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

•••

Reading the April 26 letter "President Joe Biden: Running again in his 80s," I was transported back to the beginning days of my long teaching career. My days in the classroom spanned from 1966 to 2018. Even then I was not ready to retire, but there was no new class for me. I was almost 73 and wanted to keep teaching.

Was it ageism? I am not sure. What the letter writer suggests is supporting my belief that age should never be the criterion for ending employment, unless circumstances other than age call for it. As the author says, Joe Biden should use his age as a tool to show the advantages of aging.

I am not embarrassed to tell others that I just turned 79. I encourage women, in particular, to shout their age out loud and proudly. Life experiences, as Biden has had, are the reasons to keep on doing what we older persons want to share with the world.

Rita Speltz, Falcon Heights

•••

Age needs no apology. I am approaching 95, and believe along with the April 26 letter writer that age "involves a vast array of life experiences that lead to depth and wisdom."

I think wisdom now calls for President Biden to let go — make room for others.

I propose three debates or town meetings of Democrats who might want to run. Each one would have ample time to explain his or her platform, qualifications and priorities as president.

After each meeting, ranked-choice voting will show who the strongest candidates are. I hope/expect that younger, more diverse potential leaders will emerge.

Florence Steichen, St. Paul

•••

Note to the Republican Party: With Biden running, you have a golden opportunity to win the presidency in the 2024 election. First, discard Donald Trump immediately — he is a polarizing detriment. Select a relatively young, moderate, respectful, honest, brilliant, humble, responsible, compassionate candidate who is an excellent communicator with a worldwide perspective and a load of common sense. Have him or her lift up ways they will make the country better without addressing lightning-rod issues and blasting the Democrats. Many of us voters are looking for a fresh start and a more peaceful country.

Diane Jachymowski, Fridley

Coming from a hunting family of eight many decades ago, we had guns stored on a top basement shelf with all the ammo for the next season, but they remained untouched, not given another thought. Doors were locked only at night, and we ran the neighborhoods of south Minneapolis, which were largely free of crime. Unfortunately, times have changed, with rampant gun violence and a sense of lack of safety most anywhere given all the random and targeted shootings each month countrywide. We have become a nation of guns, with some for criminal offense but far more for personal defense, law enforcement and military use.

The St. Paul City Council is scheduled to vote next week on a general mandate to secure guns (Star Tribune, April 27). The proposal that has some good points to prevent children from getting hurt and guns from being stolen from vehicles, but it would put self-defense at a disadvantage — the very basic reason many have guns in their homes and vehicles. Most contemplating suicide would have the safe combination or gun lock key, while any attempts for self-defense would be delayed by lack of immediate access. Of course criminals would continue to ignore any laws, as even felons regularly violate laws by possessing firearms.

Complicating all this, most gun owners don't have the adequate safety training or proficiency that law enforcement officers and those with carry permits do. Finally, there would simply be no way to enforce this mandate given our privacy laws and freedoms, until after-the-fact investigations of shots fired — too little, too late. Perhaps this will at least make individuals more cautious to prevent some accidents, but it's certainly no cure-all.

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

Thank you for the April 27 commentary by George Will ("Minnesota's tax greed gets its day in court"), whose political analysis should be heard more often. But Mr. Will has ventured into legal/economic territory in which he seems unsteady. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Tyler v. Hennepin County does not quite support his political thesis.

Legal theorists from Will's own conservative movement have for decades been drilling into us that a whole range of individual decisions should be analyzed in strictly economic terms. Here, they would tell us, a rational taxpayer in Geraldine Tyler's position might withhold payment of taxes if the only penalty for doing so is the tax amount owed plus interest and a fee. The rational taxpayer, they would say, might bet on nonenforcement, with relatively little to lose.

Will denounces Minnesota's law denying the tax delinquent the proceeds of the county's sale of forfeited property. He cites the disparity between her total tax liability of $15,000 and the $40,000 proceeds from sale of Tyler's condo, and calls this a "taking" of her "equity" in the condo. He neglects to mention that, as reported in a summary of the oral argument in the case, there was a mortgage of nearly $50,000 on the condo and a homeowners' association lien of nearly $12,000 (Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, April 26). But bad facts can inconvenience even the best commentary. Will makes the broader claim that 1,350 Minnesota property tax delinquents lost equity averaging $155,000 per house. But was this real equity or imaginary equity? (And how many of the houses were multimillion-dollar mansions?)

Will's piece is little more than a cheap shot at a liberal state. What Tyler v. Hennepin County illustrates more than anything is the current Supreme Court's eagerness to take cases to support conservative talking points.

Stan Keillor, Roseville

Star Tribune opinion editor's note: The Washington Post allows us to reprint its material in our print edition only. The link here (and above) will take you to Will's column on the Post's website. The Star Tribune Editorial Board also weighed in on this case in January (tinyurl.com/tyler-v-henn).

Re: "Bill gives AG power in health care mergers," front page, April 26:

Thank you, legislators! Thank you, Rep. Robert Bierman, DFL-Apple Valley! Thank you, former Govs. Tim Pawlenty (Republican) and Mark Dayton (Democrat) for your input!

There is no question that health care mergers need to be done thoughtfully and be best-suited to meet the needs of Minnesotans and Minnesota hospitals. There is another question not answered. With the millions of dollars lost by Fairview systems over a period of time, why have the actions of the Fairview board of directors not been more carefully scrutinized?

Dr. Ronald Linde, Northfield