Let’s see if I have this correct: If I need to go somewhere I should walk, bike, ride a train or bus, and use my car as a last resort. However, if you are going to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, please drive your car and leave it there while you are gone, because MSP needs the revenue (“MSP wants travelers to park it,” June 21). Sure glad we are all on the same page!

Randy Cameron, Burnsville


Thankful — or not — for MDs who are stepping into the fray

Thank you for drawing attention to the important voice of physicians in public policy debates (“Doctors raise their voices on gun control,” editorial, June 25). Not only do we see the impact of gun violence on individuals, society and the economy, we take a public health approach to finding solutions. Even more urgent is the need for physicians to help solve the challenges over cost, quality and access to health care.

Thankfully, Minnesota physicians are stepping up. The Minnesota Legislature now boasts two medical doctors from different sides of the aisle, who lend their important perspectives in the Senate. It’s time for a doctor (or two) in the House.

I encourage voters to learn more about Dr. Kelly Morrison, an obstetrician, and Dr. Alice Mann, a family physician, both running for the Minnesota House this year. They are newcomers who bring not only their personal experiences on the front lines of medicine, but the ability to listen, diagnose problems and provide sensible solutions that rise above the rhetoric. I personally appreciate their willingness to step into the fray.

Dr. Rebecca Thoman, Minneapolis

• • •

I agree. The American Medical Association should take a stand on the issue of gun control. However, I disagree that physicians are the most respected profession. According to Forbes and Gallup, for the 16th year in a row, nurses are the most respected profession, with pharmacists second and physicians third.

In my opinion, nurses and pharmacists need to add their voices to support some form of gun control.

Karen Robideau, Chaska

The writer is a retired RN.

• • •

Monday’s editorial about the AMA left me scratching my head. The overwhelming majority of Americans already support reasonable gun restrictions and protecting our world from the devastating effects of climate change, yet our politicians do nothing to address either problem. With an esteem rating only a few percentage points below that of doctors, scientists have been exceedingly vocal in warning, to no avail, of the dire consequences to be suffered if nothing is done to reduce atmospheric carbon. I submit to you that doctors could advocate for stronger gun laws until they were blue in the face, and nothing would change. Only when we get big money out of politics will our elected officials put the desires of the people above those of their financial benefactors.

Craig Laughlin, Plymouth

• • •

I am not surprised that the Star Tribune Editorial Board would champion the gun control advocacy of the AMA. Clearly doctors have the skill set to save lives for many types of injuries and illnesses. Does this, however, give them greater insight to make policy judgments for legislative action? How does their talent to treat become a nexus toward solutions?

If we follow this logic, police officers should also be listened to. Sometimes those closest to an issue may not be the best to listen to. Their emotional involvement clouds clear thinking. It is obvious that the AMA has become “political.” Not surprising, its recommendations are exactly the same as what gun-control groups advocate. Using professional clout to stray into the political arena is a questionable move. But if the AMA is so insightful, maybe it can solve the health care debacle, too?

Joseph Polunc, Cologne

The writer is a retired law enforcement officer.


Freeloading? We could (and should) take care of all the needy

The writer of the June 23 letter “Immigration: Freeloading is what I perceive. Let’s take care of our own first,” saying we should take care of veterans, the homeless, children and hungry folks, is not wrong, but it’s not really an either/or choice: We can and should be taking care of those in need. That includes people fleeing violence and uncertainty and the children accompanying them. I wonder if the letter writer is aware that the same politicians who have pursued this inhumane policy — as well as the people who support them — are the same politicians and people who do not want to establish and fund sufficient resources to address the needs of the folks she identifies.

Charles Curry, Apple Valley


Senate majority leader’s magical coin — and his magical thinking

On the occasion of Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka meeting President Donald Trump during his Duluth visit, he comments in his June 22 commentary (“Hitching a ride with the president: An enlightening honor”) that “I often carry a coin in my pocket that gives me strength of spirit when I need to make tough decisions as a leader.” It is striking that the Senate majority leader feels that strength of spirit is given through a coin that defines his opposition to be “ ‘not … flesh and blood,’ but … powerful, dark, spiritual forces we cannot conquer alone.”

We are flesh and blood, senator, and all we want are elected representatives who recognize this, can compromise with the opposition and can create meaningful legislation without last-minute, backroom deals that may be driven by special interests. There are no powerful, dark, spiritual forces except those that you allow to interfere with the work of the Legislature.

Ronald Frazzini, Plymouth


Booted from restaurant over moral grounds? That’s vanity.

As I was weeding my flower beds and allowing my mind to roam free range, I got to thinking about the removal of Sarah Huckabee Sanders from a public eating place (“Sarah Sanders is asked to leave restaurant over work for Trump,” June 24). Did we not express our anger over this kind of action by fighting for the rights of black people and continue to express that Black Lives Matter? The term “moral grounds” is now being applied to make this an OK action. What if the owner had these same feelings about someone who could have been a member of the other major party, a black gay woman or other selected people? Who decides what is the correct “moral ground”? It would be a true miracle to have only one set of moral grounds for everyone in this whole wide world.

Bea Westerberg, Hastings

• • •

It’s hard to figure out Sarah Huckabee Sanders. At the last White House Correspondents Association dinner, which historically roasts politicians on all sides of the aisle, she acted surprised and hurt when the barbs came her way. Then continuing to defend President Donald Trump’s scorched-earth policies with responses that brought into question her compassion and honesty, she again is surprised to feel repercussions by being refused service at a restaurant. It’s hard to figure. Could she be that devious in purposefully manipulating the media feigning victimhood, or is she just that naive and clueless?

Steve Mark, Minnetonka

Editor’s note: See further discussion in the articles “Sarah Huckabee Sanders shouldn’t have been kicked out of that Virginia restaurant” and “Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the lost art of shunning” at StarTribune.com/opinion.