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

•••

I read with dismay John C. "Chuck" Chalberg's commentary piece comparing Walter Judd and Ilhan Omar ("Tale of two Mpls. pols shows how U.S. has changed," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 10). The entire article is about Walter Judd until the final paragraphs, written apparently to disparage Omar. As one of her constituents, I am very happy with the way that Omar represents our district in Congress and the way that she reflects my values. Based on her popularity with the voters of the district, many others feel the same way.

Chalberg writes, "Meanwhile, one might think that a young girl from Somalia would be overflowing with gratitude to a country that offered her refuge, welcomed her and elevated her to national leadership, and to a city that has accepted her with all the nonchalance it might show a new arrival from, say, Rising City, Neb. Yet Omar seems to have few doubts about the failures and sins of her America." As President Joe Biden might say, "What a bunch of malarkey." By serving tirelessly and conscientiously in Minnesota and now in Washington, Omar demonstrates her gratitude to and belief in this country. I have attended several of Omar's town hall meetings, and she has never said anything that suggests she does not love our country and respect its values. By speaking truth to power and pointing out when our country makes mistakes, Omar illustrates exactly the kind of patriotism and belief in the United States that I admire in our leaders. As is the case with each of us, she is not perfect, but she represents her constituents with integrity, thoughtfulness and an understanding of the values that our country claims to stand for. When we betray those values by how we treat our citizens and by our actions around the world, Omar has the courage to speak out.

She is 41 years old, and for Chalberg to refer to her as a "young girl from Somalia" feels condescending. I have confidence that she will respond to crises with the "Omar vision" that makes our foreign policy more compassionate and reflective of the values our country claims to hold dear. As long as Omar continues to advocate for individuals and entities in her district, secure millions of dollars for local programs and reflect my values in her sensible policy positions, I will continue to vote for her enthusiastically.

Tony Keenan, Columbia Heights

•••

Chalberg's commentary about Judd fails on several counts. First, it reminds me of Mark Anthony's eulogy for Caesar: I have not come to praise Judd; I've come to bash Omar. He states, "For Ilhan Omar and the American left, this country has been largely a force for ill in the world ... ." On the contrary, Omar and the American left believe that America can be a force for good in the world by abiding by its principles: equality, justice and self-determination. We only become a "force for ill" when we ignore what we claim to be our core principles. Although Chalberg praises Judd for speaking out for "freedom at home and abroad," he disdains Omar for calling for freedom for the Palestinian people. Omar is advocating for the same American principles for which Chalberg praises Judd.

The American left weeps for Israel not simply because of Hamas' atrocious attack on Oct. 7 but also because Israel's disproportionate response imperils its future. In the eyes of many in the world, Israel has lost the moral high ground.

Finally, Chalberg needs to understand the definition of "isolationism." Like Judd, I have spent many years abroad as a medical missionary. Like Judd, I'm an internationalist, not an isolationist. However, to oppose unjust war does not make one an "isolationist." In fact, to oppose unjust war is to support the people decimated by war which makes one an "internationalist."

John Fredell, Minneapolis

The article "Police partners calming in crises" (Dec. 10) reports on alternative responses to people with mental illnesses in crisis. We always want the appropriate response when calling 911 — fire department when it's a fire, EMTs for a heart attack and a mental health team when it's a mental health crisis. We know that it works, and have known for decades, because all 87 counties in Minnesota are covered by mental health crisis teams and operate under standards in state law. The teams have mental health professionals, practitioners or peer specialists who respond to someone who is struggling with their mental health both immediately and for weeks to come through stabilization services, which can lead to positive outcomes. They follow HIPAA so people's information is private.

We have seen more recently police departments or cities hiring their own mental health professionals. We would prefer that they contract with the existing teams so that people's health records are private and that we work to create one system — not multiple systems. Build on what we have. With 988 and Travis' Law (where 911 refers calls to the crisis teams), it is more important than ever that Minnesotans know what to expect from our mental health crisis system. Law enforcement will cite the fact that these teams cannot respond as quickly as the police — which is frankly due to funding. Our statewide budget for all crisis teams is not even as much as the budget of the St. Paul Police Department.

We definitely want people struggling with their mental health to obtain necessary care and support. But let's create a system, not a patchwork of programs. This last session the Legislature did increase funding for the statewide crisis teams — but only for one biennium. In some ways the story isn't that some police departments are working with their crisis teams but rather that we haven't invested in what we know works.

Sue Abderholden, St. Paul

The writer is executive director of NAMI Minnesota.

In the 19th paragraph of his essay "Economic realities catch up with state" (Dec. 10), Evan Ramstad concedes that "the personal income of Minnesotans rose 3.9% in the second quarter." At the piece's end he worries that, while economic data keeps improving, the perceptions people have about the economy haven't.

Well.

Under a scary headline about "economic realities," and citing a state forecast that changes by hundreds of millions of dollars every quarter, Ramstad has by that point observed that the state is "no longer [an] exceptional economic performer," that the budget's "huge jump, coupled with Minnesota's slow growth, will create a problem," that "there's not much room to go up," that "everything that's touched by the state's spending is about to become harder," and we should "forget about tax cuts." By the time I struggled through to his noting Minnesota's strong income growth and people's paradoxical economic perceptions, this reader was ready for a stiff drink.

Has it occurred to Ramstad that, after 19 paragraphs of doom and gloom, it's no wonder the public finds the continuing upbeat economic statistics hard to believe? Gazing into a darkest depths of Ramstad's economic crystal ball may keep us engaged, but that very focus on the negative provides, ironically, underlying support for the public economic misperceptions that he so bemoans.

Peter Hill, Minnetonka