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

•••

I appreciate Jack Uldrich's offer of grace to himself and others, including Tucker Carlson ("How Tucker Carlson inspired a change of heart," May 7). Self-reflection and the recognition of our own darker aspects is essential for humanity to save it from itself. But there is another side to this. We need to challenge those who addict people to emotional drugs — fear, hate, outrage and grievance — to obtain power and profit. Had Carlson expressed the conflict within himself (violent impulse vs. empathy) with his millions of viewers, I would have applauded him. He did not. We need to condemn Carlson's public use of scapegoats for his personal gain. If he scapegoated someone, inevitably that person would have to endure a flood of threats by some of his viewers.

We had an insurrection at our Capitol that was based on lies. Fox News paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation suit by Dominion Voting Systems alleging it promoted lies about election fraud. This created victims on both sides of the equation. Many insurrectionists destroyed their lives by believing the lies. The Capitol Police, their families and our democracy have suffered terribly from such lies. Yet, as recent as this March, Carlson continued to promote the idea that the 2020 election "was a grave betrayal of American democracy" while stating in personal communications he had no evidence of fraud. Such deception damages this great country of ours.

We need to be able to hold both sides, the tension of opposites — give grace while holding people accountable. A wise person said truth is medicinal. I believe a combination of self-knowledge, giving grace to others while demanding verified truth from people in positions of power, including Carlson, is what is required to heal our political divide.

Gerard LaSalle, Bloomington

•••

Of course, it is gratifying that Carlson is contrite and a bit remorseful over his disregard for truth, yet he ought to have the good grace to actually go out and dispel those harmful and hate-filled diatribes. Only then would I give this man grace!

Sharon E. Carlson, Andover

I read with interest D.J. Tice's May 7 review of U.S. presidential election rematches through history and chortled at his characterization of a possible 2024 rerun of the 2020 contest as pitting "a bore and a boor" ("Rematches have been good, bad and ugly," Opinion Exchange).

OK, President Joe Biden may be boring, but that seems a virtue in comparison with the hot-mess administration of his predecessor. And for Tice to brand both Biden and Donald Trump as equal "embarrassments" was just plain wrong. How has Biden brought shame upon our nation anywhere matching that heaped up by the serial-lying, election-denying, insurrection-inciting Trump?

A Biden-Trump redux might not feature great statesmen like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but it wouldn't be a "clown-car collision" either, not with only one clown, and a scary one at that, at the wheel.

Another mass shooting, another denial by Second Amendment zealot politicians, another opportunity for those same politicians to go on national TV to decry anyone who has the audacity to criticize easy access to firearms, another opportunity to offer up empty thoughts and prayers without meaningful legislative action, another, another, another … ("Shoppers flee mass shooting in Texas," May 7).

Presently, there is no consensus for the definition of a mass shooting: include all victims and the shooter, include only the victims, include only deaths, etc. The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrator, are shot in the same location at roughly the same time. Using that definition, the U.S. was closing in on 200 mass shootings through May 7. This is an astounding number and quite embarrassing.

I think we can reduce this number quite easily — change the definition. If we change the number of victims to 10, the number of incidents drops to 11. If the number of victims goes to 15, the number of incidents drops to three and if we use 25, we have a single incident.

Changing the definition to 25 victims will free up time for politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to focus on their re-election efforts and save many of those thoughts and prayers. With our supply-chain issues, our existing inventory of thoughts and prayers is getting pretty thin.

This suggestion does nothing to alleviate the pain and suffering of the victims or their families and friends or the communities where the shootings take place, but surely it will elevate the reputation of the U.S. as a tourist destination. Easy-peasy! No need to enact sensible firearm ownership legislation, nothing to hold firearm owners accountable, no training requirements — problem solved.

In Sunday's article on the Southwest light-rail construction "debacle" ("Blame piles up over rail line's cost, delays"), the contractor, Lunda McCrossan Joint Venture (LMJV), attributes part of the problem to "wealthy communities not supportive of the project with little tolerance for the impacts arising from the construction." Do they mean to suggest that if this was being built in a poor community there would be no complaints? I live next to the site of the Kenilworth tunnel construction and have little tolerance so I guess I'm "wealthy." From 7 a.m. until 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, the construction equipment beeps and bangs with a variety of other noises. The trains, having been moved closer to my home (40 feet), ring their bell and blow their horns as they pass through. There is frequent vibration and shaking. As for the "impacts" they are significant and literal — so far four cracks in the walls and two in the kitchen countertop. It seems amazing to me that the main contractor on a project that is now more than $1 billion over budget and 10 years behind takes no responsibility for this gigantic fiasco.

Marc N. Burton, Minneapolis

Thank you for the April 29 Variety article "Lessons in loss and grief." A child's death is one of the most painful events that can happen to a parent. I appreciated that none of the stories mentioned healing, which was affirming, because most people think you eventually heal from your grief. I believe we never really heal, we just learn how to live with it. Many of us are trying to find some kind of meaning around this terrible loss. A deep fear is that our child will be forgotten, so I admire how the families used their grief to create something beautiful in their child's memory.

But how can you really know the depth of grief and pain from child loss unless you've experienced it? Many offer platitudes because they don't know what to do or say. Here are some helpful ways to interact with a bereaved friend: Don't disappear from their life because you are uncomfortable with their pain. Visit, call, text, have lunch and have no expectations that the same person will emerge from their sorrow. Many of us might look the same, but we're not. Look at the faces in the article; grieving people smile, laugh, tell jokes, go on with their daily life.

The fear of people forgetting our child is very real, because we will never forget them. Allow us to talk about them, and talk about them with us. We love to hear their name. Your support and acknowledgment of our pain and loss means more than you know.