Readers Write: The nature of war, smoking in Minneapolis, pollution, presidential immunity

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

•••

A letter writer (Readers Write, April 26) says that “When compared to all the other ills of the world, there is none worse than war. War is hell.” He then laments that his “Democratic U.S. representatives continue to fund war against Palestine, against Russia ... .” Israel is not fighting against Palestine; they are fighting against Hamas. And Israel did not start the war, Hamas did. Similarly, Ukraine did not start the war against Russia; Russia invaded Ukraine. The U.S. is supporting Israel and Ukraine in defending themselves. Without our support, there would still be wars; however, there would be a much higher chance that Israel and Ukraine would be defeated.

The writer makes the mistake of thinking that there is a choice between war and peace. That isn’t correct. When your country is attacked, the choice is between fighting back and being slaughtered.

James Brandt, New Brighton

•••

A reader wrote that he was giving up support for the Democratic Party because he claims it has become the “party of war,” and that the “party of Trump” was a better alternative. He was right to use that name for the former Republican Party, but to conclude that it is the “lesser of two evils” is beyond ridiculous.

Our support of Ukraine seems justifiable given that Vladimir Putin chose to wage this war against unarmed civilians. The war in Israel is a complicated, detestable situation, but it doesn’t 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 one party that still respects the rule of law and attempts to govern from that perspective, and yes, its policies leave a lot of room for disagreement. The other party has been hijacked by an individual who defers to Putin and who is incapable of considering anyone’s need ahead of his own insatiable desires. The GOP now has no platform, no ideology, not even a moral compass. A vote for the Republican nominee or any of his sycophantic enablers is an endorsement of the worst of human nature. A vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as the reader intends, is the same as a vote for Trump. We must at least have a functioning political party in power in order to debate and shape foreign policy.

Bob Worrall, Roseville

A response to the writer of a recent letter on smoking in Minneapolis (Readers Write, April 24): I have a few thoughts (at my advanced age, made hasty by time remaining). The foremost is an observation that a quick search of the web reveals there are no less than six free medical smoker cessation programs in the Twin Cities you have available for your father to attend. It would be a good son’s gesture if you help him do so.

On the subject of the cigar shops, while the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) does prohibit indoor smoking, even in one’s own home if it is used for business, as you noted it does allow sampling of products. On that note, personally, when I come to cities I stop and sample a cigar — sampling meaning sitting down and smoking it to the end. The aim of sampling is to see how it smokes (the burn and ash color), and I note the ever-changing flavor profile and finally review its end remaining colors. So yes, I smoke the entire $20-to-$50 or more cigar to properly sample it so I know if I want to purchase a box for hundreds, sometime thousands of dollars, or not. So, the question is, if you were a cigar smoker, would you not do the same sampling before purchasing a box and contributing heavily to the tax coffers?

The other error in banning sampling lounges is that the consequences are great. Under MCIAA, the law does not prohibit outdoor smoking, regardless of the distance from building openings such as doors or windows. The city’s cigar shops have already indicated they would simply install half walls, as allowed under the MCIAA, and continue their business in a year-round patio setting. Unlike the current indoor setting with state-of-the-art filtering and ventilation, the patio setting would simply let the smoke out onto the sidewalk walkers, pets and baby carriages, into adjoining windows, doors and cars passing by. To conclude, please be cautious how you advocate to change laws that are working, without knowing all of the facts and consequences first.

Robert W. Kuhn, Rochester

Minnesota leads the nation in protecting public health and the environment from all PFAS chemicals (“We regulate a tiny fraction of the 12,000 ‘forever chemicals,” StarTribune.com, April 23). While federal regulations are rolling out for individual types of PFAS, Minnesota’s superfund law allows us to hold polluters responsible for all types of PFAS.

Thanks to action from the Minnesota Legislature and the Walz-Flanagan administration, we’re prioritizing PFAS pollution prevention by helping manufacturers transition to safer alternatives while implementing a new law that phases out nonessential use of PFAS by 2032. Some products, including cookware, carpets and dental floss, must be PFAS-free by January 2025.

Preventing PFAS pollution is in the best interest of public health and public funds, which too often must be used for costly cleanup expenses. While these chemicals cost between $50 and $1,000 per pound to purchase, removing and destroying them from wastewater costs between $2.7 million and $18 million per pound. All Minnesotans will benefit as we turn off the tap of PFAS entering the environment.

Katrina Kessler, St. Paul

The writer is commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If a president says a rival is corrupt and orders their assassination, “is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?”

Trump lawyer D. John Sauer: “It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.”

What have we become? Talking about presidential pardonable assassination of a political rival as cavalierly as ordering a cheeseburger? Sad and terrifying.

Franklin C. Feinberg, St. Louis Park

•••

On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the scope of presidential immunity. There was general agreement that there should be immunity for “official acts.” There was disagreement of what constitutes an “official act.” There was also question about whether an official act loses that status if it is motivated by private personal benefit to the president. And there were many other twists to consideration of when absolute immunity should apply after a president leaves office and whether a former president should be entitled to pre-prosecution court relief on the immunity issue before suffering the expense and inconvenience of a criminal prosecution.

The resolution of these, and likely many related issues, seems complex and incapable of resolution without a specific factual scenario. The wise course of action for the Supreme Court is to decide only the facts of the case before it. It would be unwise for the court to attempt to state a broader immunity rule. What the court should do is simply to state that there is no immunity for the allegations of the case before it. The allegations and clear evidence of Trump’s conduct shows intent to obstruct constitutional election process and state election procedures. There should be no need for a remand to the trial court to decide immunity claims in this case.

Thomas Wexler, Edina

The writer is a retired judge.