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

•••

Ron Way's suggestion that the public direct its ire toward the "giant truck lobby" preventing "big trucks" from paying "their share" is smoke and mirrors. Make no mistake — average Minnesotans will be paying in either case ("The case against the case against a higher gas tax," Opinion Exchange, June 8).

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but profit margins in the trucking industry are already razor-thin. This is evidenced by repeat consolidation within the industry in often futile efforts to achieve the economies of scale necessary to survive. Our very own C.H. Robinson, the nation's largest truck brokerage firm, laid off 950 employees in the last 12 months alone. This is not typically something that happens within an industry with unjustifiably fat margins.

I help run a fleet of five semis, and diesel fuel on a month-to-month basis is 50% of our expenses. According to AAA, yesterday's average diesel price was $3.821 per gallon. Of this price, state and federal fuel taxes account for 14%, which translates to 7% of our total expenses. Even a modest $0.10 increase from $0.529 per gallon of diesel to $0.629 per gallon would represent an 18% increase in overall state and federal fuel tax burden, or a 9% overall increase in total company expenditures.

There are very few, if any, trucking companies operating at a 9% profit margin. In such a scenario options are limited. A company could close up shop, leading to a reduction in truck supply and enabling the remaining trucks to command higher prices. Alternatively, a company could raise freight rates, directly leading to an increase in the cost of goods on the shelf.

While Way's attack on the trucking industry may be cathartic in the context of our contemporary populist moment, it presents a false choice between increased prices at the pump for average motorists and sticking it to "Big Trucking." The reality is that the burden of road maintenance falls on the household budgets of average Minnesotans no matter the funding mechanism.

There are at least two important lessons in Nicholas Kristof's thought-provoking June 4 commentary, "What a Southern backwater can teach America." First, by establishing high standards and an atmosphere of meritocracy, Mississippi proved that poverty is not an excuse for lack of success and achievement in education. The image of parents lining the hallways cheering for their kids as they walk through to take the reading test is wonderful.

Unfortunately, many colleges no longer require achievement or aptitude tests like the SAT and the ACT as part of the admission process, and this sends the wrong message to our students. We want the very best mathematicians, doctors, teachers and scientists in the world in this country, and this can be realized only by emphasizing the value of hard work and the sense of pride it generates in people. In addition, the story of Jim Barksdale, former CEO of Netscape, contributing $100 million to open a reading institute in Jackson is a reminder that capitalism creates wealth and jobs, often for the benefit of the less fortunate. He brought to the strategy a focus on business principles like spending money where it makes the biggest impact, setting goals, measuring progress and rewarding success. It's a remarkable story. Sadly, a recent Buckley Institute survey showed that more college students would prefer to live under a socialist system than a capitalist one. Perhaps we should also examine how we are educating our young adults.

Nat Robbins, Minneapolis

•••

"What colleges must do" (Opinion Exchange, June 2) by Suzanne M. Rivera is a great listing of challenges higher education will be facing soon. This is due to the right-wing Supreme Court as we know it today. Let's not be naive and pretend that anyone can achieve a college education. Increasing access to college and any higher education in general is a daunting task. Her ideas are terrific and doable, but more is needed.

Let's have a classification system of "provisional acceptance" for one year to allow those less fortunate to attend classes, any classes, free, in lieu of testing for higher education. Let them prepare for and become excited about "becoming smart." No affirmative action needed, no classification of status, etc. Rather, a sense of doing! No stigma to deal with. Just a chance to succeed where none existed before. It is empowering to carry books to class and feel a sense of belonging. Trust me, the cost is well worth it. Just do not ask the Supreme Court for any favors.

Paul J. Bartone, Eden Prairie

The Minnesota Legislature is moving forward with a bill to create a State Emblems Redesign Commission to redesign the Minnesota flag and seal. On behalf of the Minnesota Chapter of AIGA, the professional design association, we agree that the flag and seal are important symbols that should represent Minnesota and its citizens. And we agree with the need to redesign both.

However, the duties outlined in the bill are highly problematic since there is no provision for working with professional designers on the flag redesign. Instead, HF 274 states:

"The commission may solicit and secure the voluntary service and aid of vexillologists and other persons who have either technical or artistic skill in flag construction and design, or the design of official seals, to assist in the work."

Expecting designers, vexillologists and any artist to volunteer their creative work is unethical and offensive. Asking for unpaid work, spec work, competitions and volunteer work are all unacceptable expectations for professional designers. It is critical to stop asking creative workers to devalue their work and contributions and expect to get something as important as the redesign of the flag for nothing.

The design of the flag is an important process with many, many stakeholders with many, many opinions. You need professional designers to help manage the design process, to design and create the flag and the seal and to launch these important new symbols. We have over 100 years of experience managing "design by committee." You need professional designers to make this work. And we need you to respect our talent, expertise and creative work.

Carla Januska, Minneapolis

The writer is president of AIGA Minnesota.

In the past few weeks, we have been breathing the acrid smoke from the Canadian wildfires. We have been hearing a lot about the short and long-term health effects of breathing in the microscopic particles contained in the smoke of burning wood. The same particles are contained in the wood smoke produced by backyard bonfires. If it is dangerous for me to breathe in the smoke produced by wildfires hundreds of miles away (and it is), why is it OK for my neighbors to burn wood in their backyard bonfires? I am tired of shutting my windows in the evening because I don't want to inhale particulate matter while I sleep at night. I think it's time for local government and state government to take a serious look at this health issue.