Critics might think differently with more knowledge

Editor, The Times:

In response to guest commentary "Judge Bybee should go" [Opinion, May 29]: When I read articles like this one, I can't help think how easy it is to take the "high road" on what the definition of torture might be.

I wonder if writers Howard Goodfriend, Kenneth Masters and Michael King know that Navy SEALs are routinely waterboarded as part of their training? Do they ever wonder if Daniel Pearl would have opted for "face slapping" -- described by the three attorneys as heinous torture --over the beheading that he received?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah are monsters responsible for thousands of deaths. Somehow waterboarding, face-slapping and wall-slamming seem like a small price to pay for their hideous behavior.

There are probably a dozen or so car bombs that go off every day around the world somewhere. If those calling for Judge Jay Bybee to resign had the unenviable task of collecting the remains of human beings blown apart by Mohammed and Zubaydah's friends, their views on interrogation techniques might be different.

-- Thomas M. Ancich, Seattle

Prosecute the real war criminals at the top

Leaders of the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., who were not "accused of violence but of bankrolling Hamas-controlled schools and social-welfare programs" get sentenced to 65 years in prison? ["Charity leaders to serve 65 years for aiding Hamas," News, May 28]
Sixty-five years in prison for funding schools and social-welfare programs that help out some of the most downtrodden people on Earth? Last time I checked, violent criminals in the U.S. get sentenced to five or 10 years.

Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza. Israel just killed 1,400 people in Gaza (and 300 children). The right-wing American supporters of Israel (aka the neo-cons) conned us into an unnecessary war in Iraq.

These sentences need to be overturned (or drastically reduced).

Then we need to prosecute the real war criminals: Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, David Addington, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the gang.

-- Aaron Thomas, Seattle

Wait for more information before endorsing

I am astounded at the speed of endorsement that The Times editorial staff laid upon the Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor ["A persuasive choice," Opinion, editorial, May 29].

Perhaps she is fully qualified, but the research into her background has barely begun and hearings are weeks off. There is no way, with the limited information thus far, that The Times can legitimately endorse her.

What do we know so far? She is intimately involved in the pending Supreme Court case of Frank Ricci, dealing with a reverse discrimination case of significance. She has had three of five of her majority opinions overturned by the Supreme Court. She has declared that by virtue of gender and race alone, a Latina woman would make better decisions than white males. Lastly, she has openly stated that the Circuit Court of Appeals is where "policy is made."

She may have solid, defensible rationale behind all of this, but shouldn't we hear her out first before endorsing? Why did you jump to this conclusion so fast? Could it be political?

-- Jim Johnson, Kirkland

Stand up for constitutional rights -- just say no

Short and sweet -- haven't read anything that justifies this nomination over any other possible candidate.

If you value your constitutional rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, as patriotic citizens it is our duty to stand up against this nomination.

The choice is clear -- just say NoTo SoTo.

-- Daniel Schitkovitz, Kirkland

Congress' efforts do little to bail out anything

In response to "National sales tax idea getting fresh look" on May 28 [page one]: Are we just kidding ourselves on the role of government and its opinion of spending tax money?

When we first started the auto bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that GM and Chrysler declaring bankruptcy was off the table. Billions of dollars later, GM is declaring bankruptcy --wow! Congress wants more tax money!

We need to get a grip and realize that they can only ruin health care and will further damage our economic future as we spend with no remorse.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Put your car where your mouth is

Now that President Obama also chairs Government Motors (formerly General Motors) ["The new GM -- Government Motors?" seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, May 27], will the liberal "glitterati" trade in their Benzes for Chevrolets? Will they trade their Maseratis for Malibus? Will Seattleites trade their Volvos for Camaros?

-- John Hession, Redmond

Cyclists should be street-smart before sharing the road

Though I understand bicyclists' so-called right to be on the road with traffic, what I fail to understand is riders' lack of a sense of street smarts. ["Bikers go online to map way to safety," NWThursday, May 28].

It's a folly to assume every motorist is sober, straight, paying attention, playing by the rules and cares about others. Sorry to rain on your parade, folks, but there are a lot of crazed and careless motorists out there. Every time you share the road, you put your life in peril. Why would you do that?

When you factor in the careless lane-cutting and light-running of bicycle riders, it's a recipe for disaster and instant death.

Bike riders need to rely on street smarts and not the government and often-ignored street signs to protect you.

-- Robert Hoyden, Renton

We have to start somewhere

Last week, Gov. Chris Gregoire made a line-item veto that removed early learning from House Bill 2261. While the bill was signed into law and broadened the definition of basic education, early learning was left out ["Smart leadership on early learning," Opinion, editorial, May 24]. As someone who is passionate about early learning, this news was surprising.

The governor noted that she chose to veto this section of the bill because it only expanded the definition of basic education for at-risk 3- and 4-year-olds. In signing the bill, the governor reaffirmed her commitment to early learning but "wanted quality early learning programs available to all children." This is an excellent point.

If Washington is interested in a vibrant future, we must invest in early learning for all children; however, we need to start somewhere. By prioritizing the children in our state who are at the greatest risk of not succeeding in school, we are developing a system that will eventually support the early learning needs of all children.

I strongly urge community members who want a brighter future for children to contact their elected representatives and request that we start investing in the foundation of this future: early learning.

-- Vijay Vashee, board chair, Foundation for Early Learning, Seattle

Fund diversion affects all outdoor enthusiasts

The recent article on the state Legislature's diversion of funds from the Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) account is right in calling attention to the desperate plight of trails managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Washington Department of Natural Resources ["Many of trail systems in Wash. may be lost," seattletimes.com, Local News, May 23]. But it was wrong in characterizing the NOVA program as being exclusively funded by off-road vehicle (ORV) users.

The NOVA program is a refund of taxes paid on gas used on roads the state does not maintain, such as logging roads that lead to hiking trailheads or the paved roads in national parks. Grants from the NOVA program are allocated according to the rate of contribution of the different user groups, including ORV riders, equestrians, hikers and families out for a picnic.

The NOVA program benefits hundreds of thousands of outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds, from all across the state. By implying that the program is the domain of a limited group, we miss the opportunity to do what is needed most to fix this problem -- to come together as a diverse community of recreation users and insist that the Legislature restore the NOVA program to its full account.

-- Elizabeth Lunney, executive director, Washington Trails Association, Seattle

In hard times, rich areas shouldn't request money

OK, so the state of California is sliding into the financial toilet due to the same two-thirds voting rule that hamstrings our Legislature from fixing state funding. At the same time, the tony San Diego suburb of La Jolla is spending $700,000 on recordings of barking dogs to keep seals off the beaches ["San Diego to blast seals from beach with dog noise," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, May 23].

At least the super-wealthy burg of Medina withdrew its application for federal stimulus funds to fix a fountain. I know what kind of shovel that's ready for!

What is it with the rich? Do they just not get it?

-- Stephen Lamphear, Burien

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

President Barack Obama announces federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor is his choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Obama's ploy to get re-elected

Editor, The Times:

I don't know whether President Obama's choice for Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, is someone who will uphold our Constitution to our benefit or try to rewrite it. What was obvious was that he was going to nominate a Hispanic woman.

You don't suppose getting re-elected was a factor? I'd guess he already has his agents looking for a gay Muslim in case he gets to make another nomination.

I never cease to be amazed at how this country can deify Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and totally ignore his "dream" at every opportunity.

-- Gary T. McGavran, Bellevue

Real issue is which values we want judge to represent

The widely accepted myth that the "rule of law" is neutral and that legal decisions should be devoid of personal values is absolute and total nonsense. If it were so, why would Justices Antonin Scalia and John Roberts consistently reach decisions that reflect "conservative" values while, based on the same set of facts and the same legal issues, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer reach decisions that reflect "liberal" values?

If legal decision-making is "neutral," those decisions would not be able to be predicted based on an individual's political or social values. But, although there are exceptions, we all know that in general we can predict how a given judge will rule in a given case, and that on certain types of issues, Justice Scalia will reach a different decision from Justice Breyer.

Now, for purely political reasons, the Republicans are again trotting out the myth of value-neutral legal decision-making in an attempt to impugn Judge Sonia Sotomayor for bringing "empathy" into her decision-making process. Will someone please stand up and point out that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito bring their conservative values and "empathy" into their decision-making.

The real issue isn't with value neutrality or the "proper role of a judge." The real issue is what values you want a judge to reflect in his or her decisions. Let's be honest about this.

-- Tom Armitage, Seattle

Many worries about judicial philosophy

I'm worried about President Obama's pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. I'm worried she won't follow her judge's oath, or the Constitution.

I love her life story and respect her achievements. I even like her smile, and pronouncing her name is kind of fun. But her judicial philosophy is wrong.

Every judge takes an oath to be unbiased and to treat everyone equally, whether rich or poor, brown or white. This oath states that judges must "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich" and rule "impartially." A judge should rule without empathy or malice.

Yet Sotomayor is a follower of "legal realism" -- a 20th-century judicial philosophy that says a judge should rule not from the law and Constitution, but from life experience. This is the "empathy" Obama wanted, a kind of psycho-sexual-social consciousness. Sotomayor thinks that a judge's individual sex and race should inform her decisions. Legal realism says the law is indeterminate rather than constitutionally bedrocked until amended.

And empathy is the job of legislators, not judges. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason: color blindness, objectivity, fairness. I worry that "empathy" is just code for favoritism and discrimination, like when Sotomayor ruled that minority firemen should be promoted over whites who did better on the test. I'm worried she's a race-conscious affirmative actionist.

I worry Sotomayor supports racial quotas and doesn't support gun rights. I worry she doesn't want America to be a meritocracy --where advancement and success comes by hard work and talent, rather than through favoritism, birth, ethnicity or class -- but a redistributor of wealth and rights.

I worry she'll consider extrajudicial things like identity politics and group think. I worry she won't protect the Constitution and individual rights. I worry she'll "interpret" the Constitution by infusing it with "progressive consciousness" rather than enforcing it as written.

-- Jeff E. Jared, Kirkland

Don't confuse empathy with sympathy

Those who find fault with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor because she said she would be an "empathetic" judge confuse empathy with sympathy.

Empathy would seem an ideal quality for any objective official trying to fit uncertain legal principles -- the only kind that get litigated -- to the circumstances of an individual case. Sympathy, on the other hand, is better left to the clergy.

Those who confuse the words should consult their dictionaries, on pain of being thought either unschooled or tone deaf.

-- William R. Andersen, Seattle

Shortsighted decisions would perpetuate problems

Wall Street is unhappy with Costco ["Wall St. slams Costco's results," Business, May 29]. To quote David Schick, retail analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, "Some retailers cut employees radically to make better [profit] numbers. Costco doesn't think of things that way. Their metronome is set to the year and decade, when others are set to the week and month and quarter."

