'UNARMED' BIN LADEN

So he wasn't packing heat. Doesn't matter

Why the giant headline announcing that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when U.S. troops shot him ("Officials now say bin Laden unarmed," May 4)? He's dead. Good riddance!

GENE WISE, BLOOMINGTON

• • •

So Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed? So were the 2,996 victims killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

DARROLD PERSSON, HIBBING, MINN.

• • •

Bin Laden could have had his hands up, holding a Bible, swearing to convert to Christianity and pledging allegiance to the United States when he was shot, and I would still believe justice was served. Live by the claw, die by the claw.

BLAIR SORVARI, CHAMPLIN

* * *

GERONIMO AND BIN LADEN

Use of name offensive to some, not to others

I'm a quarter Chickasaw and take offense to the smearing of Geronimo's name by the U.S. military. Geronimo only fought when his lands and family were attacked -- first by Mexican Federales and brigands, then by the U.S. government, which had repeatedly lied to him.

Our people have served, fought and died in defense of this country. Why not call Osama bin Laden by some other name, like Dick Cheney or Howard Stern? The Apache people are owed a huge apology.

CATHY DOUGLAS LEWIS, TONASKET, WASH.

• • •

As a former West Point cadet, I'm disappointed at the furor raised over the U.S. military's use of "Geronimo EKIA" for reporting the killing of Bin Laden.

Geronimo was the Wild West equivalent of the renegade leader who avoided U.S. capture for years. What is wrong with using the code name "Geronimo" to describe Bin Laden's elusiveness?

Using this code name shows no disrespect to American Indians nor disparages their military service to this country today. "Geronimo" just describes the wiliness of Bin Laden that Geronimo exhibited 125 years ago.

As a nation, we should not be so sensitive to these petty issues and focus on celebrating the death of a terror figurehead.

I was in New Jersey when the 9/11 attacks happened. I never felt so powerless and frustrated. Taking out Bin Laden this week demonstrates our resolve to never give up. Geronimo!

KEITH ALESHIRE, ST. LOUIS PARK

* * *

MOTHER'S DAY

Just one way, really, to mark the occasion

Mother's Day is Sunday. For those of you who have mothers living out of state, do your mom (and yourself) a nice favor: Show up at her door step. Flowers, a telephone call, candy or an impersonal e-mail is just not the same as celebrating the day with her in person.

If you think you're too busy, then just remember that one day your mother won't be around. You will wish you had taken the time. Your mother gave you life, and a whole lot more.

Give something back that's real and means more than anything -- your physical presence. As an added bonus, you will help boost the economy this weekend and save American jobs.

NEIL ANDERSON, RICHFIELD

VIKINGS STADIUM

Don't destroy the Farmers Market

I can't believe people are considering tearing down the Farmers Market in Minneapolis for another stadium ("Study touts Vikes near Target Field," May 3). I looked up Bruce Lambrecht's presentation online, and I have to admit it makes good points on the pluses and minuses of each site.

Still, I cry foul when it comes to the Farmers Market option. Sorry, the space is already in use.

I live on the North Side and ride the bus downtown past the proposed site (and a beautiful new ballpark) to get to work. On the way home I often stop at the Farmers Market to buy produce for the week or flowers for the table. My fiancée and I get our tree there every Christmas.

It's a treasure to find a market of this kind so close to a central business district.

I ask the powers that be to leave this site alone and find one of the countless vacant sites in this city on which to build their sports cathedral. If not, know that I would be more than happy for the

Vikings to build a billion-dollar stadium on the site of the Farmers Market only if they allow the city to operate a year-round market in the reroofed Metrodome.

KEVIN MOBERG, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *

STATE LEGISLATURE

Don't change the state Constitution on taxes

Republican legislators are now proposing to amend the state Constitution to require a supermajority vote (60 percent) in the Legislature to approve most tax increases ("Raising the bar on raising taxes," May 3).

This is a stupid idea. Have they not read about the many fiscal problems California has due to its imprudent requirement for supermajority legislative votes to approve a budget?

The U.S. Senate is hamstrung due to its outdated and unconstitutional rules that impose a de facto supermajority vote (again, 60 percent) to do almost anything. Minnesota even has difficulties passing a budget under normal rules.

Our Legislature needs to operate on a simple democratic principle: The majority rules.

The proposed constitutional amendment stems from the understandable, but mistaken, view that whatever a person earns is due entirely to his own efforts.

On the contrary, every one of us owes whatever success one has to a multitude of other people, to a "cloud of witnesses." Warren Buffett often remarks on his great fortune to have been born in the United States.

We are all in this together.

DUANE W. KROHNKE, ST. LOUIS PARK

• • •

Regarding the proposed constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority vote on tax bills: If you want to understand why the California educational system has failed and why that state is having such destructive budget problems, simply look at its history of constitutional amendments regarding tax bills.

Are the Minnesota Republicans so completely uninformed as to not see this? Is this simply more of their rhetoric trumping their analysis? Let us not be as foolish as they were in California.

ROBERT LYMAN, MINNEAPOLIS