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

•••

I was struck by how much news was consumed yesterday about the President Donald Trump/Elon Musk spat. Almost anyone could have predicted that an alliance between such egocentric men could not last for long. I find it overwhelmingly sad, nonetheless, that two of the most influential guys in U.S. governance at the moment are having a food fight. Please leave the cafeteria and let better minds prevail.

Janis Bibee, Anoka

•••

Just so I have this correctly, the current president of the United States interrupted his day of meeting with the German chancellor, which was ostensibly meant to be about developing a plan to end Russia's war in Ukraine, so that he could engage in a full day of fighting on the internet with a man who, for a while there, was his biggest financial backer?

That's acceptable, normal, rational, mentally cogent behavior, but we're supposed to devote time, energy and taxpayer dollars to investigating the mental capacity of and determining who was "really in charge" during the previous administration instead of asking those exact, clearly relevant questions of the current one?

Get it together, Republicans. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Adam Skoglund, Eden Prairie

•••

Many are expressing surprise — especially the news media, who should know better and who are going on and on nauseatingly about it, and some generally clueless White House staffers — regarding the recent meltdown between Musk and Trump. Come on, everybody; this was inevitable and obvious from the first day. It doesn't take a psychologist to know that when you put two pathological narcissists together and in charge of anything, that it can't end well. All that was in question was how well you would do in the betting pool on how long it would take.

Dennis Fazio, Minneapolis

ALPHA NEWS

'Alternative' doesn't always mean 'good'

When Minnesota Star Tribune contributing columnist Andy Brehm wrote so glowingly about Alpha News ("Alpha News deserves respect from its competitors," June 6) he forgot to consider the importance of accurate and unbiased reporting. A highly regarded fact-checking site gives Alpha News low credibility and rates them: "Questionable based on extreme right bias, poor sourcing of information, promotion of conspiracy theories, and anti-Islamic propaganda, as well as a lack of transparency regarding ownership." Having a variety of news sources is important, but Alpha News' type of journalism does more damage than good.

Susan Wehrenberg, Apple Valley


TRANS ATHLETES

Quit taking the bait

I read the brief piece on Gov. Tim Walz's defense of trans males in sports ("Walz backs trans kids as Democrats grapple with bans," June 5) with great frustration. I hate the way issues around trans folks, and particularly trans youth, have been strategically hijacked by transphobes on the right. I am a parent to a trans young adult, and I am also a pastor, an elected official and an avid sports fan who will fight to the death for trans rights, but who will also confess that I think we need to have a more honest conversation about trans males in sports. But that's not what this is about. This is the right's strategy (an unfortunately effective one) to hijack the conversation to demonize or at least marginalize trans youth. It's an ugly, destructive red herring. Let's have the conversation about sports, but it is secondary to the broader conversation we need to have around protecting trans rights in general, and particularly trans rights for our young people. There are a lot of myths, a lot of lies and a lot of abject misunderstanding out there around our trans youth, gender affirming care and what our trans youth need in regard to gender dysphoria. Let's not bite the red herring bait of the right on this.

Paul Baudhuin, St. Louis Park

DISCRIMINATION CASE

That's for another court to decide

The headline on the lead article in Friday's newspaper misstated the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an important workplace discrimination case ("Bias found against straight woman," June 6). While the court did rule in favor of the straight woman who sued claiming that she was wrongfully bypassed for a promotion and then demoted from her public sector job in Ohio, both times in favor of less-qualified gay employees, it did not determine that she was the victim of unlawful "bias."

The headline that the court "found" bias existed against the claimant is palpably inaccurate and possibly premature. The case has not gone to trial yet. It was dismissed before trial by two lower courts on grounds that the claimant did not satisfy the heightened evidentiary standard recognized by them and in nearly two dozen other jurisdictions in so-called "reverse discrimination" lawsuits by white people, men or straight individuals. The high court unanimously overturned those rulings and sent the case back to the federal trial court in Ohio for adjudication under the normal standard of proof required in conventional discrimination cases, rather than necessitating that the claimant present "background circumstances," such as statistical evidence or showing that the challenged employment decisions were made by gay individuals, neither of which is needed in ordinary cases of bias brought by "minority" individuals. However, a concurring opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by one other jurist pointed out the slippery definition of what constitutes the "majority" or "minority" in workplace cases.

In short, while the high court ruling clarifies the burden of proof for "reverse" bias cases, facilitates pursuing them and further imperils the endangered species of affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion programs, it does not, as of yet, tilt the balance in favor of "majority" employees or against those in the "minority." That may still occur in the event the lawsuit actually goes to trial, unless it is settled, as is likely. As that sage legal observer, Yogi Berra, remarked: "It ain't over 'til it's over," and this case is not.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

The writer is a constitutional and employment law attorney.

TRUTH SOCIAL

Where do you find the time?

As the administration continued the "shock and awe" approach to governing, it was difficult to know how to express any kind of opinion. The rules changed faster than the policies could be articulated. Should I support it, should I be outraged? Depended on the day, the hour. As a citizen, trying to stay informed, my head would spin and I felt like crying uncle.

And then a story published on Page 4 of the Minnesota Star Tribune on June 4 epitomized the insanity of this administration: "Tallying Trump's online posting frenzy: 2,262 'Truths' in 132 days." That amounts to an average of 17.136 posts per day by the president of the United States! Are you kidding me? The fact that POTUS is issuing insults and threats and lies and conspiracy theories day after day, hour after hour, sometimes minute by minute is insane. His positive posts are generally his self-affirmation. 2,262 posts in 132 days. I would suggest that this behavior, by the man who is the president of the United States, is manic.

There is no fact-checking, There is no supporting evidence. Most likely, he is acting completely independently. I cannot begin to fathom how those entities responsible for maintaining presidential records can even begin to manage this task. But then we know how the president and his supporters feel about that!

I would ask readers to simply consider the posting behavior. Ignore the message; its validity is unclear, unverifiable and will probably change many times to suit the situation. Just consider the fact that president of our United States of America has posted over 2,000 "truths" in 132 days. Does anyone think that this is the way to run a country?

Kathy Meinhardt, Bloomington

BURL GILYARD

Rest in peace, old pal

Burl Gilyard had a clever and creative sense of humor and curiosity that welcomed him into many conversations ("Twin Cities journalist covered stories with curiosity, wit," May 30). Somehow he brought light to all situations. He found common silly humor in Maxwell Smart, so when he was on deadline or needed validation he would call me from the "Shoe Phone" or "under the Cone of Silence." His curiosity and fact-checking made him a great listener and his wisdom led him to the real story, complete with nuance. He wanted to get it right and he did. Whenever I spotted him attending industry meetings, I would grab a chair for him and he would scoot over, insisting on needing no assistance. Burl was a credit to reporting and will be missed.

Jim Durda, Minnetonka