Isn't the thinking of "the week and month and quarter" the sort of short-term Wall Street thinking that got us into this mess? There was a time when short-term gain was not seen as the Holy Grail and when employees mattered. So Costco is bucking the trend by thinking long term and caring about their employees, and Wall Street throws a fit? And that opinion, from Wall Street, causes the stock to tumble. What is wrong with this picture, and haven't we learned anything?

If short-term thinking -- which will lay more people off and help perpetuate the problems we are facing as a nation -- is the mantra that Wall Street will continue to preach then I fear for our future as a nation. We are riddled with debt from such short-term thinking, from the Holy Grail of huge profit margins always being attainable.

I am a Costco stockholder and member. I think I prefer to march to Costco's metronome.

-- Cathy Aldrich, Shoreline

$210 million profit nothing to complain about

Let me see if I understand: Costco made a profit of $210 million. Will someone please, given the state of the economy today, explain to me what the problem is?

They didn't lose money. They didn't close a bunch of stores. They didn't lay anyone off. They didn't raise their prices much so they've kept most of their customers. They still manage to make a good profit.

Shut up, buy a few shares of Exxon and get a grip!

-- Margaret S.F. Gibson, Monroe

Flight attendants complied with federal regulations

I read with interest the article in Thursday's Seattle Times about Talat Tahaira being removed from an exit-row seat on JetBlue ["Hearing begins involving FAA, JetBlue and local woman," NWThursday, May 28]. The FAA regulation governing exit-row seating -- or how it impacts this case -- was never mentioned in the article.

The rule is very clear about passengers seated in exit seats being able to use both hands, both arms and both legs, as well as having the ability to maintain balance and be strong and flexible enough to operate an exit and any slide mechanism. This, of course, in addition to being able to speak English and comprehend any instructions/commands provided by flight attendants.

The exit-seat rule was promulgated on the strict basis of safety of all passengers, in addition to the in-flight safety professionals (the flight attendants) who have the primary responsibility for such passenger safety. When and if the assistance of exit-row passengers were needed in a non-routine situation, there can be no debate regarding physical abilities and/or the comprehension of instructions provided.

In Tahaira's case, there were other seats available to allow her to lie down. If she were allowed to occupy the exit-row seats, those safety-conscious JetBlue flight attendants would have extreme difficulty in getting Tahaira out of the seats if an emergency situation would present itself.

Flight attendant Leah Stevens' comment that "all I was doing was my job" is absolutely correct, and to state otherwise is a false interpretation of the federal regulation and the vital safety role of flight attendants.

-- Jeanne Elliott, Northwest Airlines, Bellevue

U.S. needs an industrial policy

Dave Batker and Stephanie Celt make an excellent case against the pending trade agreement with Panama ["Obama should steer clear of Panama trade pact," Opinion, guest commentary, May 27]. That said, if Panama woke up tomorrow and resolved every objection we have with their notorious banking system, we would still have a failed trade policy.

In 1993, four presidents met to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement side letters. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush promised America millions of new manufacturing jobs, "access to markets," an end to illegal immigration and shared prosperity. Workers heard "access to markets" and assumed that meant access to consumers. Businesses heard "access to markets" and they knew it meant access to producers with cheap labor and no obligation to comply with health, safety or environmental rules. Simply put, this dog won't hunt.

We need a new trade policy. No country in the world is pure free-trade or pure protectionist. Every country has an industrial policy. We need an industrial policy.
When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, stop digging.

-- Stan Sorscher, Seattle

Missed opportunity to keep cans

Given that Seattle just concluded a new comprehensive contract with Waste Management to accept garbage, food/yard waste and recycling, why didn't the city include the same set of services at city parks as part of the required services provided by the winning bidder? ["City to park users: Take out the trash," page one, May 25]
Packing your waste out makes sense in a wilderness environment, but not in urban parks.

-- Michael Jacobson, Seattle

Cash incentive is no-brainer recycling solution

Why is our supposedly "green" state (or city) still ignoring the easiest way to clean up bottles and cans -- by simply slapping a nickel deposit on each container? ["From garbage to litter," Opinion, editorial, May 27]

This system works very well in most states and provinces, changing sloppy behavior and creating something that the legions of unemployed homeless can do for a little income. Who is standing in the way?

-- Ted Irwin, Seattle

Confusion about rights protecting rights

I have to agree with Todd Croteau ["Concealed weapons: Democrats carry them, too," Opinion, Northwest Voices, May 26] that we Democrats carry guns, too. What I don't agree with, and fail to see the logic of, is his statement that his Second Amendment right "is in place to protect the rights established under the First Amendment."

Somehow I think it's probably the other way around. If the First Amendment weren't around, Croteau wouldn't be able to express that opinion. And I don't carry a gun to protect my First Amendment rights.

-- Linda Knutson, Duvall

Not about blame, but seeking justice

In response to Chris Fruitrich's letter of May 28 ["Blaming Bush: Don't waste time looking back," Opinion, Northwest Voices], I would like an explanation as to how pursuing justice for alleged crimes, whether they be by Dick Cheney or Adolph Eichmann, be considered "ill-conceived"?

The Bush administration authorized torture. It has even admitted to it -- a clear violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Not forgetting all the other crimes committed by this administration, too numerous to mention here, but please --torture? Am I missing something? How does a society of conscience put this behind us without seeking justice?

-- Chris Anderson, Seattle

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Same-sex couple Shawn Higgins, right, and his partner Robert Franco embrace as they stand on Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco following the California Supreme Court's 6-1 decision to uphold Proposition 8, which makes it illegal for same-sex couples to marry in California.

Ruling is government-sponsored discrimination

Editor, The Times:

Tuesday, for the first time in the history of this country, the justices of the California Supreme Court publicly endorsed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as legal and constitutional ["California ruling stings gay-marriage backers," page one, May 27], and they should be ashamed to look their children in the eyes when they go home.

A founding principle of this country was once that every man and woman had the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no matter what path, lifestyle or religion they followed toward that goal. The fact that a slim majority of prejudiced voters from the so-called moral majority decide that labeling the LGBT community as "abominations" makes it all right to strip them of their rights does not make it legal or right.

I am a heterosexual 47-year-old man who will proudly stand side-by-side with the LGBT community to fight for its rights, because when one group of people can be devalued and dehumanized, then eventually we can all be.

To President Obama, "agent of change": Are we all still equal in the eyes of the law or not, and do you intend to tolerate government-sponsored discrimination?

We need change now.

-- Skot Pierson, Seattle

Which rights will be stripped next?

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutionally protected right to be legally married. One year later, the same court allowed to stand an initiative that stripped same-sex couples of this constitutionally protected right.

Now that the court has decreed that a simple majority can eliminate constitutionally protected rights, who will be next? Should the people of California reverse Loving v. Virginia and declare that marriage may exist only between people of the same race? Or maybe return to the days when Latinos where prohibited from owning property in the state? Might they establish a state religion and make it a criminal action to worship in any fashion other than what is allowed by law?

The door has been opened. Are we prepared for what will inevitably walk through next?

-- Gregory Gadow, Seattle

Europe walks America's talk

Musing over the latest triumph in the apparently endless efforts of Americans to deny equal rights to other Americans, I wonder how it is that Europeans, with centuries of authoritarian rule in their histories, walk the American talk so much more easily than we do.

-- John Medlin, Seattle

All families deserve equal rights

I refuse to sign Referendum 71. As a lesbian and a friend to other homosexuals, I believe it is vital that we keep the rights given through the 2009 Domestic Partnership Bill.

My heterosexual parents are against this referendum as well.

They taught me to be accepting of all people long before I came out to myself. My mother's best friend has a longtime partner and children. I spent a significant time with her family as well as with the families of my parent's heterosexual friends throughout my childhood. From my experience, there is nothing extremely different between them.

My parents and my homosexual and heterosexual friends have been wonderful examples of families. It is very important to me for all of us to be equal. I grew up knowing no other way.

-- Emily McDade, Seattle

Would remedy our global trade disadvantage

There is another reason for considering the value-added tax (VAT) ["National sales tax idea getting fresh look," page one, May 28]: It would make us more competitive in the global marketplace.

At present, under World Trade Organization rules, our trading partners, who rely principally on the VAT, can exempt their exports from the VAT and charge a "border tax" equivalent to the VAT on imports. Since the average VAT is about 20 percent, this puts us at a great disadvantage.

The VAT could be made less regressive by giving to everyone a tax rebate that would be equivalent to what those in poverty would pay. It would have the added benefit of eliminating the underground economy, which accounts for many billions in taxes that are evaded. It would also largely eliminate the IRS from most people's lives, since the VAT is collected from businesses.

-- Edward Golden, Everett

Ageist assumptions ignore value of career experience

In his column Wednesday, Danny Westneat celebrates a new day when Seattle Public Schools will be free to lay off older teachers with seniority instead of newer, younger teachers with less experience ["Shake-up in schools coming soon," NWWednesday, May 27]. This marvelous new concept is founded on ageist assumptions and heralds practices that are illegal under pesky federal and state laws.

The effort by a small but vocal activist group to do away with seniority as a basis for retention assumes that older teachers are often past their heyday and are thus inherently less capable, ready to be tossed out on the dust heap. Long-term career experience is equated with deteriorating ability and loss of competence.

Overlooked is the value of accumulated career experience, and the requirement of continuing education that exceeds that of most occupations. Left out is the question of what happens to those who have dedicated their working lives to careers in service of educating our children with the expectation they will, in turn, have at least the guarantee of a secure retirement. Newer teachers to whom this effort appeals may also ask themselves how they will feel when they reach the time when they, too, are regarded as outmoded and ready for the dust bin.

I am sorry that in his zeal to promote this change, Westneat failed to give voice to these counterarguments and left out the views of those who have spent a lifetime in the field of education.

-- Ken Camper, Seattle

Unrestrained bill creation will kill dollar's value

The article "Will sales of T-bills continue to flourish?" [Business, May 27] asks the question, explains that we have quadrupled our debt over the last year -- necessitating the urgent need to sell newly created Treasury bills (T-bills) -- and tries to assure us that "economists believe that the risk is low."

The deep concern revealed by Associated Press writer Martin Crutsinger is whether China will continue to buy even more U.S. T-bills and bonds. Bear in mind that China, Russia and Brazil have recently expressed the desire to establish a new international currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

If the United States continues to double or quadruple its unrestrained creation of dollars, the eventual result will be to reduce the value the dollar, and therefore T-bills, to 20 to 50 percent of what it was worth in 2008.

