Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Dianne Feinstein, age 90. Mitch McConnell, age 81. Donald Trump, age 77. Joe Biden, age 80.

As I near the halfway point in my eighth decade on this planet, there are many, many things I am still able to do. There are some things I used to do that I cannot do. There are many things I can do that I could do far better and more efficiently 20 years ago.

The aforementioned politicians perhaps can do the job, but I am quite certain that there are younger, talented women and men who would do the job better. And who would be against doing a better job?

So, for the good of the country, step aside, and let the more capable do the better job.

Thomas McCarthy, Dassel, Minn.

•••

I'll give you one Mitch McConnell for one Dianne Feinstein along with an agreement to be named later. That agreement? That it is way past time — if we cannot agree on setting term limits — to use these two sad examples from both sides of the aisle to motivate voters to demand age limits on the people that supposedly represent us.

Steven L. Bonfig, Maplewood

When I saw that mug shot of a defiantly scowling Donald Trump, it reminded me of the "roaring lion" picture of Winston Churchill, taken in 1941 by Yousuf Karsh, when the prime minister was in Ottawa to deliver his famous "some chicken, some neck" speech to the Canadian Parliament. When Churchill wouldn't put down his cigar, Karsh snatched it out of his mouth and created a picture of a scowling Churchill that became the face of Britain's defiance in World War II. Churchill told Karsh, "You can even make a roaring lion stand still to be photographed," naming the photo for posterity. The speech got its name from Churchill's response to collaborationist Marshal Petain after France surrendered to Germany in 1939. Petain told Churchill that, in three weeks, Britain would "have its neck wrung like a chicken" by the Nazis. By 1941, Britain had won the aerial Battle of Britain and was getting stronger.

My favorite law is that of unintended consequences; I wonder whether it might apply, positively, to jailbird Trump's mug shot and benefit?

Henry Owen, Edina

•••

Many commentators have rightly stated that former chief of staff Mark Meadows has no basis to argue for federal officer removal from Fulton County Superior Court to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

It occurs to me that if Meadows loses — which he should — that Republicans, including Trump, have themselves to blame, at least since 2013.

It was a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court that made the role of the executive branch even less than it once had been by its misguided decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

Prior to Shelby County, which ended DOJ pre-clearance of voting procedures in "covered states," Meadows might have made a colorable argument that in 2020 he was playing a role in ensuring Georgia's compliance with the act as Trump's chief of staff.

That's simply not possible after the Shelby County decision — regardless of how disingenuous the claim.

Albert Turner Goins Sr., White Bear Lake

The writer is an attorney.

It's my understanding that neither Minneapolis nor St. Paul are using resource officers from local police departments. Must be working for them. Why isn't the Star Tribune reporting about that? ("State's student restraint law under fire," Aug. 31.) We seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is about student well-being, not the political whims of Minnesota police organizations and individual departments. OK, so the Legislature made a mistake by not asking police for input before writing the legislation. Let's make some agreed-upon adjustments (governor/attorney general and police representatives, for starters) and move on! Also, when was the last time a police officer was sued by a school district? For Pete's sake! Any adults in the room?

Judith Monson, St. Paul

It's ironic that Minneapolis Second Ward Council Member Robin Wonsley has accused Mayor Jacob Frey — true or false — of threatening to withhold constituent service for political revenge ("Frey says council member told lies," Aug. 30). In October 2020, there was a working agreement between the city and a private owner to house a Third Precinct at 26th Street and Minnehaha Avenue. At the last minute, the deal mysteriously broke down, purportedly due to aggressive intimidation by area activists toward the owner.

Wonsley is proud to have been part of the force against the deal as a member of Seward Police Abolition. She rode that momentum to a 13-vote victory in 2021 and flashed that credential in her bios. Aside from a chilling threat to a citizen's freedom going largely unexamined, a lot of residents in the vast Third Precinct boundary (Interstate 94 to Crosstown, the river to I-35W) likely received diminished core service thanks to Wonsley and others. Now the city remains mired on a key issue since that debatable compromise went up in smoke, and city leaders abandoned the Third Precinct. Again.

Jim Meyer, Minneapolis

I object. I-94 does not mean "initiate driving 94 mph." The stretch of the interstate between Hwy. 252 and Minneapolis must be one of the most dangerous roads in Minnesota. During recent trips to and from our home, I drove 65 mph in a 60 zone in a futile attempt to stay ahead of tailgaters. Sometimes, there's no open lane left or right to avoid the crazies.

Turns out tailgating is only one concern. With three lanes in one direction, some drivers apparently think it's sport to weave in and out to gain a few seconds. When they whip by other drivers' rears, I wonder what disaster will eventually happen when an innocent driver has to hit their brakes because of something unexpected in front of them. And I can't remember the last time I saw State Patrol on that road.

Jim Bartos, Maple Grove

•••

On Aug. 29 I pulled in to a brewery I knew had an electric vehicle charger, only to be greeted by a couple heading into a brewery who had parked a non-EV Land Rover in that spot. As I actually needed to charge my vehicle, I went in and told the employees about the situation. A few minutes later an apologetic Land Rover owner came out and moved the vehicle so I was able to charge for a while.

Even if I was someone who had the battery charged to 90%, I think that non-EV owners should not park in such spaces. You never know what an EV owner's situation is when they come up to the charger. They might be someone who can make it home and back 20 times over. Or they might be someone who has a mile's worth of charge and is looking to get enough charge to make it home. In modern American civilization I've found that there are people with gas vehicles who would rather force the EV owner to get a tow to get home and make them spend hundreds of dollars.

If someone has a vehicle powered by gas, they need to stay out of charging spots. I don't care about their sense of entitlement to mess with EV owners. Even with EV owners, if you have "level 2" charging at home, please consider charging at home if possible and leaving public stations to those who need them.

Jesse Green, Minneapolis