Readers Write (March 16): Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Avenue, caucus system, respect, DFL priorities, trade deals

Wow, Vikings, your arrogance is astounding. You "strongly object" to having the street running in front of the stadium named after an opponent ("Vikings singing the (Bears) blues," March 15). Didn't you have those objections when you started asking for our help in building the stadium? Perhaps if we had known about them, we would have reconsidered giving up money that could have been used elsewhere.

As to the historic value of renaming the street, that street has been there and named Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis history long before the Vikings came and, hopefully, it will be there long after the Vikings have left.

Here's a deal, Vikings. How about you making a Super Bowl win Vikings history, and then we will see about renaming Chicago Avenue.

• • •

We have heard a lot about the Vikings wanting to change a section of Chicago Avenue adjacent to the stadium because the Chicago Bears are their enemies. I find it interesting that on March 12, the Star Tribune reported that a Chicago firm has been selected to protect the fans ("U.S. Bank Stadium hires security"). Hmmm — so it's OK to change an "enemy" street name, yet still hire an "enemy" company to get big bucks to provide security? What is wrong with hiring a local, "friendly" company? Did I miss something?

After the precinct caucuses on March 1, a lead editorial and several letters to the editor appeared in the paper primarily opposing the caucus system. In addition, a column included state Rep. Pat Garofalo's intent to introduce a bill abolishing the precinct caucuses in favor of returning to the primary. How about combining both?

Planning and organization with advance, succinct information are of course key factors in avoiding confusion and better facilitating voter participation. Those interested only in voting might do so throughout the day and absentee balloting still would be in effect. Evening caucusgoers who wish to both vote and stay for choosing delegates, officers, and committee membership as well as for discussing resolutions, etc., could do so in their respective precinct caucus rooms.

Among other concerns for consideration: maps with clearly delineated precinct boundaries, parking, satisfactory accessibility for the physically challenged, verification of voting just once, length of caucuses, and time of day and week (let alone time of year!) to hold the caucuses and/or primary.

The overall purpose should be to involve more eligible voters meaningfully in the political process.

This letter was signed by the following constituents of District 49B: Mary Budge, Peter Budge, Jean Dunn, Pat Laybourn, Kai Laybourn, Bob Rudolph, Bill Hawkins and Belle Shenoy.

"Why, oh, why, might we be wary?" (Readers Write, March 15).

I am dismayed that the Star Tribune added a contribution to the rise in incivility that we are seeing these days by publishing a letter to the editor that included blatant disrespect for a sitting president. Actually, I would be offended to read of a "single, unencrypted digit" response directed toward anyone.

It's one tiny statement, but it's insidious. Printing such a statement on the editorial page is an implied endorsement of the behavior. He gave the president the middle finger. Please. Stop. You can stop the hostility and ugliness right on your pages.

A self-identified Democrat since 1964, lifelong supporter of Mark Dayton and one-time delegate for Paul Thissen for governor, I'd like to comment on their legislative aspirations as expressed in their own words. (Opinion Exchange, March 14).

After reading "We will keep fighting for a comprehensive transportation solution," "[W]e will keep fighting for Minnesota families and target further tax cuts …," "[W]e will keep fighting to lift wages for all Minnesotans — not just those at the very top" (e.g., "Gov. Mark Dayton grants big raises to his commissioners; Republicans cry foul," July 2, 2015) and "Republicans in the Legislature have made clear who they are fighting for: the ultrawealthy, powerful corporations and special-interest groups," personally, it's sidesplitting to hear the DFL leaders avow "[W]e are committed to working with everyone to improve conservation practices and modernize our rapidly aging clean water infrastructure" (e.g., "Dayton retreats from element of water buffer law, rebukes House GOP," Hot Dish Politics, Jan. 29, 2016).

"We will keep fighting," "we will keep fighting," "we will keep fighting."

Gov. Dayton, Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, House Speaker Thissen: It doesn't wash with me. You aren't "committed to working with everyone" until we stop spending legislative sessions in a slugfest, preparing for another legislative election.

All of this disguised behind the holy grail of "jobs" and cheaper products. The question needs to be asked: If we saved the ecology of the planet and lost money doing it, would that not be a good outcome?

• • •

It is grossly unfair and inaccurate to characterize Sen. Bernie Sanders as "anti-trade." Sanders has most certainly opposed NAFTA, CAFTA and the TPP, but that does not mean that he opposes trade. What he opposes are agreements that weaken countries' ability to protect the environment, to allow the movement of capital but not labor and generally to rewrite the rules in favor of increasing the profits of transnational corporations at the expense of the rest of us. Sanders promotes fair trade, the kind of trade that benefits all of us.