This administration needs to learn the fundamentals before it is too late. If it is true that 47 percent of the U.S. Treasury notes and bonds are held by foreign nations, a mass exodus may trigger the same collapse of the dollar as happened to the U.S. stock market in 2008 when the foreign investors pulled out.

-- Gerald N. Yorioka, Mill Creek

Dignified death vindicates devoted crusader

When I read of Linda Fleming's death last week ["Choosing when to die was 'truly what she wanted to do,' " page one, May 23], I immediately thought that after all these years, Sue Baron has been vindicated.

When I was director of marketing at the Olympia Brewing Company in the 1970s, I brought Sue Baron to the brewery to handle media and advertising purchases. She was excellent, and we remained friends after we had both moved on to other activities. I was shocked, several years later, to find out from her that she had developed bone cancer. She turned the pain and suffering of that experience into a crusade for dignified death.

She was clear in her desire to die. None of the doctors she consulted could offer more than additional amputations of body parts and stronger, less-effective medicine. She took it upon herself to devote her remaining years as a vocal and persuasive spokeswoman for revision of the laws and codes of ethics that kept her alive and in constant pain against her will.

The move by the people of Washington to allow choice in the continuation or end of life is a testament to people like Sue Baron. On her behalf, I give thanks.

-- Richard D. Harvey, Mountain Lakes, N.J.

"Miracle" of prayer took years of pain

A recent letter writer wrote in concerning assisted suicide. He felt a better option is to pray to God for a peaceful death ["Assisted suicide: better option is to pray for peace," seattletimes.com, Northwest Voices, May 26]. God will hear your prayer and answer it.
I worked in a nursing home for four years before I went to college. I saw this miracle happen with my own eyes.

One of our residents, whose name I remember but won't tell out of respect for her privacy, prayed every day that I was in her room. As soon as I came in her room she would say, "Kill me! God, please kill me! Oh God, please kill me!"

After a few years, she died.

I would rather choose my own death at my own time rather than relying on God for help if I am terminally ill. The only thing worse than a Bible-thumping fool telling me how to die is a whole bunch of Bible-thumping fools telling me how to live.

-- Dennis Doucette, Auburn

Chief went back on his word

I am writing in regard to the May 25 article "Muslims criticize producers of Seattle police training program" [NW Monday].

First of all, the headline is misleading; it is not just Muslims who are critical of the Seattle Police Department using this program. About 70 concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews and Muslims, attended a meeting with the SPD on May 7. Most of us, including several members of Jewish Voice for Peace, objected to the use of a program created by a center that promotes hatred and fear of Muslims.

At this meeting, Chief John Diaz informed us that SPD would only use this training if the Simon Wiesenthal Center agreed to have its name taken off all the materials. When questioned, he reiterated several times that if the SWC refused to have its name taken off the training, the SPD would not use this training.

Diaz went back on his word when he decided to use the training with the SWC name on it. The SPD did not get "caught in the middle" of a dispute. Even after hearing community concerns, they chose to use a program created by a group that endorses hatred of a minority religious group.

As a Jewish resident of Seattle, I object to the department's implicit support of a group that advocates bigotry.

-- Wendy Elisheva Somerson, Jewish Voice for Peace, Seattle Chapter

When minority group is target, all should care

Although I may not be happy about the Seattle Police Department's decision to use a training developed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center despite the opposition of NAACP-Seattle and numerous church groups, it certainly has the right to do so. However, to dismiss this communitywide concern stemming from the center's active promotion of hate as "someone else's feud" is indefensible.

When a minority group is targeted by a powerful interest group, we should all be concerned. When an organization produces rhetoric questioning a minority group's allegiance to the land it inhabits and promotes conspiracy theories of secret plans to subversively take over that land, it should be strongly condemned.

All of that was done by the Nazis to Jews, and ironically is now being done by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to Muslims through the films "Ever Again" and "The Third Jihad."
Because of its activities, the center loses all credibility to teach tolerance.

There is a line between educating the public about an issue of importance and spreading hate. Where is the center's hatred of gang violence, which takes some 15,000 American lives annually? Where is its condemnation of hate speech by a controversial Dutch politician in U.S. synagogues? Where is its criticism of the Tamil Tigers, which according to research by Dr. Robert Pape, have committed by far the largest number of suicide attacks from 1980-2003?

The facts show that the center unfairly targets Muslims and for it to teach tolerance to our police forces is wrong.

-- Muhammad Ayub, Olympia

Article missed grass-roots community effort

Tuesday's front-page story on St. Edward State Park ["History echoes in the decaying halls of St. Edward Seminary," page one, May 26] portrayed a sad nostalgia too common in American life today. It's a hopelessness propped up by the empty wish that someone else will bring about change.

The piece utterly missed the people in the community who felt St. Ed's sadness and have turned it into action.

It missed that the creative playground was the result of a grass-roots community effort. It missed legislators like Ruth Kagi, who fought for the funding to arrest the most serious decay of the seminary. It missed the mountain bikers and hikers who do trail maintenance. It missed the city of Kenmore, which started a great summer concert series. It missed the group dedicated to the use and preservation of the park and the volunteers who have, for two years, run a free environmental-education program on a shoestring budget with the long-term vision of using the park and its historic building as a world-class environmental school focused on sustainability.

America doesn't have to be a place where we only gawk at decay and past misdemeanors. It's a place where we are empowered by our liberty to do something about it.

-- Bill Pierce, Kenmore

Reports only scare people into getting flu shots

The news media have been diligent about reporting the deaths from swine flu, which have now reached 15 in the United States, with a worldwide total of about 100 ["Swine-flue death in Chicago reported," News, May 26].

What about those 36,000 annual deaths from flu that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) keeps warning us about every single year? Where are those thousands of deaths occurring and why aren't they being reported? If there really are 36,000 deaths from common strains of flu annually, why aren't they worthy of the same coverage as the swine flu which, so far, pales in comparison in terms of mortality rates?

I think the answer is that they really don't exist. The CDC includes all deaths from pneumonia in its flu-death numbers, which is not accurate, but it's a way to frighten people into getting flu shots.

-- Carrie Thiel, Redmond

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / The Associated Press

Federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor is President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Editor, The Times:

I predict the Republican Party will drive the final nail into its coffin by giving federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor a hard time, thereby alienating all 44 million Hispanic folks in the U.S. for years to come. The irony is that so many Hispanics share traditional Republican beliefs in hard work, self-reliance and family values.

Voter registration among Hispanics will continue to accelerate, and that's good news for Democrats. The only chance Republicans have will be to get rid of the screwball fringe now running the party and install moderates who will appeal to moderate voters, of whom there are many. Fat chance.

-- Jim White, Lake Forest Park

Cheerleading orders based on faulty science

The Times, once again, cheerleads rather than analyzes the executive orders issued by Gov. Chris Gregoire regulating emissions based on faulty science ["Real momentum on climate change," editorial, Opinion, May 25]. Just because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Congress agree doesn't make it right.

Gregoire knows she has no support in the Legislature for cap-and-trade or other damaging regulations. So, she implements her ideas through executive order -- and The Times applauds!

It is scary when a newspaper, which is supposed to be protecting us from our elected officials, instead throws in with them to deprive us of our rights and property.

-- Janet Suppes, Bellevue

Missing cap on interest rates

What a disappointment! I was cheering with my friends and family at the passage of the Senate credit-card bill, but today I am wondering what happened ["What credit-card bill means," Business, May 21]. How did we let a cap on interest rates get killed?

Of course we are grateful for some of the reforms, but we are all being bled by outrageous interest rates -- rates we would never have signed up for! This is not good for America. Please put the interest cap back in.

-- Patrick Dwyer, Seattle

Unbalanced reporting ignores Cheney

The Washington Post article carried in the May 22 Seattle Times is a masterpiece of one-sided journalism ["President, Cheney duel over how to fight terror," page one].

Numerous Obama quotes and commentator quotes completely swamp the single Cheney quote, which noted that the central debate is about whether the comprehensive Bush strategy for fighting terrorism has worked and should be continued, or whether the 9/11 attack should be considered a one-time event of insufficient importance to sustain a continued wartime effort.

With regard to the Obama administration's publication of memos about the details of enhanced interrogation techniques while withholding the results of such techniques, the following Cheney quotes were omitted:

"For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has the right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers."

"We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al-Qaida. We didn't know about al-Qaida's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know."

"... to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe."

-- Edward Wittmann, Seattle

Most believe torture is justified

I take issue with David Brooks' statement that torture/enhanced interrogation is morally offensive to most of us and is counterproductive ["Obama (and Bush) defeat Cheney," Opinion, May 23]. Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, the real question is: Was it justified?

When it is used judiciously on those who have information that can save American lives, it is. Whether it yields no information, false information or solid intelligence, I and most others believe it's justified.

From what we've been told by credible sources in both administrations, it was used very selectively and did provide information that probably saved American lives. The techniques were used to extract information, not for retribution, and no lasting damage or injury was caused.

As for American values, let's put it in perspective. During wartime, we have bombed infrastructure, causing civilian casualties; targeted places where terrorists were hiding, but women and children were sometimes there, too; we used the A-bomb on cities to force an early end to a war; we executed American traitors without a trial; etc.

The idea that a few terrorists have been subjected to temporary discomfort somehow damages American values and is morally offensive is ludicrous. Brooks seems to admire the packaging of policy by Obama more than the substance of Bush/Cheney.

-- Ted Madison, Redmond

Don't waste time looking back

Please pass along a tip of the reader's cap to Leonard Pitts Jr. for his column recommending against investigations or prosecutions for members of the Bush administration ["Before beating up on Bush and Co., look in the mirror," Opinion, May 24].

Nothing we can do now will undo what transpired over the last eight years. It would be a major-league mistake to divert any congressional attention away from real efforts to solve the nation's problems and preparations for the future.

I will admit that seeing Dick Cheney in an orange jumpsuit might make me smile, but right now the public should not be clamoring for some ill-conceived "justice." Let's sit back, look to the future and see if we can answer the question: Was the nation's worst president Andrew Johnson or George W. Bush?

-- Chris Fruitrich, Seattle

Protect bears in their natural habitat

My oh my, there is a black bear at the Girl Scouts' Camp River Ranch in Carnation ["Bear captured; another still out there," NWSaturday, May 23]. Quick, call the State Department of Fish and Wildlife to scare it off. And if it returns, Capt. Bill Hebner will destroy it.

Just where do you expect these bears to live? It's probably the same black bear that has passed through my yard across the river twice this year, along with a cougar and bobcat. Here in Carnation, we live in the woods and like it that way. If the animals that live in the same woods bother you so much, move to the city. Maybe Camp River Ranch should relocate to Seattle Center.

Secure your trash and calm down; there's no reason to kill the bear. Protect the nature you purport to respect.

