Readers Write (Aug. 20): State government, U.S. swimmer controversy, 2016 campaign, private prisons, Olympic dress

The people of Minnesota should be disappointed with the governor and the leaders of the Legislature. The fact that they refuse to consider legislation that is vital to the well-being of the people in the state borders on malfeasance. By attaching political "poison pills" to items of legislation that should be considered separately serves the interests of no one but themselves. True legislators would agree to disagree, set those issues aside for future debate and proceed to do the state's business. I implore the governor and the leaders of our respective parties to behave like true statesman and attend to the basic needs of the state. Set aside the issue of light rail, proceed with the state's business, and pass the tax bill and the infrastructure bill. Do what you were elected to do!

Getting drunk and vandalizing a bathroom door, then paying for the damage, is stupid, but relatively forgettable, even for a famous athlete like Ryan Lochte ("Tensions rise over Olympians' story," Aug. 19). That's why it's baffling why Lochte felt compelled to deceive his own mother by fabricating a story about being robbed at gunpoint, then continue the lie to the worldwide media after his mother repeated it to a reporter.

That said, the media firestorm since is excessive. Lochte lied. He didn't hurt anyone and didn't even describe any particular assailants, let alone wrongfully accuse them. His yarn, sadly, was descriptive of the status quo of crime in Rio de Janeiro.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if our elected officials, candidates and other public servants who occupy positions dependent on trust and integrity were castigated as severely as Lochte, a mere swimmer, when they lie about issues and events that actually impact the lives of American citizens?

• • •

Any U.S. athletes who defame the hosting country should give up their medals. I follow the Olympics and believe in the Olympic "spirit." Shame on anyone who would sully the Olympics with their "night out" escapade.

• • •

Hillary Clinton says that if she is elected, the Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign contributions that may influence or, should I say, leverage U.S. foreign policy ("On the Trail," Aug. 19). As long as we have the Clintons' word on it.

• • •

Well, given the recent revelations regarding Paul Manafort, who resigned as Trump's campaign manager ("Ukraine reveals details on funds for Trump aide," Aug. 19), I would expect an immediate clarion call for a congressional committee to begin an investigation. I would also expect to see the same zeal and unlimited use of taxpayer dollars that was so evident in the many Benghazi hearings. Should I hold my breath until this happens?

• • •

Donald Trump would be foolish to publish any tax returns or personal financial information. Doing so would only provide his business competitors a distinct advantage in any ongoing or future business negotiation. He is a private citizen and is entitled to keep his finances confidential.

• • •

In response to the Aug. 18 letter writers who dismissed Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's statement against police brutality, I disagree with the one who said people should vote for Hillary Clinton instead. In my mind, we cannot afford to put another warmonger in the White House (and even President Obama has been one to some extent). My recommendation for readers of this paper is this: If you typically vote for Republican candidates in election years, then choose Gary Johnson for president. If you typically go with Democrats, then vote for Stein. The way I see it, in most cases neither the Democratic nor Republican parties really work for the common people like me, acting in the interests of their wealthy donors instead.

I'm glad to see the federal government is phasing out the use of private prisons (Aug. 19). State governments should do the same. One big reason: The incentives are all wrong! Governments can successfully contract to build roads, buildings and even prisons. In those cases, competitive bidding and good specifications, well-enforced, can produce good results. But to have private corporations operating prisons leads to a pernicious conflict of interests. The government incentive is to rehabilitate prisoners, but private prison operators are effectively rewarded for keeping prisoners in the prison. This can encourage abusive treatment, creating angry prisoners who act up and "prove" they are not ready for release. Let's end a bad use of privatization.

In "A new Olympic sport: judging athletes in hijabs" (Aug. 19), Ahmed Tharwat seems to have a problem with the "skimpy" clothing worn by women competing in the Rio Olympics. This is a far cry from the first Olympics, which were played in the nude — the Greeks regarded this as a sign of a truly civilized society. Oh, there were exceptions; some players from surrounding areas wore clothes, but they were considered to be uncivilized barbarians who were taught that nudity was shameful.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we go back to nudity in the Olympics, but sometimes people making the most noise, especially of a sexual nature, have the worst inhibitions. If you lack self-control and your thoughts about someone are based on how much exposed skin you see, then by all means you should avoid viewing and going to places where the accepted norms of dress differ from yours.

I don't understand the concern over what the Egyptian volleyball team members chose to wear at the Olympics. The International Volleyball Federation no longer requires that bikinis be worn. Although I found it hard to believe, it took the federation until 2012 to come to that decision.

The Egyptian women chose to wear what they wore whether it hindered them or not. And that is the point; it was their personal decision. Their country does not force women to wear traditional attire.

Now, can we talk about the Scottish men and their skirts, please?