When President Joe Biden exclaimed, in reference to Vladimir Putin, "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," it was a clear statement of speaking truth to and about a powerful autocrat. It was not a "gaffe" as generally depicted in the press ("Biden is finding no respite at home," March 28). We should be lavishing praise on Biden by standing up to this one crooked individual, who can orchestrate a massive assault on an unwilling nation, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

Putin has already intimated that he would resort to nuclear weapons, and maybe chemical and biological weapons as well, if he is thwarted in his goal to return Eastern European nations to the control of a reinstated Soviet Union. We must not be intimidated and feckless in standing up to this dictator, remembering what happened during the 1930s when Adolf Hitler violently consumed most of Europe and subjugated millions to death because they were of Jewish heritage, gay, Slavs, etc. Then we sat on our heels again when Josef Stalin violated the Yalta Agreement to absorb most Eastern European nations from 1945 to 1948. We need to fully support courageous leaders like President Biden.

H. James McConkey, Minneapolis

•••

It's no secret that Biden is gaffe-prone. In the big picture, in the last two years he has been remarkably on script. The press likes reporting on the gaffes because they are quite newsworthy, easy to catch and sometimes quite telling. The latest gaffe, which caused gasps around the world, that "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," was very telling and, however misguided, may simply be channeling what millions of people worldwide are thinking.

Biden's gaffes seem much better than the average of 21 false or misleading claims a day from Donald Trump. Could it be that after meeting with Ukrainian women and children refugees, this gaffe was an honest human emotion of empathy? Is not an expression of human caring better than a self-serving lie from someone who calls Putin a "genius"?

Have we no shame?

In his article about the shortening of the Oscars broadcast, Chris Hewitt refers to the awards not being aired (best editing, original score, production design, etc.) as "categories that were always an excuse to zip to the kitchen for a wine top-off" ("The Oscars shake things up," March 27).

This man calls himself a critic? Wow. Let's take just one of these categories: best original score. To diminish the importance of music in film is to fundamentally misunderstand how movies work. Imagine "Harry Potter" without that magical, mysterious celesta and swirling strings. Imagine "Star Wars" without the rebel fanfare blasting out from the brass section. Even Steven Spielberg acknowledged that John Williams' score for "Jaws" was responsible for "half of the success of that movie."

I know the Oscars are meaningless froth. But for a film critic to denigrate the celebration of movie music (and all the other categories) as something during which to grab a drink is to do a deep disservice to some of the richest artistic traditions we have. Feel free to dish out review stars, Mr. Hewitt, but stay in your lane about the fundamentals of filmmaking.

Travis Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

I take exception to it on so many levels.

Susan Claeys, St. Paul

•••

Mission accomplished. People are talking about the Oscars again.

After years of dismal ratings and interest, Smith and Rock managed to generate some buzz about the event. During the ceremony, Smith slapped Rock. This after Rock disrespected Smith's wife.

Job well done! It worked. We talked about the Oscars and the "slap" this morning around the water cooler.

Neil F. Anderson, Richfield

Regarding the recent letter about the injustice of CEO compensation levels at large corporations, and "why they are allowed to be making exorbitant amounts of money," the point is appropriately applicable to the compensation of our hometown heroes, professional athletes ("The injustice of it all, from a shipping standpoint," Readers Write, March 28). Multiyear contracts of exorbitant millions are now accepted as the norm and never questioned by our hometown media nor our Minnesota politicians.

Discounted by politically correct ideologues is that the corporations led by these CEOs are major contributors to the welfare of tens of thousands of employees within the many communities where they operate — and, usually, without much publicized pizazz nor local media recognition.

Might there be some injustice to all of this?