-- Michael Fisette, Carnation

Strict law deprives kids of summer play

Ridiculous! The Virginia Graham Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act was enacted to prevent drowning by body/hair entrapment from the suction of recirculating water through main drains. It will possibly save a few lives. But it was politically backed (who could vote against it?, tightly worded (no allowance for common-sense solutions) and the cost of compliance is not addressed, except for the hint of federal-assistance funds from a presently unfunded source.

Now city kids will be deprived from the pleasure of wading pools because city parks personnel find it easier and prudent not to challenge the King County Health Department storm troopers and their rigid interpretations and enforcement of the law ["Around the Northwest: 11 wading pools closed over safety," NWThursday, May 21].

Permitting fees amount to at least $346 and $173.39 per hour for extended plan reviews and inspections. Costs for a plumber, electrician and an engineer add up to several thousand dollars per pool. And the hassle cost to other owners and operators of pools, including our condominium association, aren't included.

Simpler methods to avoid entrapment could be implemented at almost no cost.
Pumps and fountains could be turned off during operating hours and the filtration done separately. Any sort of construction that reduced the velocity of the water and separated drain openings would do. Boulders around the drain, a circle of side-placed concrete blocks, an oversized additional drain cover or other American-ingenuity-inspired methods could allow the kids to safely play.

There needs to be some way for common sense to be exercised to meet the intent of the law without the outlandish costs. The federal law and King County Health Department's enforcement tenacity are not improving my quality of life, nor that of the neighborhood kids.

-- Terry Slaton, Federal Way

Greg Gilbert / The Seattle Times

About 50 people protest outside the University of Washington Medical Center on the first day of the "Death with Dignity" law in March.

Editor, The Times:

I read with great interest the article by Sandi Doughton on assisted suicide ["Choosing when to die was 'truly what she wanted to do,' " page one, May 23]. As I finished the article I was filled with both anger and elation at the same time.

I have always been an advocate of the "Death with Dignity" law, and even more so after I saw my mother die from excruciating pain as cancer took over her body. No amount of morphine could eradicate her suffering and pain.

I took great umbrage with Chris Carlson's comments. To call Linda Fleming "egotistical" goes beyond the pale. His arrogance is self-serving and self-righteous. The issue is very simple: If he is against assisted suicide, then he need not participate. It should remain a choice.

His comment, "The vast majority of us accept the natural conclusions of our lives," is not a reality. Medical treatments and interventions are not natural. If the vast majority accept the natural conclusion of life, the law would not have passed.

I can find nothing in the Bible for or against suicide.

My new heroine is Linda Fleming.

-- Joan Smallwood, Seattle

A slippery slope of devaluing life

Much of any of our lives could be construed as a "waste of money," or even time and oxygen.

Who should decide what we are worth at any given moment? Whether it be through malice, best of intentions or unwitting signals, when society gives permission for us to remove ourselves from the world, we begin to devalue our own and others' lives.

And so begins the slippery slope of legalized assisted suicide.

-- Polly Terman, Edmonds

Let others live in peace and privacy

I was appalled to read Chris Carlson's comments on Linda Fleming's choice of a lucid, painless death. A "sad day," he called it. What was it going to be after a few more months of pain and debility, when she died in a drugged haze that would have compromised her spiritual passage -- a happy day? Just because that was his idea of how she should die?

He called her choosing the time and manner of her own death "egotistical" because, well, most people don't do that. Apparently, his objection to her most intensely personal choice rests on nothing more than his preference for mere conformity. How egotistical is that?

Carlson and his ilk infuriate me -- what is it with these opponents of this and that who simply cannot let other people live their lives in peace and privacy?

-- John Boehrer, Seattle

Better option is to pray for peace

I do not know how God will judge a person who commits suicide. A better option, I believe, is to pray to God for a peaceful death.

God will hear your prayer and answer it. Then you will have the chance to die with dignity without committing suicide.

-- Mike Marley, Seattle

City is less safe when police use undue force

I am saddened to hear that the Sheriff's Office investigation found that Deputy Matthew Paul's assault on Christopher Harris did not violate departmental policy. If that is so, after viewing the video, I think the majority of us would agree that it's time departmental policy was changed.

Citizens should be free to walk in the city without fear of attack by police. Arrest because of mistaken identity is one thing; unpleasant but easily rectified. Brutal assault because of mistaken identity is another. This should not happen.

I have a 14-year-old son who has been out of control at times. He punched me once and I called the police. After watching them smash his face into a wall and kneel on his shoulders to apply handcuffs, I won't be calling them again.

Police officers who use undue force on teenagers and "suspects" put the rest of us in danger because we will be much less willing to rely on police when needed.

-- Victoria Barbosa, Seattle

Nothing more than a hypocrite

Colin Powell insists that the Republican Party must be more inclusive and mainstream to remain viable in the future ["Powell delivers counterattack against Cheney and Limbaugh," page one, May 25]. Yet he refused to vote for John McCain, a paragon of moderate inclusiveness.

For Powell to claim to still be a Republican is equivalent to a man with a half-eaten hamburger in his hand to claiming to still be a vegetarian.

-- Scott Martin, Woodinville

Congressional support falls victim to fear

During the presidential campaign, John McCain and Barack Obama both vowed they would close Guantánamo. Now, McCain is leading the opposition to closure ["Guantánamo consensus dissolves," News, May 24].

McCain, all the Republicans and most Democrats are now complaining that the prisoners would be a threat if brought into the U.S. They are all falling in line with the macho/fear gospel (a true oxymoron if ever there was one) of former Vice President Dick Cheney and radio loudmouth Rush Limbaugh. With Cheney's towering unpopularity, you'd expect most members of Congress -- certainly the Democrats -- to call it what it is: a totally inane opposition move.

But Democrats -- even with a filibuster-proof majority -- are as clueless as Republicans are destructive. If Democrats had all 100 seats in the Senate, they still couldn't muster a majority for their president.

I truly feel sorry for President Obama. He has to deal with Congress on a daily basis. It's like trying to control the inmates in an asylum.

If Congress reflects the will of the people, the only conclusion is that the entire U.S. population is below average. The average congressman is surely below average.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

An ideal place for detainees

There is some concern about President Obama's decree closing Gitmo by the end of the year. Where are the prisoners to go if no other country will accept them and are they to be released in this country?

Fortunately, there is a large building that is exclusively under federal control, surrounded by a fence and large gardens with complete security and open to constant vigilance. It has all the modern conveniences, such as exercise rooms and libraries. It is fully staffed and under control of a sympathetic owner who lives on premises. I'm sure it would be the ideal location.

The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C.

-- James Keefer, San Francisco

Hateful organization not ideal to teach tolerance

Consider the irony: The city of Seattle's Race and Social Justice Initiative states that it aims to "challenge institutional racism." As part of the initiative, the Seattle Police Department has contracted with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which actively promotes the hate and fear of Arab-Americans and American-Muslims through films and lectures at college campuses ["Muslims criticize procedures of police training program," NWMonday, May 25].

The Center held a public screening two weeks ago on its premises of the controversial Clarion Fund's latest film, "The Third Jihad." It screens on college campuses the film "Ever Again," which blames Europe's crime problems on its Muslim population, and held a lecture in October 2008 on the UCLA campus asserting that Islamic teachings are inherently evil.

Not quite the ideal organization to teach tolerance to our police force.

-- Bilal Aijazi, Bellevue

Don't disarm legal carriers with obscure boundary

The editorial titled " 'Penalties' tacked on to credit-card bill," Opinion, May 22] stated simply that "guns in national parks are a bad idea." Why? Because "guns in the parks are a recipe for trouble. Park visitors are not allowed to shoot bears or any other animals, so there is little else to fire at other than people."

It's ironic. The editorial board thinks that if we allow guns to be carried by visitors in national parks, criminal activity will increase. However, with a ban, the only visitors who will have a guns there will be criminals.

Why not let people who carry within the law of the state not be denied just because they cross some obscure boundary? We need more "good guys" to be carrying; otherwise, only the "bad guys" will.

-- William Weaver, Kirkland

Legalizing marijuana better for state than income tax

I read Joni Balter's column on how Washington is looking toward voting in an income tax and Oregon is looking at putting on a sales tax ["The tax is greener on the other side," Opinion, May 21]. Yes, let's hit up the overburdened taxpayers once again.

Our state and local governments seem to think that the well is bottomless for raising money. I think they should look into more innovative revenue-generating sources other than the standard sales and income taxes. Liquor is the second-highest revenue-generating source for the state of Washington. Why not open the liquor stores on Sundays and allow liquor to be sold in grocery stores?

Another way the state could generate income is to --oh no -- legalize marijuana. Millions of dollars of illegal marijuana is destroyed by our state each year; this could be millions of dollars of revenue that would go into the state coffers instead of up in smoke by our local forces. The state and local governments could save millions of dollars by not sending our police force out to catch the perpetrators using weed.

Another source for our state to generate income is to legalize prostitution. Come on -- this is the oldest profession in the world, and folks, it isn't going away no matter how much money we throw at it. In Europe it is legal, monitored and taxed, and would be another great source of income for the state and local governments.

Let's be real and logical. Would you rather see marijuana and prostitution legalized, taxed and monitored, or would you all like to pay a state income tax? We can put away our Puritan beliefs now, be grown-ups and look to these options to help our schools and build those tunnels and bridges we so desperately need. How about a health-care system for all of the residents of Washington state? Legalize prostitution and marijuana and this could be a reality as well.

Citizens, let's come out of the dark ages and think of our future citizens and how we can help them now.

-- Robert Sondheim, Seattle

Start by reducing seal population

With regard to saving the salmon, the first place to start is by drastically reducing the seal population in Puget Sound ["Salmon plan needs more work, judge says," NWTuesday, May 19].

I live on Hood Canal and have had property here since 1957. Salmon used to be plentiful here, but with the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, seals began to proliferate and the salmon began to disappear.

Seals feed on salmon. Right now what we're really doing is spending millions to help bring the salmon back in order to feed more seals. It makes no sense whatsoever to let one protected species devour another protected species.

-- Joy Mauser, Hansville

king5.com

This screen grab of a King 5 TV video shows Christopher Harris after he was pushed into a wall by a police officer in Seattle. A video of the incident is also available on seattletimes.com.

The intentional slam-tackling of Christopher Harris by a burly deputy was no accident ["Sheriff: Hard hit not criminal," page one, May 22].

Only a faulty observation of a third party who fingered Harris resulted in the deputy doing the dumb thing. Running from a big guy with a gun is not unusual.

The arresting process was egregious as seen on tape and was not an accident.

-- Burt Harwood, Longview

Action not criminal -- if a deputy does it

If any citizen had pushed a deputy and it resulted in the deputy being in a coma, wouldn't the sheriff's office be calling it a crime?

