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

•••

Let's remember that the devil is in the details. The "$1 billion plan aimed at 'dire' care staffing" issues in long-term care residences (front page, April 10) will be effective only if at least 90% of it goes directly to the nurses, personal care assistants and other direct care staff. When they are fairly compensated, the staff shortages will subside, the quality of care will improve and the owners will make a healthy profit.

We applaud the legislators stepping up to help the workers of long-term care, but please make sure the legislation states clearly that the direct care staff, not the executives and owners, get 90% of the increased funding. Vague language must be eliminated. Staff shortages have been a decades-long problem perpetrated by this industry as a way to enhance profits.

Our mothers, fathers, spouses and other loved ones deserve to be cared for by fairly compensated, trained and supported staff.

Kristine Sundberg, Excelsior

The writer is executive director of Elder Voice Family Advocates.

While this is alarming, I'm comforted that we've been down this road before, with equality winning out in the end. Recall the Republican/conservative/evangelical freakout over same-sex marriage? Marriage is the bedrock of a healthy society and will be forever damaged if we radically redefine it! Children will be harmed by having two daddies! And my personal favorite: Civilization as we know it will cease to exist if Adam and Steve are allowed to marry! Republicans tried every known legal maneuver to stop same-sex marriage but eventually failed.

Well, it's been 19 years since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage. Civilization still exists, the kids are doing fine and any failures of marriage as an institution can still be blamed on opposite-sex couples. And a 2021 Gallup Poll found that a record 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage.

Republicans lost the same-sex marriage culture war, but that hasn't stopped them from trying again. The pattern today is nearly identical. Use a social issue to fire up the conservative base at the cost of a vulnerable minority. Claim all manner of social harm will befall us if we allow the LGBTQ community to have equal rights. Assert moral high ground by "saving the children." Didn't Republicans learn anything from their disastrous same-sex-marriage fight? This battle will eventually be lost as well, and equal rights will reign.

Steve Millikan, Minneapolis

•••

Another "anti-LGBTQ" bill that is discussed in the article requires transgender athletes to participate in sports according to their gender assigned at birth. That would prevent males who identify as female from participating in women's sports. The article chooses to call that bill "anti-LGBTQ." That is the author's opinion, and the opinion of many progressives; however, conservatives and many female athletes think that preventing biological males from competing against women is a matter of fairness. Research has shown that males have significant advantages in sports and that those advantages cannot be removed simply by taking a drug to lower the amount of testosterone in the bloodstream.

These bills wouldn't be proposed if there weren't significant public support for them. As with many topics, progressives and conservatives have different views. News articles should provide information about the bills and leave it to editorials and commentary pieces to determine whether the bills are anti-LGBTQ.

James Brandt, New Brighton

•••

Here are two sentences from last Sunday's Star Tribune: "In some cases teachers are being warned to steer clear of controversial issues to avoid getting in trouble …" and "[the teacher] is now being investigated for causing 'grave consequences' under last month's censorship law … ."

John Jackson, Bloomington

Mark Osler is a distinguished law professor but misfired in his "Straight talk on bail and violent crime" commentary of April 10. His learned comments are long on theory and short on practicality. As a resident of downtown Minneapolis since 2001, I am more concerned with the latter.

Nowhere in Osler's analysis is there a reference to the Minnesota Freedom Fund. The MFF has distorted bail reform by bailing out at least 10 people who were arrested for violent offenses, and who then returned to the streets or their homes to commit offenses that were more violent. The "Minnesota" in the MFF name belies the fact that it is funded nationally.

As we taxpayers and voters rebuild Minneapolis and Minnesota from the ravages of COVID and the destruction following the murder of George Floyd, we need realistic answers from our law schools and Legislature to these questions:

What distinguishes a "low-level criminal case" from one where there is a gun present, a violent act occurs or there is a threat of violence? How can this distinction be uniformly understood and applied by the judiciary and public defenders?

I don't want to jack up bail for misdemeanors. I want Minnesotans to solve Minnesota's bail issues and violent crime issues. Ignoring the MFF in an analysis of Minnesota bail policy does neither.

William A. Levin, Minneapolis

It irritates me that everything (now including the Governor's Fishing Opener) is inclusive this, inclusive that ("Governor hits snag on fishing opener," editorial, April 10). Don't keep bringing this up. "Take a mom fishing" is fine. Let families do with the idea what they will. Don't attempt to make everything political by labeling it inclusive or not. That is so irritating, and heaven forbid we hurt anyone's feelings or offend anyone nowadays. Just let life happen and let those who choose to participate do so without making everything political.