On the one hand the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency releases an alert that says the air in the Twin Cities is "unhealthy for all." On the other hand they say people should not be alarmed. What exactly are we supposed to think?

Here's the story by Dennis Lien in the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Twin Cities air quality rose to a level deemed "unhealthy" for all people for the first time since the use of sensitive monitoring equipment for soot began six years ago.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency workers urged metro area schools to reduce children's activity levels and warned all adults to take it easy.

"I think people should certainly not be alarmed,'' said agency spokeswoman Rebecca Helgesen. "They should be concerned. They should take a couple of steps to remind themselves of the health of their families. It doesn't have to be dramatic. Just tone it down a little. Take it easier.''

Overall, Minnesota has clean air. And for as dirty as the air was this week, most people will not experience long-term effects.

The pollution control agency issued a warning late Monday when the air quality index, a standard measure of air pollution, exceeded 100, considered unhealthy for sensitive groups. Then, shortly after midnight, the index reached 156, pushing the Twin Cities into the "red" zone and deeming the air unhealthy for everyone.

Levels slowly dropped throughout Tuesday, and by 5 p.m. it was hanging at 151, just at the "unhealthy" threshold. The alert remains in effect through today.

The culprit? A temperature inversion, or layer of warm air trapping cooler air near the ground, settled over the region, holding down microscopic pollutants and creating a gray haze. To compound matters, a mass of dirty air was sitting over the northeastern third of the country, including much of Minnesota.

So is it unhealthy for everybody or not? I'm still not quite clear on that. And should the state take any extra efforts when the air gets this bad?

The other big issue of the day is Social Security. The president gives his State of the Union address tonight and Social Security is expected to be a big issue. MPR's Mark Zdechlik polled Minnesota's congressional delegation and (not surprisingly) found a big split:

Democrat Jim Oberstar, who has represented Minnesota's 8th District since the mid-'70s, accuses President Bush of trying to destroy Social Security. Oberstar notes this is not the first time Republicans have attempted crisis mode revamps of the program.

"In 1976 President Ford said there was a crisis and we have to head that crisis off by changing the benefit system -- who gets benefits, increasing the age at which you receive benefits and numerous other changes. Now another Republican president comes a long with another scare tactic saying 'Social Security is in crisis.' It wasn't in crisis in 1976. It isn't today," according to Oberstar, who opposes private accounts.

So does 5th District Congressman Martin Sabo, a DFLer. He sees President Bush's push for private accounts as a function of ideology, not concern about the solvency of Social Security.

"The conservatives never liked it when it was created in the '30s and they've been looking for the opportunity to make changes. The fact is I have no problem investing in equities, but my basic understanding for years has been that you get into equity after you take care of the basics. Social Security is a room-and-board," Sabo says.

Republicans take issue with the Democratic charge the GOP wants to dismantle Social Security.

Second District Republican Congressman John Kline says he's glad President Bush is placing such emphasis on Social Security restructuring. He thinks private accounts are a good idea and that the more open the debate, the better.

"We are not in any way trying to destroy Social Security, we are, in fact, looking for ways to save it and strengthen it," Kline says.

And the latest Minnesota Poll in the Star Tribune finds President Bush's approval rating up slightly:

As Minnesotans prepare to listen to President Bush's assessment of the state of the union tonight, a bare majority approve of the job he is doing as president, but a plurality think the country is headed down the wrong track.

By 51 to 45 percent, Minnesotans approve of Bush's job performance, according to the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, conducted January 23-26, before Sunday's election in Iraq. By 49 to 39 percent, Minnesotans don't like the direction in which the country is going.

Both measures are improvements from last fall, when the close and bitter election campaign stirred up especially strong feelings. In October, approval and disapproval ratings were similar in Minnesota -- with 47 percent disapproving and 45 percent approving.

Those who felt the country was on the wrong track formed a solid 55 percent majority.

During his term, Bush's Minnesota approval rating has been as high as 87 percent in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and as low as 43 percent last July. His current rating is his highest since December 2003, when the capture of Saddam Hussein gave him a bump.

Bush's standing in Minnesota is almost exactly the same as his national numbers. The most recent Gallup poll, conducted Jan. 14-16, had nationwide approval versus disapproval at 51 to 46.

And finally, another possible opponent for DFL U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton. As Brian Bakst of the Associated Press reports, it's a familiar face:

Republican Rod Grams is pondering a political comeback with a possible challenge to Democratic Sen. Mark Dayton, who knocked him out of office in 2000.

Grams, 56, said he's going to take the next six weeks to two months to decide whether to enter the 2006 U.S. Senate race. He said he's already had a couple dozen people encourage him to take that step.

"I want to see if this pool of support is wide and if it's deep," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday evening.

Or at least wider and deeper than the pool of other potential candidates. Rep. Gil Gutknecht and Rep. Mark Kennedy are already considering a run for the Senate seat.