-- James Thiele, Seattle

Police spokesman shows no remorse

Let us, for a moment, set aside the issue of whether or not the King County deputy who dealt Christopher Harris a "bone-crushing" slam into a wall was justified or not. The department's spokesman, Sgt. John Urquhart, needs to be removed as the media interface.

When this man gets in front of the cameras, microphones and reporters' notepads, he has the visage of the angry little man. There is no attempt to console, no tone of remorse and a tense visual countenance of arrogance and anger. His attitude seems to be, "I'm way too busy for this nonsense. Our officers never make mistakes; now get out of my face."

If the department wants to sell its side to the public, they picked the wrong man to do it.

-- Jack W. Mathews Jr., Stanwood

Deputy angling for job

Rich Medved, chief deputy of King County Assessor Scott Noble and a longtime Snohomish County voter, wants the voters of King County to believe that his move to King County was not connected to his running for office.

Let's look at the time frame. Medved registered as a King County voter on March 31. Noble was involved in a vehicular assault on Jan. 18. He pleaded guilty March 19. This all occurred before Medved registered to vote in King County.

He now states he is "getting caught in the crossfire" over when Nobel will resign ["Deputy tells Noble: Do 'not prolong this thing,' " NWFriday, May 22]. He is the same person who is putting pressure on the assessor to resign and "not prolong this thing." It has been written that Noble had a drinking problem. Why did Medved cover this up all these years?

I think King County voters can do a lot better in choosing a new assessor.

-- Bob Blanchard, Redmond

Demand better options

Health-care reform can mean anything. What the public gets depends on what we ask for from Congress and the president.

The ridiculous and counterproductive segmentation of health-care providers into hundreds of lists and of patients into cherry-picked risk pools by parasitic middlemen must stop.

We must demand single-payer health care or, failing that, at least a public option, which must be:

• Universal -- everybody included, no exceptions;
  
• Publicly financed and privately delivered;
  
• Comprehensive -- all necessary medical care;
  
• Portable -- independent of employment status, place of residence, health status or age;
  
• Accessible -- free choice of any qualified practitioner.

My husband has access to those things with Medicare, so he gets to keep our doctor of the last 25 years. Being stuck with private insurance, I will have to give him up when my COBRA eligibility expires.

-- Martha Koester, Seattle

Obama must fulfill single-payer promise

Anything other than a single-payer system will make President Obama a liar. He ran on the single-payer system and now is caving in.

He thinks he can trust the insurance companies? Come on, now, get real. Vote only for single-payer --but make it better than Medicare. Medicare is not for the poor, either.

-- Judy Pintar, Issaquah

Sick of former V.P. peddling lies

We are puzzled. Why are the news media, especially the major TV networks, devoting so much time in covering Dick Cheney when they know he is not a credible source? ["President, Cheney duel over how to fight terror," page one, May 22] This is the man who lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

He knowingly lied, using as a source Ahmad Chalabi, who told the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi was not a credible source and he knew it. Cheney was willing to push the president and the CIA to use this information to launch the Iraq war.

We are still suffering the consequences of that disaster. The media should tell him to go peddle his lies somewhere else.

One last comment: He should volunteer to be waterboarded so he can claim it is not torture.

-- Anne and Bill Dillon, Kent

Thin line between a hero and a war criminal

It defies logic how 39 seconds of waterboarding isn't torture, but 40 seconds is. It's bizarre to even consider such a notion.

Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard. Now, let's take a ticking time-bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard who you know knows stuff that can save American lives. The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling but not talking after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds, the guy is about to give up the vital, lifesaving information -- but he doesn't, not quite yet. So, with every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds and the guy gives up his stuff.

Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy didn't give up the stuff? Does it matter?

-- Steve Bralowerm, Seattle

Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press

U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Bill Mesta replaces an official picture of outgoing President George W. Bush with that of President Barack Obama in the headquarters of the U.S. Naval Station in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Cheney makes Obama look like amateur

Editor, The Times:

After listening to both Barack Obama and Dick Cheney, it's a slam dunk knowing who has the right idea for protecting America ["President, Cheney duel over how to fight terror," page one, May 22].

We had a team of seasoned national-security professionals who knew although it would be ugly, we needed to do whatever was necessary to protect America from al-Qaida. This includes waterboarding if necessary. We are in a war, not a game of powder-puff football as the ACLU and leftists believe.

On the other hand, we now have a commander in chief whose greatest foreign-policy experience was being a community organizer. A man who is more interested in the opinion of socialist Europe than his own citizens. A man who goes around bowing to Saudi kings and apologizing to the world about everything and anything we do.

No doubt Iran, North Korea and like nations just sit back and laugh about what an inept, wet-behind-the-ears neophyte we have at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Emboldening terrorism is a job for which Obama is well qualified. Other than that, he's an empty suit.

-- Mike Ballsmith, Snoqualmie

Middle East bullying only causes terror

Has it ever occurred to anyone that it is the "anti-terror" policies of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration that put us and the entire country in danger in the first place?

Why is it so difficult to understand that our military adventurism and bullying for oil in the Middle East by the Bushes has created more terrorists? We have billions to pay Halliburton but no money for our schools? Are we really that stupid?

-- Dennis Su, Mercer Island

Cheney's argument is flawed

"President, Cheney duel over how to fight terror" quotes former Vice President Dick Cheney's argument that the Bush/Cheney "comprehensive strategy has worked and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as before." By "has worked," he presumably means that there have been no attacks similar to 9/11.

One of the best descriptions of the fallacy in this argument was enunciated by Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court in a case involving voting rights. Roberts said, "That's like the old elephant whistle. You know, 'I have this whistle to keep away the elephants.' You know, well, that's silly. 'Well, there are no elephants, so it must work.' "

-- Robert and Susan Stanton, Seattle

Gitmo detainees will teach techniques in U.S. prisons

All this talk about how the more-secure detention facilities in this country can be used to effectively incarcerate Guantánamo detainees misses the biggest threat: their ability to teach other prisoners the techniques that could be used to cause great harm to this county.

Prisons tend to radicalize a significant number of detainees, most of who will eventually be released. The combination of those detainees and someone trained to commit horrific acts of destruction is fraught with all sorts of dangers.

-- Bill Hirt, Bellevue

Mental-health system needs adequate resources

I read with interest the story on James Williams' guilty plea ["New Year's Eve knife attacker pleads guilty to murder," seattletimes.com, Local News, May 22]. Missing in this and many other stories involving persons with mental illness is any discussion of why these terrible and unfortunate events happen and how such events might be prevented in the future.

The community mental-health system has been under-resourced and overpopulated for many years. One effect of this system under siege is limited ability to really look after people in need. Enormous caseloads of challenging people means some do not get the help they need.

Another effect may be that there are limited or no treatment choices for consumers within that system. Some choose no services when faced with few or no choices. A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate in any area of health care.

It may never be known why Williams acted as he did in such a senseless and violent manner. What is known is that our public system of care can do better -- much better. It is long past time for adequate resources to be made available for it to do so.

-- Jonathan R. Beard, licensed clinical social worker, Seattle

Blaming only one side widens the rift

Lynne Varner's opinion column ["Majoring in the minors," Opinion, May 20] seems to be trying to say that both Seattle Public Schools and the teachers union the should stop focusing on little stuff and take care of the big stuff. It appears that she is trying to take both sides to task. Yet her piece only lambastes the union, calling the union members "whiners," and "lost in the minutiae," claiming that they are making "plays on our sympathies."

The only criticism she makes of the district is that it gets distracted by all those terrible union complaints, implicitly putting even the blame for the district's distraction on the union.

The Times continues to be a cheerleading squad for the administration, rarely, if ever, recognizing the legitimate issues facing the rank-and-file educators. When you argue for the educators and administration to put aside their petty differences and work toward benefiting children, it would be helpful if you would not widen the rifts between administration and staff by ignoring the mistakes made by the administration and amplifying those of the staff.

-- Gordon Macdougall, Seattle

Seahawks: just say no

Regarding the possibility of Michael Vick coming to the Seahawks ["Most Seahawks mum on Vick," seattletimes.com, Sports, May 21] --is Seattle really prepared to trade moral values and integrity for a quarterback who was tried and convicted of committing unconscionable and despicable acts against dogs? The Atlanta Falcons said "no way!"

Those who say the man did his time and deserves a second chance are forfeiting Seattle's respect in the NFL, AFL and the nation for the prospect of a winning season. The Seahawks will not only lose many supporters but bring shame to this beautiful city. This is a serious situation and should not be taken lightly.

-- Becky McEnerney, Kingston

Focus on the cause: bad tax system

The guest column on May 20 by Andrew Kwatinetz ["Teacher retention should be based on effectiveness, not seniority," Opinion] proposes that Seattle's teachers be laid off based on their "performance evaluations" instead of seniority. That way, he says, "two popular, highly effective" teachers at his daughter's elementary school would have jobs next year.

He also states that the layoffs are "understandable" because "we are all making sacrifices."

No, the layoffs are not understandable. They are a tragedy caused by Washington state's inadequate and regressive tax system. State funding is so low -- 45th in the nation -- that Washington's class sizes are now fifth-highest in the nation. This was before the layoffs.

And not all are making sacrifices. Wealthy individuals and large companies pay low taxes in Washington, which is one of five states without an income tax. That's why the funding is so inadequate and why we are having massive teacher layoffs.

As to who is laid off, if performance evaluations were used, principals -- who write the evaluations -- would simply lay off any teacher they disliked, no matter how effective. Perhaps an unpopular teacher who demands "too much" from parents and students?

The teaching profession will not be made more attractive if teachers have to needlessly worry whether they have a job or if they have to make themselves more popular than their colleagues. If Kwatinetz and his organization want to keep good teachers, they should focus on the causes of the layoffs and demand adequate funding from a reformed tax system.

-- Kraig Peck, Woodinville

Both performance and seniority should be factors

The response to Andrew Kwatinetz's guest column has so far fallen along the predictable pro-union/anti-union lines. I would like to suggest there is a middle road.

As a parent and taxpayer, I find a contract specifically precluding performance indicators from personnel decisions to be extreme under any circumstances. It is also unreasonable --and in fact rarely practiced in the private world -- to scrap seniority completely in favor of performance measures. However, we have every right and every reason to ask for some consideration of performance to be included.

What if we started by asking that 10 percent of the criteria be based on a performance measure of the teacher's choice, including supervisor recommendation, peer/parent/student recommendations, WASL scores or documented September-to-May progress of students, etc. The goal would be to get some data about what kinds of evaluations are meaningful without creating unacceptable burdens on educators. Then, in the rose-colored future, the performance-based indicators could be increased over time to an appropriate weight in staffing decisions.

