe is the communications chair for Carver County Republicans Basic Political Operating Group, says that this controversy is “petty nonsense.”
I don’t think breaking laws is petty nonsense, and I don’t think this should be shrugged off as “petty nuisance.” In fact, the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings is looking into the matter.

Leidiger’s speeding ticket isn’t petty

Staff — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:22:22 +0000

Gas prices are rising, Mr. President

Staff — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:33:25 +0000

From: Margaret Jordan Howard Lake
Our urban-dwelling president and his urban-dwelling advisors have no idea of the destructive impact of high gasoline and diesel prices on the people of this country.
When the president travels, he flies over our vast nation and doesn’t seem to realize we are not all city dwellers. It takes fuel to power the tractors that plant and harvest our bountiful fields. The trucks that haul supplies to keep urban dwellers supplied with everything from food to the latest fashions are at the mercy of fuel prices.
In rural areas, many people drive 30 miles to their jobs. Money is spent for gas and diesel that can’t go toward house payments and other necessities of life.
We know President Obama won’t listen to the pleas of Rep. Bachmann, but would he take notice if our two US Senators spoke up for the people of this state? Please, senators, don’t be so silent.

Childcare providers do not need SEIU

Staff — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:00:43 +0000

From: Carol Kappel
Winsted
Several years ago, a meeting took place in Winsted with the assistance of our representative and senator from our district, and many childcare providers from the Twin Cities.
The place in which the meeting took place was packed to capacity.
At that point and time, the goal was to phase out family childcare providers. If we hadn’t held our meeting and if everyone hadn’t worked together to oppose that goal, it would have become a reality.
Now that goal has changed because family childcare providers have become important enough for Service Employees International (SEIU) to want us to join their union.
I have been in childcare for 45 years, and I can’t think of a single thing that would benefit us by joining SEIU. We work for ourselves. Family childcare providers, including myself, schedule all of the classes that we need and want. If we were required to join SEIU, we would have to pay dues, and in turn, we’d have to raise our wages.
The fact is, the only ones who would benefit from family childcare providers joining the union would be the union itself, as they would increase their membership.
In my opinion, it would be extremely prejudicial to not allow all family childcare providers and all parents to vote on this issue, since these are the two parties union membership would effect.
You should also know that all of the people that were sent out to providers’ homes were paid to make their visits. Some of these people had a hard time taking “no” for an answer, continuing to make repeat visits at homes to the point of harassment.
Please call the representative and senator in your district, along with Governor Mark Dayton and let them know that we don’t want or need a union.

Church has long disagreed with government

Staff — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:18:49 +0000

From: Margaret Jordan
Howard Lake
It is a popular belief among many in this country that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are good, and must be protected. Indeed, they are protected by laws and court rulings.
Catholics in name only (CINO) also agree. CINO surround President Obama, CINO in the administration, US Senate, and House, including CINO like Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy Pelosi, both powerful women with much influence and media attention.
The Catholic church’s position of rejecting contraception, sterilization, and abortion is very clear. The president knows the general public disagrees with the Catholic church, so he felt confident in ordering all Catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients as part of their health plans. The media applauds.
Before the 1930s, all major religions forbade contraception. In the 1930s, Pope Pius XI warned of the danger of contraception’s effect on human behavior. He was mocked. Later, Pope Paul VI also warned against mankind’s acceptance of contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Like Pius XI, he was ignored and ridiculed. “Wise” people have rejected God and His laws and instead, have given their allegiance to self and government power.
The Catholic church will continue to stand firm. The gates of hell can make lots of human pleasing arguments against the Church, but she will not succumb to humanistic platitudes. The Church is built on rock, guided by the Holy Spirit. Don’t put your trust in institutions built on sand.
How long will God be mocked by the diabolic perseverance of His gift of human sexuality? How long will God be mocked by 50,000-plus abortions?

I have a vision for downtown Winsted

Staff — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:58:01 +0000

From: Winsted Mayor, Steve Stotko
Imagine what Winsted would feel like if the downtown embodied the collective vision of the community’s citizens. Can we picture a downtown that is built around the shared economic, social, cultural, and environmental vision of the community? Is it reasonable to expect our downtown to once again be a focal point for community? To be a place we want to live, work and play? To be a place of pride?
These questions form the basis of the work of the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force. But before we can answer those questions, we need to know where we want to go. We need a vision of what we want from our downtown.
Vision is the important first step on the way to reaching our goals. A vision is a dream with a plan. It is the ability to look into the future, to envision the possibilities, but also to understand the challenges and responsibilities along the way. A vision allows us to maintain a common focus as we work together to make the dream reality.
What is the ultimate goal? What do residents expect from their downtown? What will be required to get us from here to there? What actions do we need to take? What role does each of us need to play? What resources will be required?
It is important to acknowledge the magnitude of the work that will be involved. What is required is a long-term, community-wide commitment to creating the vision, doing the hard work that will be required to make it a reality, and sufficiently resourcing the initiatives with clear lines of communication and accountability. Patience and perseverance will be required, and expectations will need to be managed.
Coordinated, consistent political and administrative will is required to put a strategy in place, to resource it, and to follow through with its implementation over the long term. In order to do so, the process must have a leadership model that is a political, cross-sectoral, and accountable. City hall can provide formal leadership in guiding the process. But a task such as this one will require leadership and involvement from all parts of the community, from senior levels of government, and from a host of individuals, organizations, and businesses. Resources needed to achieve goals must be identified, secured, and allocated appropriately.
Most importantly, the community must believe in the achievability of the vision, and easily understand and see the way forward. The community must take ownership of the vision and contribute to its implementation.
Together, we can do this. Together, we will do this. We are Winsted; that’s what we do.