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

•••

Recent articles and letters have urged people to spend time and money in downtown Minneapolis. My question is why?

I understand that it is great to have a vibrant downtown area. But give me a reason to visit. Restaurants? Some of the best restaurants are located outside of the loop and have free parking. Sporting events? Yes, the Twins, Wolves and Vikings are all downtown. When I attend any of these events, however, I usually spend all my time and money at the venue. Music and plays? Sometimes I do make a night of it with dinner. Shopping? Nothing unique is available downtown.

What it comes down to is there has to be a reason to go downtown. As an upper-middle-aged lifelong resident of the Twin Cities, I remember the excitement of a holiday night out in downtown — the anticipation of the Dayton's window displays, the unique shopping experiences of all the stores, the Holidazzle parade, the fine dining experiences (popovers at the Oak Grill in Dayton's) and the overall electricity of a big city.

Spending money and time to visit a place because I should doesn't make any sense to me. There are too many more attractive venues competing for my resources. Give me a good, unique reason to visit downtown and I will be there.

Bruce Lemke, Orono

In their recent counterpoint "Coverage of antisemitism charge is reckless" (Dec. 28), writers Sumanth Gopinath, Nathaniel Mills and Gopalan Nadathur miss the point in defending the Gaza protests at our universities. Of course students have the right to protest policies that are abhorrent to them. I did plenty of it in the '60s. This protest crosses the line when any student feels intimidated to the point where they not only feel unwelcome on their own campus but are frightened to freely express their own opinions on the issues.

The problem with slogans such as "from the river to the sea" is that most people view this phrase as a bunch of words, but in reality, it must be thought of as a visual symbol, similar to the image of Muhammad or Jesus on the cross or any modern trademark. To a race of people who have been subjected to racism and genocide for thousands of years, this symbol, much like the noose, swastikas, confederate statues and other hate-filled relics automatically induce a defensive posture, thus shutting down the potential for serious dialogue.

I don't believe that the University of Minnesota would allow the desecration of an image of Muhammad or the depiction of a Ku Klux Klan lynching on the campus. Yes, let's allow and encourage respectful protests of this and other serious issues, but in doing so, let's shed the offensive tropes that have the effect of engendering trauma in our Jewish students.

Rod Martel, Minneapolis

•••

I know I am not as articulate as many of the Star Tribune readers are, but I can still try to express my opinion as best I can. A Dec. 27 letter writer ("Realism is in order") mentioned how could it be possible that centuries of hate of Jewish people would disappear. He either neglected or did not know that Palestinians lived with the Jewish people peacefully for centuries. Also, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship living in Israel having equal rights are living in harmony with the Israeli Jews.

The problem here is the Zionists who want to wipe out Palestine and the Palestinian people, similar to what we did with the Native Americans. If all people have equal rights, I guarantee you there would be no more horrible attacks.

Zena Khalil, North Oaks

•••

The despicable abuse of women's spirits and bodies ("Sexual violence part of Hamas terror," front page, Dec. 29) has always been one of the outcomes of male warfare — a way for the territorial aggressor to confirm power, if not victory, using the post-battle weapon of unleashed testosterone. In the current warfares, we all get to know about it in tomorrow's news.

Will our present knowledge serve women?

Sheila Martin, Golden Valley

I'm sure many Star Tribune readers are thrilled about the impending shutdown of Sherco coal and shift to renewables. But the Dec. 24 article "Xcel closure signals shift from coal" glossed over the negatives involved.

Xcel is asking to fast-track a permit for a new 160-mile-plus high-voltage power line from Marshall to the Sherco site, to replace it with new wind and solar. Do the people of southwestern Minnesota want this? Actually, they are divided, as they have been seeing what it's like to live among a sea of turbines. Do the people in between want another high-voltage line disrupting their farms, homes and wetlands? Almost to a person, no. Many of us who may get the new line are still mitigating problems (stray voltage, soil degradation, etc.) caused by last decade's giant CapX2020 power lines. Experientially, we know no eminent domain payment will cover our troubles.

Who, then, wants this? Xcel and its shareholders, for sure. As well as investors hoping to make a buck on giant new energy projects. Why must the rich get richer while average people are sacrificed in the process? Can't we do better? Do Minnesotans really want every flip of their light switch to cause grief for their fellow citizens?

Shift to renewables, yes, but as long as our energy policy favors big business instead of true locally owned generation, we are bound to create more situations like this, steamrolling regular folks. Under any other circumstance I would applaud the shutdown of coal generation at Sherco. But not today.

Daniel Wambeke, Marshall, Minn.

Minnesota kids are likely enjoying their winter breaks (albeit with no snow), but many kids around the world won't have a school to return to this year. Crises in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Yemen and now Gaza make going to school near impossible for many. And the longer kids are out of school the less likely they are to return. The World Bank estimates this generation of students will lose $17 trillion in lifetime earnings.

The bipartisan READ Act (H.R. 681) compels our international aid arm to develop an integrated strategy that addresses key barriers to school attendance, retention and quality learning, with special attention to girls, kids with disabilities, and kids affected by conflict, famine and other emergencies, all while improving program transparency and accountability, ensuring taxpayer dollars make the most impact. The bill has already passed the Senate but currently has no Minnesota cosponsors in the House. Who will be the first?

Katy Czaia, St. Louis Park