Readers Write for Saturday, Jan. 30

I was prepared to express disappointment after President Obama's State of the Union message because it seemed flat and very short on specifics. As an ardent Obama supporter who has become thoroughly disillusioned with the entire political process and less than enchanted with Obama's leadership, I was also prepared to suggest we take a look at reworking Pogo's immortal insight and consider that perhaps, "We have met our leader, and he is us."

But after watching Obama's appearance before the House Republican caucus retreat, I dare trust again that "change we can believe in" might be possible. I ask, indeed demand, that this president continue regular public visits with Republican leaders and respond to questions from them just as frankly as he did Friday.

SHAWN GILBERT, Bloomington

I think that there is a tyranny of the minority if everything that passes the Senate has to have a supermajority. We have enshrined in the Constitution a reasonable and necessary gift to the minority, two senators from each state, no matter what size, and representatives based on population. This allows a small population state like Wyoming to have two Senate seats and one representative.

But, once we get to the Senate, I think it is unconscionable to have 41 senators hold up any piece of legislation, no matter how worthy. The Senate can change its rules with 51 votes. I know that neither party is very happy about such a change, but the Democrats can do it now and should.

PARKER TROSTEL, MINNEAPOLIS

Mary Lewis Grow devotes her entire gun show loophole argument (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 25) to give readers an example of the meaning of the word "specious." American Heritage defines the word as [h]aving the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument."

Kent Kaiser ("'Up north' isn't there just for your pleasure," Jan. 26) scorns those who want to protect our priceless North Woods as people who just want to protect their "playground." He is deeply disrespectful to those -- including the "natives" (his word) -- who worry that centuries of damage will be done in the fever rush to exploit a short-term mining opportunity.

He states: "Fact -- the suggestion that the BWCA could be affected is 'completely false.'" Why, then, are the mining companies currently doing exploratory drilling in the Kawishiwi River watershed (that does lead directly into the BWCA) watching intently what happens with the PolyMet/Northmet mining decisions?

Now, to the real facts: Several companies are seeking additional permits to do exploratory drilling in the Kawishiwi watershed, and the draft environmental impact statement on those requests is anticipated this year. The agencies reviewing those permit requests will look to the PolyMet/Northmet decision for precedent.

Fact -- though PolyMet hopes to use "cutting-edge" technology, the proposed techniques are based on computer models, not on techniques used and proven elsewhere in the real world.

Fact -- if an "environmentally friendly" mine is established in northern Minnesota, it will not mean that mines in "less environmentally friendly countries" will disappear.

Fact -- even some acid mine drainage into the watershed leading to Lake Superior will increase the waters' acidity, leaching more mercury into fish, which are already on the "consumption advisory" list.

Fact -- Wisconsin learned its lesson and banned sulfide mining unless the company can show a similar mine elsewhere has operated for 10 years and been closed for 10 years without polluting the water.

Kaiser thinks that taking a chance on permanent damage to our precious North Woods environment is "the epitome of good stewardship." Really? That's not my idea of good stewardship.