Opinion editor's note: Published in Star Tribune Opinion letter We hear from readers online and in print every day.Click to contribute here.
•••
As one letter writer (Reader's Light, April 26) put it: “Compared to all the ills of the world, there is nothing worse than war. War is hell.” And he laments that “Democratic representatives in the United States continue to fund wars against Palestine and against Russia…” Israel is not at war with Palestine. They are fighting Hamas. And it wasn't Israel who started the war, Hamas started it. Similarly, Ukraine did not start a war against Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. The United States supports Israel and Ukraine in their defense. Without our support, war will still exist. However, Israel and Ukraine are much more likely to be defeated.
Writers mistakenly believe that there are two choices: war or peace. That's not correct. When your country is attacked, your choice is to fight back or be slaughtered.
James Blunt, New Brighton
•••
One reader wrote that he was giving up support for the Democratic Party because it had become the “party of war” and that “the party of Trump” was a better alternative. He was right to use that name for the Old Republican Party, but to conclude that it was the “lesser of two evils” is just too ridiculous.
Our support for Ukraine seems justified given that Vladimir Putin has chosen to wage this war against unarmed civilians. The war in Israel is a complex and abhorrent situation, but it does not define the current state of American politics. We no longer have a valid basis for comparing the ideologies of the two major parties. We have a political party that still respects the rule of law and tries to govern from that perspective, and its policies leave a lot of room for disagreement. The other party has been taken over by someone who is subservient to Putin and incapable of considering the needs of others above his own insatiable desires. Right now, the Republican Party has no platform, no ideology, no even a moral compass. To vote for the Republican candidate, or anyone who aids his sycophants, is to support the worst of human nature. As you intended, a vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the same as a vote for Trump. In order to discuss and shape foreign policy, we must at least have a functioning political party in power.
Bob Worrall, Roseville
smoking in minneapolis
Commercial Tobacco Ordinance Has Impact
In response to the author of a recent letter about smoking in Minneapolis (Readers Write, April 24): I have a few thoughts (I'm old and rushed with the time I have left). Most importantly, a quick search of the web reveals that there are at least six free medical smoking cessation programs in the Twin Cities that fathers can participate in. It would be a good son's gesture if you helped him do that.
Regarding cigar stores, the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) prohibits smoking indoors, but as you point out, if the product is used for business, even in the home, Sampling is permitted. On that note, personally, when I come to a city, I stop and sample cigars. Tasting means sitting down and smoking it to the end. The purpose of sampling is to see how the smoke comes out (burnt and ash color) and I always note the changing flavor profile and see what color is left at the end. Yes, I smoke entire cigars from $20 to $50+ to properly sample them and decide whether to buy a box for hundreds or even thousands of dollars. So the question is, if you were a cigar smoker, wouldn't you do the same sampling before buying a box and contributing a large sum to your tax coffers?
Another mistake in banning sampling lounges is that the consequences are severe. Under the MCIAA, the law does not prohibit smoking outdoors, regardless of distance from building openings such as doors and windows. Cigar shops in the city have already indicated they intend to install half walls and continue operating in patio environments year-round, as permitted under the MCIAA. Unlike today's indoor environments with state-of-the-art filtration and ventilation, patio environments simply vent smoke to pedestrians on the sidewalk, pets, prams, adjacent windows, doors, and passing cars. In conclusion, be careful how you advocate for changes to working laws without first knowing all the facts and consequences.
Robert W. Kuhn, Rochester
environmental legislation
Minnesota prioritizes PFAS pollution prevention
Minnesota leads the nation in protecting public health and the environment from all PFAS chemicals (“We regulate only a small portion of the 12,000 ‘forever chemicals’”) StarTribune.com, April 23). While federal regulations are developed for individual types of PFAS, Minnesota's Superfund law allows polluters to be held liable for all types of PFAS.
Thanks to action by the Minnesota Legislature and the Walz Flanagan administration, we are passing new legislation to help manufacturers transition to safer alternatives and phase out unnecessary PFAS use by 2032. Enforcement prioritizes PFAS contamination prevention. Some products such as cookware, carpeting, and dental floss must be free of PFAS by January 2025.
Preventing PFAS contamination is in the best interest of public health and public funds, and those public funds often must be used to pay for expensive cleanup costs. These chemicals cost between $50 and $1,000 per pound to purchase, but between $2.7 million and $18 million per pound to remove and destroy from wastewater. By turning off the tap on PFAS entering our environment, all Minnesotans will benefit.
Katrina Kessler, St. Paul
The author is the director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
presidential privilege
how did we get here?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If a president claims that a rival is corrupt and orders his assassination, “could that qualify him for immunity within the scope of his official conduct?”
President Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer: “It depends on the assumptions, but there's a good chance it's a formal act.''
What have we become? Does a president talk about the assassination of a political opponent as casually as he would order a cheeseburger? Sad and scary.
Franklin C. Feinberg, St. Louis Park
•••
On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the scope of presidential immunity. There was general agreement that immunity should be accorded to “official acts”. There was disagreement over what constituted an “official act.” There were also questions about whether a president would lose his office if his public actions were motivated by private benefit to the president. It also considers when absolute immunity should apply after a president leaves office, and whether former presidents should be entitled to ex-ante relief from probate courts on immunity issues before incurring the costs and inconveniences of criminal prosecution. There were many other twists and turns.
The resolution of these, and perhaps many related issues, is complex and appears intractable without concrete factual scenarios. The wise action of the Supreme Court would be to decide only the facts of the case. It would be unwise for courts to attempt to state broader immunity rules. All the court has to do is simply state that the claims in the previous lawsuits are not immune. Allegations and clear evidence of Mr. Trump's conduct indicate an intent to subvert the constitutional election process and state election procedures. In this case, there should be no need to remand the case to the trial court to determine the claim for immunity.
Thomas Wexler, Edina
The author is a former judge.
