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

•••

In response to "No one wants Trump vs. Biden II. No one can stop it" (Opinion Exchange, July 21), I would like to offer that I am someone that would love to see Donald Trump and Joe Biden face off again. As an ardent Biden supporter, I would be happy to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as I believe that Biden would beat him handily in a rematch. As the commentary progresses, the author makes the case that Biden has been a "decent" president but is too old to be reelected. Unfortunately the author, and many Americans, fail to comprehend how legislatively strong Biden's presidency has been. His American Rescue Plan cut child poverty in half and overall poverty by nearly a third. The Inflation Reduction Act lowers prescription drug prices, puts a minimum tax on all corporations and is arguably the most significant piece of legislation ever passed in regard to fighting climate change.

In addition to these historic new laws, Biden deserves credit for strong economic numbers, such as the lowest unemployment rate since 1969, impressive GDP growth, and wages that continue to increase for workers. When these facts are taken into account, along with his ability to unite the global community in aiding Ukraine against Russian aggression, I think it's fair to say that Biden's presidency has been better than "decent."

Finally, regarding his age, I ask readers to consider that with age comes wisdom. Also, think about how many gaffes you would make if you were constantly on camera and in the political arena.

Jake Ruppert, Minneapolis

Kudos to John Rash for his excellent piece on the movie "Oppenheimer" ("Oppenheimer-era blast radius still reverberating," Opinion Exchange, July 22). For many folks working for decades to bring awareness to the issue of nuclear annihilation, this movie doesn't go deep enough into this issue. This is not a documentary, but a well-made Hollywood movie. What the movie does do is reach a lot of eyes! We all have these wonderful Google devices that enable us to look further into all the repercussions and potential destruction that Oppenheimer himself felt.

Dave Logsdon, Minneapolis

The writer is president of the Twin Cities chapter of Veterans For Peace.

The political fallout of the visit by the president of Israel is a reminder of the highly charged issue of racism ("Phillips rebukes caucus on Israel," July 19). The relevance is epitomized in the statement by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "[W]e absolutely have a crisis of hate crimes, discrimination and rising antisemitism ... ." As a Jew whose parents fled to America from Nazi Germany, this conversation resonates personally with me.

The Star Tribune piece displays the various nuances of the term "racist." Shrill rhetoric aside, can one ask, is Israel a racist state? Twenty percent of its citizens, non-Jews, are not accorded the same status as their Jewish fellow countrymen — despite laws that codify equality of all citizens. For that matter, can one ask if the U.S. is a racist state? The woke folks might answer: "To an extent." The anti-woke folks would flat-out reject that notion. A definitive answer to these questions is impossible.

One thing regarding Israel is pretty certain. The establishment of a Jewish homeland 75 years ago was in great part due to the outrage and sympathy from the international community after the extermination of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Given that history, having been on the receiving end of the horror of racism, one might expect an unequivocal rejection of racism in any form whatsoever by the Israeli government. One might also expect a transparent recognition that in Israel, racial equality is a work in progress. Neither is forthcoming.

•••

The Monday letters regarding Israel and the recently passed resolution are all over the page. Let's try to simplify things.

Country A (Russia) tries to take over Country B (Ukraine). The U.S., after pausing briefly, steps in to help by supplying munitions.

Country C (Israel) tries to take additional land from its neighbor (the Palestinian territories). The U.S. passes a resolution condemning any criticism of Country C to be racist.

I am left shaking my head.

Contrary to recent claims ("Making admin costs go 'poof,'" Readers Write, July 14), the University of Minnesota is providing greater transparency, not less.

The previous university definition of administrative costs was not inclusive enough because it did not track costs in the context of all university functions. So after robust discussions with state agency partners and the Board of Regents, the university changed its definition to include the following categories:

These categories provide more specificity to better understand the true costs of operating the university. Administrative costs under the new definition using FY 2021 numbers totaled $433 million, or 11% of total expenditures, compared to $310 million, or 8.3% of the total under the previous definition used in reports to the state. These numbers make it impossible to claim the university is trying to hide something. In FY 2022, administrative costs under the updated definition were $450 million, or 10.8% of total expenditures.

The university signaled this definition change in the most recent, and publicly available, biennial budget report to the state, and the university's Board of Regents has been informed all along.

To be clear, we took these steps to move beyond basic transparency. We aim to monitor administrative costs closely so we can keep them in the range of 10% to less than 12% of total annual expenditures (as reflected in our systemwide strategic plan) and decrease them over time to invest in holding down student costs and supporting the university's mission.

Myron Frans, Minneapolis

The writer is the senior vice president for finance and operations at the University of Minnesota.

Harsher penalties for vehicular killings may not deter others but they will keep that individual off the streets ("Harsher sentencing may not prevent car killings," Opinion Exchange, July 24). Deterrence is one issue. Keeping those identified as repeat offenders off the road will at least keep them from harming others. Just because punishment of one person does not deter another from committing does not mean we should not keep the known offenders off the road. Let's be sensible.

Anne Seltz, Minneapolis

Either I'm out of the loop or I don't read well. If Barbie is over 64 years old ("What I learned from Barbie," Opinion Exchange, July 25), where are the senior-citizen Barbies? I'll be glad to pose as a model.