Readers Write: Minnesota Vikings, earmarks, nuclear energy, well testing, smoking on Nicollet Mall, '40 books we should all read'

A 61-yard touchdown in the last few seconds.

A 53-yard field goal from a guy who got cut by the Saints.

Let it ring from the Cascades to the Adirondacks: Wherever we are, however elliptical our orbit about the Purple Star, it is a good day to be a Vikings fan.

• • •

Confidence swagger wait trepidation terror despair hope elation trepidation despair despair despair darkness gloom doom glimmer VICTORY.

• • •

As I suspect with most longtime Vikings fans, there are no words to describe the finish of the Vikings-Saints game. We were all emotionally spent no doubt.

Brees will forever have my utmost respect as one of the best to have ever played the game.

• • •

Please send Millie to Philadelphia next week. She is our good-luck charm!

• • •

Before the play, I thought of Harry "Bud" Grant.

Lost four Super Bowls coaching the Vikings.

Bud was unique — he played for the Philadelphia Eagles and the Minneapolis Lakers, then the Blue Bombers.

At 29, he was hired to be head coach of the Bombers.

Bud Grant is now 90 — living in Minnesota.

Will the Vikes win it all for Bud?

For the first time in over 40 years, I have not watched a single Vikings game. You're welcome, Minnesota.

I want a smooth-running government. Differences of opinion and vigorous debate are healthy, but the process should eventually lead to results, with both parties feeling at least some success and a willingness to approach the next legislative challenge with a bipartisan attitude.

In 2010, the House Appropriations Committee implemented rules to ban "legislative earmarks" because they had become synonymous with "pork-barrel spending" and corruption. Some legislators once opposed to earmarks now admit the ban made Washington more dysfunctional, with legislators losing their "purpose" of advocating for their constituents' "piece of the pie." They speculate that earmarks might be an important tool for bridging irreconcilable differences.

Contrary to what I originally thought, the earmark moratorium hasn't reduced spending. "Legislative earmarks" refers to the process that leads to allocating approved federal spending in a manner favoring certain states or legislative districts. Those same funds are still spent, but now federal bureaucrats, not legislators, are making the allocation decisions. Think about that. The transparency once available, even in the earmarks process, has disappeared.

Might we be closer to a bipartisan health care solution, or immigration reform, if our representatives had more bargaining flexibility? Would a different, less corruptible form of earmarks facilitate bipartisan cooperation?

Since 1994, our state has, essentially, had a cap on this energy source, even though it's the safest way to produce power (in terms of deaths per gigawatt of electricity produced) and provides the majority of clean energy in the world. As I continued to learn more about nuclear energy throughout my education, it became astonishingly clear that nuclear is vital not just to slow down climate change but to stay sustainable as a species. This is why we must know the gubernatorial candidates' opinions on nuclear energy and whether they would be willing to sign a bill lifting the moratorium on new nuclear power plant construction.

In his Jan. 13 editorial counterpoint ("Why farmers like me oppose state plan to test Brown County wells"), Keith Lendt argues against a proposal to test for nitrate in the wells in Brown County. Basically, his head-in-the-sand reasoning is that he does not know just where any finding of contamination might lead. Similar flawed thinking has resulted in a lack of evidence while problems grow to catastrophes.

As a regular bus and light-rail commuter, I am frequently on the Nicollet Mall. I am disappointed with the mall's renovation — not because of the physical design, but because the cigarette smoking remains. Until the businesses decide to create a smoke-free mall, the atmosphere will remain obnoxious.

I found the refined list of "40 books we all should read" (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 13) to be very interesting. I assume it is taken for granted that these books should be read within the lifetime of the reader. Being a very senior citizen, I must say your list is very aggressive for a reader of my age. I am submitting a less ambitious list of 10 books that senior citizens may enjoy, and possibly complete reading before the reading light is permanently turned off.

• "The Old Man and the Sea"

• "The Stranger"

• "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

• "Man's Search for Meaning"

• "Johnny Got His Gun"

• "The Catcher in the Rye"

• "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"

• "Hamlet"

These are short reads and have much to say about life's most important lessons.