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.

Mary Margaret Soukup

• • •

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?

Kathy Woudstra, Apple Valley
MINNESOTA ELECTIONS

Combine caucuses and primary to optimize voter participation

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.

Signs — or volunteers with signs — at entrances to primary caucus buildings clearly would indicate where to go for voting only or for voting and caucus participation; lines would be formed according to turnout.

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.

RESPECT

No place on the editorial page for that kind of vulgar slam

"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.

Why would you print that? What low bar was just established? Are you trying to be more modern? More relevant? When our kids were at home, I would read the editorial page with them. Is this the discourse I would want them to engage in? Absolutely not. Can a teacher take this into the classroom? I would be embarrassed to have kids read it.

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.

Patricia Neal, Minneapolis
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

DFL leaders haven't convinced me they will work with everyone

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.

Gary Dombouy, Minneapolis
TRADE DEALS

Why does U.S. have to "lead"? And Sanders is not "anti-trade"

The Star Tribune's editorial "U.S. benefits more as world's trade leader" (March 14) is at best intellectually facile. Notable, perhaps, only for its failure to examine the multivalent issues and impacts surrounding trade policy. First of all, as with all things American, it assumes that we must be a "leader." The editorial's second assumption is that if it makes money, it must be a good thing. Ours is an era of Western economic and cultural colonialism — one in which Western technologies have been exported to the detriment of ancient ways of life and to the denigration and destabilization of the world's ecologies. Thousands of pristine regions have been destroyed for the insatiable demands of North American consumers — for the production of hamburger, palm oil, wood products and tons of shiny junk to grow the wealth of a handful of major corporations.

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?

Thomas Evans, Bemidji, Minn.

• • •

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.

Thomas Haines, Eden Prairie