-- Chris Stewart, Seattle

Democrats carry them, too

Not just anyone can obtain a concealed-weapons permit, but there is no distinction between Democrats and Republicans on the application ["Credit-card measure: GOP priority: guns," Opinion, Northwest Voices, May 22]. Mike Kelly might be surprised that there are many millions of Democrats who own and use firearms legally and yes, many of those citizens also have concealed-weapons permits.

Perhaps Kelly should be thankful that someone is protecting his Second Amendment rights whether he chooses to exercise them or not. It has been said the Second Amendment to the Constitution is in place to protect the rights established under the First Amendment.

-- Todd Croteau, Mill Creek

Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press

In this May 14 photo, reviewed by the U.S. military, detainees pray before dawn near a fence of razor-wire inside Camp 4 detention facility at Guantánamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba.

Editor, The Times:

In his most recent frothing-at-the-mouth diatribe, Dick Cheney has accused President Obama's decision to close Guantánamo Bay as a decision made "with little deliberation and no plan" ["Obama backs Gitmo plan, Cheney defends Bush policy," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, May 21] Sounds a little bit, but not quite, like the thought and planning he and his buddy W employed before launching their war in Iraq.

The differences would be that there was no deliberation on their part before the war and the limited planning that did take place was focused on ensuring that they could attend at least a few of the inevitable rose-petal parades that would greet us upon arrival in Baghdad.

Recently retired Ambassador Ryan Crocker -- Bush's last ambassador to Iraq -- has offered numerous public statements about the lack of introspection on the part of W's administration before the war, and as-yet-to-be-skewed-by-Cheney history has shown that the plans for the rose-petal parades in Baghdad were not necessary.

Cheney's post-V.P. time has been spent making increasingly zany comments, but his comments on President Obama's deliberation and planning on Guantánamo -- a PR nightmare created, interestingly, while Cheney was in office -- are as ridiculous as it gets given his pathetic track record for serious deliberation and realistic planning while in office.
-- Tony Arvish, Seattle

The wrong kind of change

Well done, President Obama. Moving terrorists from the secure facility at Guantánamo Bay to the U.S. mainland, where the ACLU and every Johnny Cochran-type attorney can rush to spring them from prison, will earn you great praise from Democrats.

Welcome, "hope and change" -- permanent recession and the return to a pre-911 mindset.

-- John W. Nelson, Mercer Island

New rules create more problems

OK, so all of the hoopla about the new "cafe" mileage and emission standards is fun for some people, but who actually thought this through? ["New rules to shrink cars, drive prices up," page one, May 2.]

Let's say you're a private contractor (one of the few surviving), for example. You need your big pickup truck to carry tools and equipment to a job site. If you stay in business after the economic meltdown and impending huge tax increases, the truck has to be replaced eventually. If that comes to pass after these new standards take effect, what do you do? I guess you could buy two or three of the new "eco-trucks" to do the same job, but who drives them?

How does this solution decrease traffic, save fuel or reduce your supposed "carbon footprint"? (Frankly, I still believe my carbon footprint is the little pile of ashes on the ground after I stomp out my cigar.) I suppose you could just close your business and let open-minded liberals take care of you. Yeah, right, that'll work.

The people making these decisions need to spend some time in the real world.

-- Mark Williams, Lynnwood

Changes can't happen fast enough

Reporting from various media, including The Seattle Times, about the mileage and emission standards shows just how far we have to go to understand the shortcomings of automobile-based transportation.

Consider that the highest-efficiency internal-combustion engines convert only about 20 percent of the energy in the gasoline into motion that can drive the car (35 percent of the energy is heat that goes out the tailpipe, 35 percent heats water to keep the block from melting and 10 percent is friction loss from the engine itself). If that isn't inefficient to start with, we stick that engine in a 3,000 to 6,000-pound car or SUV to transport mostly single occupants who weigh about 150 pounds each. To add insult to injury, we then put those cars on our freeways where, in most urban areas, the average speed of the cars is about the same as a bicycle. It is difficult to imagine a bigger waste of energy.

In The Times' article, Eric Fedewa, vice president of global powertrain forecasting, says that the new mileage standards will mean that, "... it will be so expensive to operate a pickup that they will be used almost exclusively for work in the future." What a concept. I thought that's what they were built for in the first place.

The new standards can't happen fast enough. Then we'll only be lightly behind China and Japan in developing more fuel-efficient transportation.

-- Mark Quinn, Olympia

Proposal without solid criteria is ineffective itself

Andrew Kwatinetz has joined the chorus calling for teachers to be retained during layoffs based on something he calls effectiveness ["Teacher retention should be based on effectiveness, not seniority," Opinion, guest column, May 20]. However, nowhere in his column is there a hint of how he would measure that.

When either professionals or laymen propose new ways of dealing with difficult situations, they owe everyone the intellectual honesty to offer some practical suggestion on implementation. Everyone is in favor of effective teachers, most especially teachers. The question is how to measure effectiveness in a way that is equitable, feasible and cost-effective.

If The Times or Kwatinetz were to suggest interstellar travel as a solution to overpopulation, we would expect some information of how to achieve it, but nowhere do we find even an outline of the plan to measure effectiveness. Until we see that plan, it is just pie in the sky -- it's pretty and looks sweet, but is ultimately without body or flavor.

-- Robert DuChaine, Buckley

Stalemate between district and union blocks change

Andrew Kwatinetz nails the biggest problem in Seattle Public Schools with his argument that teacher retention should be based on effectiveness, not seniority. Unfortunately, it won't happen without legislative intervention.

For more than 30 years, citizen pressure has failed to change key seniority provisions in the teachers' contract. There's no reason to believe parental demands -- even expressed by a leader as articulate as Kwatinetz -- will make any difference in the current round of negotiations.

The Seattle school district administration and the Seattle Education Association both claim to care about educational excellence above all, but are locked in an adversarial relationship whose common goal in contract talks is labor peace.

The solution: Diminish the power of both organizations. The means: charter schools.

-- Phillip Johnson, Seattle

Could have built upon small, positive step

Gov. Chris Gregoire's argument for vetoing the early-learning section out of the basic-education bill was weak at best ["Gregoire signs bill overhauling education, but vetoes 2 parts," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, May 20].

This state's existing early-learning program -- the Early Childhood Education Assistance Program (ECEAP) --currently doesn't even serve all eligible children. This legislation as passed would have implied full enrollment and at the very least could have protected ECEAP from arbitrary cuts. Rather than scrap this small yet positive step, we could simply build upon it.

I agree that early-learning services should be available to all of Washington's children. I believe this based on the constitutional mandate of "ample provision for the education of all children." Learning begins at birth, and this state should be supporting each child's entire development.

If the governor wants to address early learning next session, I challenge her to work with all stakeholders and develop a comprehensive early-learning act (birth to age 5) that would spell out fully this state's responsibility of how it will support all parents and guardians who are raising young children as lifelong learners.

-- Mike Sheehan, Shoreline

Serious consideration of all recovery options

U.S. District Judge James Redden's recent letter criticizing the federal agencies' proposal for salmon recovery could not come at a better time ["Salmon plan needs more work, judge says," NWTuesday, May 19]. This comes as a huge relief to me and other concerned Northwest citizens who have watched wild-salmon populations decline while elected officials stand by and watch.

The 2008 Bush-era salmon plan for the Columbia Basin reflects bad science and divisive politics, and it should remain with the last administration. The Obama administration now has its chance to move forward, honor its commitment to the best available science and bring together the people most affected by salmon and river-management issues to solve this problem together. Any credible, science-driven process must look closely at all recovery options, including the removal of four costly dams on the lower Snake River.

In his letter, the judge emphasizes that this plan's habitat-restoration measures are ambiguous and unsupported by science. Scientists didn't approve this plan, and now it is clear the court won't either. As the judge stated, "We cannot afford to waste another decade," and without full and serious consideration of all recovery options, this is most surely what will happen.

-- Morgan True, Seattle

Explore dam removal as a first option

The letter from the federal judge earlier this week called for a substantially stronger Columbia Basin salmon plan. Measures like additional river flows seem like steps in the right direction, but I wonder if they will go far enough and if they might end up being more costly than simply removing the four deadly dams on the lower Snake River and replacing their limited services with alternatives.

Though removal of these four dams is no silver bullet for salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake rivers -- other actions will be needed -- the science suggests that it will likely reduce the size and scale of additional restoration activities, like additional spill or flows.

We owe it to ourselves as energy users and ratepayers, consumers of salmon and agricultural products, and of course residents, citizens and neighbors, to explore dam removal as a legitimate first option, not merely a contingency plan. We, as a region and nation, need to get all these types of economic and scientific data together as a first step to allow us to make a fully informed decision.

-- Miles Farrow-Johnson, Seattle

News isn't new for hardest-hit

What does [Washington Post reporter] Deneen Brown know about being poor? ["Why the poor pay more," Close-up, May 20.] Nothing in her article is news to anyone who grew up in the projects, stood in line at food banks, cheated the bus driver out of 17 cents (before the automated systems that count every penny) or stooped to stealing toilet paper from the library.

The poor have always had it harder than the rest of us. The difference is that the poor are better equipped to deal with hardship and a sour economy has nothing on them. Why are you featuring poor people now? Their problems are not new and human-services workers have long lamented the many injustices perpetuated against these people that business owners and our own government condone. By the way, not all poor people are black.

Yes, we now have some regulations against predatory lending, but we need more, and our welfare system is still in need of an overhaul. In the mid 1980s, as a working single mother earning only $7.50 per hour, I was "qualified" for just $50 in food stamp assistance -- hardly worth the seven pages of forms and verification I had to provide. And although I had medical insurance at the time, I could not afford to pay the out-of-pocket expense for the Albuterol I needed and ended up in the hospital. Yes, the poor pay more for health care!

Brown's article does hit home on one point though -- the poor have a lot of time.
Use it wisely, brothers and sisters. Arm yourself with knowledge. Learn about interest rates, banking systems and don't get comfortable. You deserve much more than a faster ride to the nearest public laundry. Work hard. Listen and learn. It's a scary world right now, but we can handle it. Been there, done that.

-- Barbara G. Caceres, Kent

Questionable Republican values

The future as envisioned by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and the Republican Party is really quite clear now ["GOP abandons 'renaming' rivals," News, May 21].

Government can't be trusted with anything as essential as our health care, or as personal as our medical choices --unless, of course, we are talking about reproductive rights. It is only to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, a fully funded military and the lives of our sons and daughters in uniform.

Torture and access to every communication and bank transaction can be useful. The rule of law and due process are pliable things. The powerful are above them; others just really don't need or deserve them. Prisons are very important; preschools, small class sizes and access to college for all, not so much. Mass ignorance is convenient.

