In praise of our own Pulitzer Prize-winner, Steve Sack, the June 19 political cartoon took creativity to the next level. He composed the perfect metaphor for what ails us.

On a table in the darkness, the lava lamp is glowing, and its slow undulations reveal an amorphous being, rising. In Sack’s words, it is “oddly mesmerizing,” but ultimately, “blobs of incoherent goo.”

It takes a few moments, but the flowing liquid actually has formed an abstraction of that much-publicized face, the contorted image of Donald Trump. With this graphic metaphor, Sack captures the form and essence of Trump in the lamp: the hypnotist and the hypocrite.

From my vantage point, this is a complete picture of the false prophet of our day — the teller of untruths, the fomenter of fear — as explained through the vision and wisdom of the artist.

Into the political maelstrom, with his critical eye, Steve Sack has clarified with artistic brilliance.

Steve Watson, Minneapolis


Half of the voters will get what they deserve, but all will suffer

It has been said that in a democracy, voters get the government that they deserve. The recent, deeply divided Brexit vote in the U.K shows us that, in a deeply divided nation, this notion that voters get the government that they deserve is only half true.

The vote in the U.K is a precursor to our own upcoming election in November. Central to both the Brexit vote and our own election is the same basic fundamental question. Should we as a nation, and we as individuals, be in this world as self-centered entities in competition with others for our own gain, at the expense of others? Or should we all work together for the common good as competitive friends who are concerned about the well-being of everyone?

The U.K has made its choice. As we move forward, we will all be able to see how its citizens’ answer to this fundamental question is working out for them. We will all be able to see what happens when opinions trump facts and reason.

John Mattsen, New Brighton

• • •

To think that at one time the sun never set on the British Empire. What a sad time for the English people.

Daniel Winter, Edina

• • •

America should learn from Brexit. The Brits stood tall and said that they want to control their borders and their economy. We watched earlier as President Obama rudely attempted to pressure Britain to remain in the European Union, as if he were a master of a strong economy and strong borders. America’s stagnant economy, with more Americans than ever not in the workforce, and encumbered by $20 trillion in national debt and porous borders — all under Obama’s leadership with Hillary Clinton’s assistance — does not give him any credibility to tell Britain what it should do. Our Obamexit is set to happen, and we clearly need a Clinexit.

Bill Halling, Edina


The no-fly list is too flawed to be used as a pre-emptive tool

I have to take exception to the line in the June 24 editorial (“Sit-in confirms new momentum on guns”) that reads “barring individuals who are deemed too dangerous to board a commercial flight from purchasing a gun.” The Star Tribune has published a number of stories about individuals who have found themselves on the no-fly list in error and about the nearly impossible task of getting their names removed. I believe the last story was about an 8-year-old boy. There is little to no oversight; the process and criteria for getting on the list are secret and probably very flawed.

Rather than expanding the use of this list to further deprive an individual of lawful activity without due process, we should look at cleaning up the process. If, before being added to the list, an individual was notified and given an opportunity to challenge being included, then I would agree that barring someone who is on the list is common sense.

I am both a member of the LGBT community and a gun owner.

Michelle Hoffman, Mendota Heights


Result is correct, but court’s partisanship is worrisome

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on immigration (“High court blocks immigration plan,” June 24) represents the sad reality of where we have arrived. The vote was 4-4, a deadlock that left in place an appeals court ruling blocking President Obama’s executive order on immigration, but it should have been an 8-0 decision striking down the order. Why? I believe that, in this case, Obama had taken it upon himself to make law.

The Constitution expressly forbids the president from making law. That is the function of Congress. Something does need to be done on immigration, but that action needs to come from Congress.

Sad to say, but the Supreme Court has become just another long arm of a political machine. The justices’ job is constitutional law. Whether they are a Republican or a Democrat cannot enter into a decision. It the justices’ being conservative or liberal enters into decisions, they are no longer a court.

Bruce Granger, West Concord, Minn.

• • •

Should deportation of illegal aliens who are parents of underage U.S. citizens actually be considered illegal itself? I think that’s an intriguing question. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically forbids “cruel and unusual punishments.” There’s not much that would be crueller than effectively forcing those parents to move their English-speaking, fully Americanized kids to a foreign country. Granted, in some cases parents would find homes here for their children, but that would still result in emotional cruelty due to the separation, especially when particularly younger children would be involved. I realize there are parents who are separated because they must do prison sentences, but those parents are typically available for reassuring visits with their children. Basically, I’m wondering if immigration advocates have potential recourse by initiating litigation based on that Eighth Amendment.

Jim Bartos, Brooklyn Park


The kid mayor knows better

On the WCCO-TV news, Frank Vascellaro and Chris Schaffer were doing a series called “Going to the Lake” and had an opportunity to interview Bobby Tufts, the grade-school-aged former mayor of Dorset, Minn. They asked his advice on being a good politician, and his immediate reply was, “No poopy talk.” Are you listening, Donald Trump?

Norman and Ilene Holen, Richfield