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

•••

I have been reading the Star Tribune since I began attending Gustavus Adolphus College back in 1967. I spent 30 years living on a farm on the Iowa border and continued to read the paper, moving to the Twin Cities in 2002. I certainly didn't need to read the new report on the Minneapolis Police Department to know any of what it reported ("A pattern of racism at MPD," front page, April 28). The Star Tribune along with many other media outlets in the Twin Cities have been reporting what's in it for years. All you needed to do was tally up the amounts the city of Minneapolis was paying out for police bad behavior over the years — millions upon millions! — and then read that the cop involved just got his job back because of the union. It's been right there in front of you all along. But it took riots for the city to finally wake up and do something!

Sheila L. Ehrich, Farmington

•••

I am sickened by the report on the Minneapolis police's civil rights abuses. How can this have happened in one of the most progressive Midwestern cities? And how was this unknown to the leadership? Did no one speak up? Were police officers afraid of repercussions? Was the department a toxic mix of a sickness no one tried to cure? Was that police union a haven for racist, abusive police? The department's horrible policy needs to be destroyed!

There must be clear leadership and respect and value shown to all people, including those who are mentally ill, addicted to drugs, alcoholics, poor, disheveled, non-English-speaking and more. The police need more education about the above issues, awareness of the beauty of our rich diversity and an ability for self-examination. And they must be screened out for any right-wing radical connections. They likely need routine individual and group therapy sessions given the extreme stressfulness of their jobs, too.

That's all for now, although I know I and others have lots of ideas to help!

Catherine Bartholome, Minneapolis

•••

The Department of Human Rights' damning report that found that the city of Minneapolis and its mayor-controlled Police Department engaged in a decadelong pattern of discriminatory, race-based policing, an inability or unwillingness of mayors and police leadership to deal with it, and chronic disrespectful and offensive behavior toward the public. Mayor Jacob Frey's response? "This time it needs to be different." The mayor admits the city's failure to follow through on previous recommendations for change. But why has it taken the damning report of a two-year investigation to spur the mayor to speak out so forcefully?

I've lived in Minneapolis for more than 40 years. The findings of this report shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying attention to the MPD. The deep, wide and systemic nature of the findings do indeed shock. It makes one wonder if those who voted against City Question 2 because they believed the MPD could be "reformed" would have thought differently if, last November, the extent of the rot in the department had been spelled out so clearly.

I am writing today about my state representative, John Thompson, and his recent interaction with the St. Paul Police Department and his daughter ("St. Paul chief says lawmaker berated officers at stop," April 26, and "Thompson denies he tried to bully officers," April 27).

There is no emotion in my letter, only confusion about our laws.

I believe that actions speak louder than words.

I own three cars and pay over $2,000 a year for car tabs. That's a tidy sum, and I assume the state of Minnesota, through its governing bodies, believes it's necessary to fund roads, etc., and make sure drivers have insurance.

Thompson's actions indicate that he disagrees.

Thompson doesn't believe this.

So help me, please. Thompson is a sworn legislator of the state of Minnesota and disregards these laws through his actions.

Am I to understand that these laws don't pertain to those who don't agree with them?

May I have the same privilege?

I look forward to insight and guidance from the House.

•••

Well, it looks like state Rep. John Thompson is in hot water again. Is it because of the systemic racism that exists in the judicial, political and law enforcement community, or is it just possible that Thompson is another example of a politician who won't take responsibility for his own actions?

Let's look at some of the highlights of his brief political career. Thompson was pulled over because of a missing license plate. He explained the police stop as racial profiling and "driving while Black." He had a Wisconsin driver's license but was elected to a public office in Minnesota. Sorry, can't have both. His Minnesota driving privileges had been suspended for failing to pay child support. The Minnesota DFL caucus voted to expel him, based on accusations of domestic violence and more.

His daughter was recently pulled over for swerving and for having expired tabs, and Thompson showed up on the scene "as any concerned father would." The police are within their rights to pull over anyone with expired tabs, and as a concerned father myself, I would certainly not rush to the scene of my kids' minor traffic stop.

Sadly, racism is still alive and well, but until Thompson can act responsibly, he will continue to fan the flames of the racial divide with his unfounded claims of racial profiling. Sometimes a traffic stop is just a traffic stop.

In the book "Stassen Again," author Steven Werle discusses how former Minnesota Gov. Harold Stassen and Dwight Eisenhower, in whose administration Stassen served, sought to achieve policy goals by forming a consensus of "middle roaders" — that is, of those people not at the extremes of either political party. This meant that they were willing to lose the support of members of their own party and simultaneously gain the support from members of the other party by making middle-of-the-road policies and decisions. Werle quotes Eisenhower as saying:

"This party of ours has to realize that they won't exist unless they become a party of progressive moderates — unless they can prove to the American people that they are a middle-of-the-road party and turn their backs on the extremes of the left and particularly the extremes of the right."

With regard to the "extremes of the right," Eisenhower was talking about his own political party. But his party affiliation doesn't matter. It is his attitude that counts, and his words should be applicable now to politicians on both sides of the aisle.