The indigent and the working class must be controlled. They might try to get something they did not earn. Those who handle large sums of other people's money must not be fettered with regulations. Paying taxes is for fools.

Don't spend time creating ways to make things better. Spend that energy disseminating labels and rumors to humiliate your opposition and frighten the ignorant.

All this adds up to something quite simple. Just think banana republic.

-- Sue Griswold, Mill Creek

Courtney Blethen / The Seattle Times

Sergeant Kim Chandler, of Washington State Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Police, prepares a Dan-Inject dart gun, filled with the tranquilizer telazol, while on a hunt for a bear around Shoreline at Twin Ponds Park.

Editor, The Times:

Regarding the black bear that no one seems to be able to find, the one someone named "Urban Phantom" ["Elusive bear out there ... somewhere," Local News, May 21] --don't you think it should have been named "Waldo"? That seems more appropriate to me.

-- Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah

A lesson in good leadership

Thank you, Fire Chief Gregory Dean, for taking responsibility for your actions ["Fire official at center of scandal quits; chief rebuked," page one, May 21]. Good leadership is about recognizing when you make mistakes and learning from them. Mayor Greg Nickels may benefit from learning such a practice.

I don't recall Nickels reprimanding former Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske after he failed to punish any of the officers involved in the violent incident that lead to the beating of a local man, even though records showed the civilian director of the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), which oversees internal police investigations, found two were guilty of excessive force and all three were guilty of serious breaches in conduct ["Police chief exonerated officers in violent arrest," seattletimes.com, Local News, June 26, 2007], costing taxpayers far more than $196,000.

Nickels is a far cry from a good public administrator. To point out a couple obvious points here: Fire Department Lt. Milt Footer, Kerlikowske, all the officers involved in the violent beating of the local man and Nickels are Caucasian; Dean is not. I guess the message here is that good leadership is determined by a bad leader with bad ethical practices and principles, and who clearly needs to take a course in ethics and undoing institutional racism. Although I could be overreacting.

-- Adrienne Bandlow, Seattle

Shifting burdens more fair

Was it the banker's blog site that provided the information for Andrew Martin's front-page article "Sterling credit? That may not help"? [May 19] It wasn't until the last small, interior-page portion of the article that a consumer advocate was permitted to speak the obvious -- banks have been as irresponsible managing the credit-card industry as they have been in selling mortgage derivatives.

The most dire threats from the banks about credit-card rate increases will be mitigated by their competition for the remaining good and much more responsible current customers. The subsidy that responsible card owners have received in the past from penalties burdening those card-users who were less responsible, less informed or perhaps poorer was morally repugnant then, as it is now.

It's time for a change and it's time for an article in The Seattle Times that gives mention to this side of the issue.

-- Jim Douma, Edmonds

Gun provision reveals GOP priorities

It has not been a good year for Republicans, from losing the election to having longtime members of the party desert. But they rallied and eked out a victory on an issue they surely hope will show what the party stands for, and how it is in fact relevant to the daily lives of average Americans: allowing us to carry loaded guns into national parks ["Congress may hand gun-rights advocates a victory," News, May 20).

"Timing is everything in politics," crowed the Republican sponsor of the measure, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Indeed it is. Just when we thought the "Party of No" could do themselves no more damage, they take a bill that is relevant to the lives of millions of Americans -- regulating the sky-high interest rates and fees credit-card companies assess on consumers -- and add an amendment at the direction of the gun lobby to which they are beholden. They know that President Obama will likely hold his nose and sign the bill with their amendment rather than veto the much-needed credit-card reform that is the main topic of the bill.

I hope voters remember Republican priorities at the ballot box.

-- Mike Kelly, Bainbridge Island

Blind faith doesn't work

I was saddened to read that former Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen testified that he "knew nothing" about the sexual exploits of Patrick O'Donnell ["Hunthausen 'knew nothing,' " NWTuesday, May 19].

He chose to be blind. Hunthausen has long preached and been an advocate for social justice. Seems it would have been most appropriate for him to drop to his knees and beg forgiveness from the plaintiffs.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church seems to focus less on forgiveness and more on issues of money. It looks like blind faith doesn't work and it's time to pay up.

-- Kevin Haggerty, North Bend

Don't direct ire at trustworthy priests

Three decades ago, a number of young boys in our area were sexually abused by someone who was at the time identified as a faith leader. This is cause for a spectrum of harsh emotions that, as a Catholic and a Christian, I cannot easily sort out. My heart goes out to this now middle-aged man who was victimized. I salute him for his courage in bringing into the light of day what he experienced. And I struggle to not hold hate in my heart for the person who has confessed to that terrible instance of betrayal and child abuse.

I also worry that this terrible story may be creating more victims. I hope that our community and news media will not carelessly paint the hundreds of honorable, caring, trustworthy men here in Western Washington who today wear the white collar of the priesthood with a broad brush of disrespect and fear.

Some recent news articles regarding the abuse trial have seemingly used the event as an opportunity to impugn the values of the Catholic Church, and by implication, the integrity and honor of those who serve today in the priesthood. One recent headline even characterized the abuse as "church abuse" ["Settlement for last plaintiff in church abuse case," seattletimes.com, Local News, May 20]. I can't imagine a news headline being more terribly wrong or more brutally unfair.

The Catholic community -- and local Catholic leadership -- never has and never would knowingly overlook, let along tolerate, any form of abuse, and especially abuse of children. Catholic priests, bishops, and faith leaders continue to work openly, honestly and unselfishly to make life here in Western Washington more meaningful and more rewarding for all of us.

So while this emotional, 30-year old story reminds us of the evil one man can exert on those unable to defend themselves, I hope that the rest of us will avoid committing another form of abuse, and not allow the reputation of all priests, those who today produce so much good for all of us, to be wrongly and unfairly tarnished.

-- Bill Munroe, Kirkland

Not unreasonable to accept Israel as Jewish state

In The Seattle Times' May 19 editorial, "Two new leaders, same old scripts" [Opinion], the editorial board seems to think it unreasonable that Israel require the Palestinians to accept Israel as a Jewish state. After all, that would imply "a surrender of their claim of a right to return to territory held by Israel."

There are 35 states that are officially Catholic, 31 Muslim, 13 Protestant and 13 Orthodox Christian. Egypt requires that we accept it as a Muslim state, Spain that we accept it as a Catholic state and the United Kingdom that we accept it as a Protestant state. Why shouldn't Israel require other nations to accept it as a Jewish state?
And the Palestinians don't simply claim a right of return to territory "held" by Israel. They claim the right of millions of Palestinians, most of them opposed to Israel's very existence, to move to Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat -- that is, Israel, not territory "held" by Israel.

I'm trying to imagine The Seattle Times supporting a proposal to find two million people who hate the U.S. and want it destroyed, and moving them all to the Seattle area.
-- Paul Burstein, Mercer Island

Gross injustices against Palestinians continue

It seems to me that the most upsetting problems instigated by Israel toward the Palestinians are either overlooked or made light of by the media. More coverage is given to trivial or impossible demands of the Palestinians which are, in fact, only made by a few hard-liners.

The crux of the matter is that Israel is constantly building houses on land in the West Bank that belongs to Palestinians. This is ongoing and the Palestinians have no way to halt the Israelis.

A new outpost in the West Bank is being constructed as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama talk! The Israelis just carry on as before, being polite and thanking the U.S. for military and financial aid that enables them to go ahead with their construction on Palestinian land. Military strength keeps the Palestinians from any serious protesting.

I cannot imagine how the Palestinians must have felt when Obama said he would work toward peace in the Middle East -- but the gross injustices against them are allowed to continue. Déjà vu!

-- Jean Knight, Mercer Island

Funding tyranny not "progress"

The May 19 editorial in The Times stated, "One cannot say no progress was made Monday at the White House. The two leaders [President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel] agreed to more military and financial aid for Israel."

Was that sarcasm? Is wasting U.S. money to provide the Middle East tyrant anything considered progress? Why is Obama proposing to continue support for Israel when we should have cut off all aid to the occupier of Palestine years ago?

Last week George Will's column indicated that Obama's stimulus plan for the auto companies will end up giving the union 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler, even though the union contributed to the companies' breakdowns ["Auto companies should be left to the rigors of bankruptcy,"Opinion, May 8].

When I voted for Obama I hoped for change. These two actions by Obama are greatly disappointing. Maybe he is not as wise as many thought.

-- Spencer M. Higley, Edmonds

Obama's decision reveals policy, not judgment

The Times' lead editorial on Monday approved of President Obama's judgment in the "kerfuffle" over the release of photos showing abuse of prisoners. But Obama is not exercising judgment; he is formulating policy. It is the same policy that has been pushed in the administration's decision to oppose private lawsuits on the basis that state secrets might be exposed, and in its decision to argue that Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan should replace "Gitmo" as a place where people can be shipped in from other countries and stripped of all opportunity to claim that they are being held by mistake.

What The Times characterizes as an exercise in judgment is in fact an assertion of a legal argument that would apply not only to these photos, but to all information sought now and in the future under the Freedom of Information Act. Obama is ordering his government to appeal a Court of Appeals decision stating that the government cannot withhold information about what it is doing just because it says it can, in the court's words, "point to a group composed of millions of people and establish that it could reasonably be expected that someone in that group will be endangered."

If The Seattle Times wants to join the government in arguing against the Court of Appeals decision, perhaps it should remove from its pages anything that might reasonably be expected to endanger someone. The Times could start by eliminating its editorial, which refers to abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't this editorial present and amplify information that could endanger our troops? The most likely reason is that The Times does not seriously think that the troops are being needlessly endangered.

More likely, the troops are being used as a straw man in a struggle over the power of the federal executive. But even if that is not the case, would The Seattle Times please explain why we should put our troops in danger to protect our freedom and then put our freedom in danger to protect our troops?

-- Lynn Petersen, Coupeville

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

Seattle firefighter and paramedic Penny Stone holds up her son, Calder, 4 months, as she cheers with her partner, Karen Kerr, a lieutenant in the San Francisco Fire Department. Gov. Chris Gregoire was being introduced Monday before she signed legislation granting domestic partners additional rights.

Editor, The Times:

When Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network states that there is no reason to redefine marriage ["Rights bill signed for same-sex couples," NWTuesday, May 19], he shows his own misunderstanding of how marriage works. The state gives recognition to a relationship by issuing a marriage license, but it doesn't define individual marriages. Marriages are defined by the two people who are in them.

If the state of Washington issues a marriage license to my same-sex partner and me, it would have no effect whatsoever on Randall's or anyone else's marriage or how they define it. So what is he so upset about?

