When President Joe Biden exclaimed, in reference to Vladimir Putin, "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," it was a clear statement of speaking truth to and about a powerful autocrat. It was not a "gaffe" as generally depicted in the press ("Biden is finding no respite at home," March 28). We should be lavishing praise on Biden by standing up to this one crooked individual, who can orchestrate a massive assault on an unwilling nation, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

Putin has already intimated that he would resort to nuclear weapons, and maybe chemical and biological weapons as well, if he is thwarted in his goal to return Eastern European nations to the control of a reinstated Soviet Union. We must not be intimidated and feckless in standing up to this dictator, remembering what happened during the 1930s when Adolf Hitler violently consumed most of Europe and subjugated millions to death because they were of Jewish heritage, gay, Slavs, etc. Then we sat on our heels again when Josef Stalin violated the Yalta Agreement to absorb most Eastern European nations from 1945 to 1948. We need to fully support courageous leaders like President Biden.

H. James McConkey, Minneapolis

•••

It's no secret that Biden is gaffe-prone. In the big picture, in the last two years he has been remarkably on script. The press likes reporting on the gaffes because they are quite newsworthy, easy to catch and sometimes quite telling. The latest gaffe, which caused gasps around the world, that "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," was very telling and, however misguided, may simply be channeling what millions of people worldwide are thinking.

Biden's gaffes seem much better than the average of 21 false or misleading claims a day from Donald Trump. Could it be that after meeting with Ukrainian women and children refugees, this gaffe was an honest human emotion of empathy? Is not an expression of human caring better than a self-serving lie from someone who calls Putin a "genius"?

Have we no shame?

Dan Nicholson, Lino Lakes

THE OSCARS

Film scores deserve better

In his article about the shortening of the Oscars broadcast, Chris Hewitt refers to the awards not being aired (best editing, original score, production design, etc.) as "categories that were always an excuse to zip to the kitchen for a wine top-off" ("The Oscars shake things up," March 27).

This man calls himself a critic? Wow. Let's take just one of these categories: best original score. To diminish the importance of music in film is to fundamentally misunderstand how movies work. Imagine "Harry Potter" without that magical, mysterious celesta and swirling strings. Imagine "Star Wars" without the rebel fanfare blasting out from the brass section. Even Steven Spielberg acknowledged that John Williams' score for "Jaws" was responsible for "half of the success of that movie."

I know the Oscars are meaningless froth. But for a film critic to denigrate the celebration of movie music (and all the other categories) as something during which to grab a drink is to do a deep disservice to some of the richest artistic traditions we have. Feel free to dish out review stars, Mr. Hewitt, but stay in your lane about the fundamentals of filmmaking.

Travis Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

I am truly bothered by the incident that occurred at the Oscars ("And the Oscar goes ... off the rails," editorial, March 29).

I take exception to it on so many levels.

In front of a worldwide audience, on live television, Will Smith chose to assault a comedian whose joke he did not appreciate. I call B.S. He laughed. When he saw his wife's upset face he flipped. In an instant. And then delivered the violent blow to Chris Rock. Was the joke too off-limits? To Jada Pinkett Smith, apparently so. But that is the risk with comedy. And even Smith didn't initially think it unfunny. If he didn't initially think it was unacceptable and he's married to Jada, why is he holding Rock to a higher standard than he holds for himself?
Smith defended his actions by saying he was protecting his wife. Again, I call B.S. The joke was already made. He did not protect her from that. Nor did he protect her from his own laughter. I submit that he was trying to redeem himself by that blow and the subsequent verbal shouts at Rock.
Why is this OK behavior? So, the norm now, even at a formal event that's televised, is to react violently against someone who says something your wife (or you) find offensive? God help us all.
In his acceptance speech, Smith likened himself to the character he played, Richard Williams. He talked about how Williams defended his family. Williams certainly did protect his two daughters. He defended their right to play tennis on local courts, he advocated for the best coaches, he insisted on their getting an education, he held out for better contracts. None of those actions involved him committing assault.
During his acceptance speech, Smith apologized to the Academy and to his co-nominees. Noticeably absent until the next day was an apology to Rock, the person he actually assaulted.
By that violent display, Smith single-handedly turned the 2022 Oscars into the Will-Smith-gets-violent show. It's all anyone is talking about. This branding will never go away. He robbed everyone else of the night they deserved — the three women who were hosts, all the nominees and their guests. The spotlight moved from them to Smith. And the thing is, Smith knows the media. Still, he chose to be violent.
I strongly object to the notion that women are protected when men get violent. We know all too well that the violence may one day be turned upon us. Even if it isn't, my point still stands.
Smith's violent behavior feeds the stereotype that African American men are violent. That they should be feared as violent. That stereotype needs no feeding. None. Instead we need to be deluged with images of all the African American men (a majority) who are not violent. Imagine the difference if instead of slapping Rock, Smith would have let it go in the moment or signaled thumbs down and followed up later with an educational approach. Heck, he can afford to buy airtime and educate millions.
In his acceptance speech, Smith claimed tearfully that he is being called by God to be a river to his people. To be a protector. I am sick to death of people using God to justify their violence.

Susan Claeys, St. Paul

•••

Mission accomplished. People are talking about the Oscars again.

After years of dismal ratings and interest, Smith and Rock managed to generate some buzz about the event. During the ceremony, Smith slapped Rock. This after Rock disrespected Smith's wife.

Forgive me for being cynical. I believed this was staged, like so many things today — a very successful attempt at getting people to talk about Oscar night from two very smart and talented actors.

Job well done! It worked. We talked about the Oscars and the "slap" this morning around the water cooler.

Neil F. Anderson, Richfield

CEO PAY

At least they actually contribute

Regarding the recent letter about the injustice of CEO compensation levels at large corporations, and "why they are allowed to be making exorbitant amounts of money," the point is appropriately applicable to the compensation of our hometown heroes, professional athletes ("The injustice of it all, from a shipping standpoint," Readers Write, March 28). Multiyear contracts of exorbitant millions are now accepted as the norm and never questioned by our hometown media nor our Minnesota politicians.

Discounted by politically correct ideologues is that the corporations led by these CEOs are major contributors to the welfare of tens of thousands of employees within the many communities where they operate — and, usually, without much publicized pizazz nor local media recognition.

Might there be some injustice to all of this?

Gene Delaune, New Brighton

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.