-- Bill Dubay, Seattle

Someone needs to be held accountable first

So, the leader of the Republican Party has proclaimed that the GOP is through apologizing for its mistakes and will now only look forward as it reasserts itself ["Steele insists GOP comeback has started," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, May 19].

Huh? What mistakes has it apologized for? What has it taken responsibility for?

Quite contrary, the Republican Party has blamed the state of the economy on the Democrats. They even found a way to spin the torture issue into an attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As for the Iraq disaster, no one has yet had the guts to look into the real causes and the corruption that followed. And in case you haven't noticed, the Republican Party is still backing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney is still on the talk-show circuit upholding the rationale for those mistakes Steele's talking about.

Sorry, Steele; in order to "move forward," someone really does need to be held accountable for those mistakes. You ain't gettin' off that easy.

-- David McKenzie, Federal Way

Fails to serve growing suburban population

A major problem, and perhaps a costly failure, with Sound Transit's Seattle/airport light rail is that it fails to serve the larger community --particularly its commuters in the suburbs ["Who will ride this train?" page one, May 17].

It is in the suburbs where population is growing. It is the suburbs that lack adequate public transportation. It is the suburbs that need light rail. Seattle already has an excellent bus system that serves the commuters of Seattle. It is not airport-downtown Seattle that needs light rail as bus, taxi and limo service is more than adequate.

The light rails systems of Vancouver, Portland, San Francisco and San Diego run from far out in the suburbs to the central city. Each of these light-rail systems were based on serving undeveloped public-transportation needs from suburbs to city centers.

Sound Transit could have, and maybe still can, run a light rail from North Bend to Seattle along the I-90 corridor with park-and-ride lots along the way. It would then serve North Bend, Preston, Issaquah, Bellevue, Somerset, Mercer Island and Seattle.

It could have run along highway 99 from Everett to Olympia, serving Everett, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Northgate, Seattle, South Center, SeaTac, Puyallup, Tacoma and Olympia, and maybe eventually to Vancouver, Wash.

In each of these choices, a much greater population would have been served. Land-acquisition costs would have been significantly less. And construction costs would also have been considerably less. It would have served our communities that lack adequate or any public transportation. It still can with look-ahead leadership.

-- E.J. Craig, Sammamish

A flawed, costly system

Seattle always likes to think of itself as unique and, after just 13 years, this region will finally get its own form of rapid transit that is truly unique to the world.

Typically, light-rail systems run within street-level traffic and have station stops every few blocks. The trains are slower and shorter, limiting their capacity. Sound Transit has chosen a hybrid option of lighter-capacity trains paired with the most expensive type of transit construction -- tunneling.

Most of the rest of the line is grade-separated just like heavy rail, except along the completely rebuilt Martin Luther King Jr. Way, where it mixes with all traffic. Stations are all spaced over a mile apart, similar to heavy rail, but transit speed will slow considerably to avoid collisions.

Next, Sound Transit will start three miles of new bored tunnels to the U District, which will have only two station stops and cost $2 billion. Potential Eastlake and First Hill riders will have to make do with transferring onto proposed snail-rail lines, since those urban neighborhoods will be bypassed.

Our version of light rail is so costly that Seattle is typically excluded from transit-cost calculations for other new potential systems.

Only here do we get a new, forever-limited transit system at subway-system prices. Current preferred proposals for the Eastside extension will only continue this dyslexic strategy. Sound Transit is consistent, at least.

-- David G. Wright, Seattle

Budget stats smell fishy

I am a resident of the White Center/Burien area, and I would like to know the specifics of why Evergreen Pool is set to close ["Injured vets to lose rehab pool," NWTuesday, May 19].

According to what I have read in The Times, it would cost another $92,472 to remain open for the rest of the year. Does that mean it costs $184,944 per year to operate? If Evergreen Pool is owned and operated by King county, where does all the money go?

My family and I pay admission, as do everyone else who uses the pool. What is the money being spent on? Do they change the water each night? How much does chlorine cost? The pool lifeguards are not driving Cadillacs.

Military vets, firefighters, elderly, disabled, children learning to swim --our entire community relies on Evergreen Pool.

King County budget stats smell fishy to me.

-- Tom Nelligan, Burien

Don't miss the big picture

The Seattle Times editorial board correctly points out that a mentally ill American has provided Burma's ruling thugs with an opportunity to extend the years of arrest of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi ["The Nobel Laureate and the fool," Opinion, May 18]. The man, who mysteriously eluded the 250-man security detail that enforces Suu Kyi's house arrest, has indeed made a mess of things, though the junta likely would have found another equally ridiculous excuse to hold "The Lady" if this situation had not conveniently arisen.

Much more insidious is the ongoing meddling in Burma by the U.S. oil giant Chevron. Chevron is a partner with Burma's generals in a project to sell Burmese natural gas to Thailand. Last week the Financial Times quoted an International Monetary Fund study that found that, using simple accounting trickery, the generals book less than 1 percent of the nation's natural gas revenues into the national budget. The money simply disappears into the private accounts of some of the world's most notorious thugs.

As a result, vast amounts of Burmese gas is sold abroad, with the revenue divided between Chevron, Total of France, the Petroleum Authority of Thailand and a small clique of Burmese military men. The Burmese people see none of it, except when it is used to buy more weapons to repress them.

The very men who are putting Aung San Suu Kyi on trial, who have shot monks in the streets, used widespread rape as a weapon of war against ethnic minority women and girls, and jailed Burmese volunteers who aided cyclone victims when the junta refused to do so -- these men are kept in power largely through their partnership with Chevron.

When we're criticizing those who are to blame for the preposterous and shameful situation faced by Burma's 50 million people, let's not miss the big picture.

-- Larry Dohrs, founder, Seattle Burma Roundtable

A call to abandon our principles

Charles Krauthammer's assertion that torture is permissible when it will save lives, rests upon a belief that the end justifies the means ["Sometimes you do what you have to do -- even torture," Opinion, May 3].

The problem with an "end justifies the means" philosophy is that we use it to justify cruelty in the name of a righteous cause -- but everyone believes his cause is righteous. By this reasoning, a Northerner captured during the Civil War could be tortured if such cruelty would save Southern lives. After all, Southerners of the time, though fighting to preserve slavery, thought their cause was just.

We see that the sacrifice of principles for expediency can lead to the absurd proposition that it is morally permissible to inflict inhuman suffering on a just man who is trying to prevent an unjust man from committing atrocities.

Let's not be so arrogant as to believe that Americans could never be misled or end up on the wrong side of a cause. We can be confident of our righteousness only so long as we refuse to compromise our principles. The call to abandon our principles is a call to abandon what makes America America. It is always a sign that we are being misled.

-- Michael Sheehan, Langley

U.S. prisoners suffer, too

The severity of torture that detainees in the Guantánamo prison received caused less suffering than some of the inmates right here in U.S. prisons have had to endure.

Popular reality TV shows featuring this violence show rapes, stabbings and murders among other atrocities.

Maybe we should shut down some of our own prisons!

-- Lowana Krewson, Stanwood

You'll leave the theater happier

I read Misha Berson's theater review of the musical "Grease" ["Slick, nostalgic 'Grease' revival," NWMonday, May 18], even though she warned those of us who "can't get enough of this breed of bouncy '50s nostalgia ... to read no further."

I don't know which performance she attended, but on the night I was there, she would have been in the minority. The theater seemed to be at full capacity with an audience that loved every moment of the show, myself included. The comments made as everyone exited the theater would validate that it was wonderful. The many revivals of "Grease," both in theater and the movie, would indicate to me that people still enjoy, as she calls it, "this slick relic of faux '50s nostalgia."

I realize that the column is merely Berson's opinion, which differs from mine. I would encourage theatergoers to take a chance and purchase a ticket. I guarantee they'll leave the theater humming one of the many great songs and in a much better mood than when they entered -- something we all need these days.

-- Marie Bickel, LaConner

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

A worker walks amongst link line rail trains in the Sound Transit Sodo Maintenance Base in Seattle after placing a cone at the front and rear of the train he is working on.

Has damaged environment more than it will help

Editor, The Times:

The headline "Who will ride this train?" [page one, May 17] virtually stopped me in my tracks. This is a question that any rational person would expect to have been asked and answered before spending $2.6 billion and spewing out 13 years of construction-related carbon dioxide.

Speaking of which, there is not one Sound Transit official who will state that any possible reduction in automobile use will ever equal, or even offset in part, the massive carbon cost of manufacturing and constructing "this train," which to me is an admission of abject failure if not outright fraud on the public.

The construction of this light-rail system has already created more atmospheric damage than it was allegedly designed to preclude.

-- Virgil Howard, Seattle

Siphoning bus-riders a good thing

The Sunday article about Sound Transit states that it fears riders may merely switch from buses to trains. What? This is the goal of other city systems: end duplication of transport, better utilize buses, increase train use, move people more quickly -- a no-brainer.

It would free new buses to concentrate on other and new routes and get more riders into the system -- an upward spiral.

Sound Transit needs a sounder concept of what it is doing.

-- Terry Forsyth, Friday Harbor

Stellar people, broken system

Dr. Roger Stark writes of a public option health-care plan: "It is not an exaggeration to say that our entire health-care system is at risk with this new plan" ["Obama's proposal is the noncompetition health plan," seattletimes.com, Opinion, May 18]. And this is bad news?

Do not confuse our excellent doctors, nurses, physician assistants and science with our broken health-care system. Our people and science are stellar; our system is broken.
True competition welcomes a public option. Let's see what the people choose.

-- Margaret Heldring, Seattle

Provide affordable options

The two opinion pieces on health reform by Dr. Roger Stark and David Sirota ["More questions than answers in Obama's health-care policies," Opinion, May 18] both don't get it. Our neighbors do not want to continue in the same uncertain, uncontrolled, unaffordable health-insurance market in which we now find ourselves.

Stark is playing the fear card. Reform means reasonable and needed regulation of the private market. Insurers are good people with terrible incentives.

On the other hand, Sirota wants the president to toss out all insurance companies and go with a government-controlled plan. While it is a tempting urge, my neighbors don't know what the new plan will be. They want to see what any new plan looks like and then they want to make the choice themselves. Conversely, they don't want Stark's proposal to continue with unbridled insurance-company policies and few good choices.

I think President Obama is heading the right direction -- keep what you have, provide affordable options, make sure there are real choices (even plans that are public, like state-employee insurance), promote positive changes in our creaky health-care system and regulate the insurers so they have an incentive to compete in ways that help us all.

-- Bob Crittenden, MD, Seattle

Government-run system any better?

After reading David Sirota's column, I wonder if the general answer to his question -- "Why Obama's insurance-industry-coddling inconsistency?" -- might not explain the greater problems with a single-payer health-care system run by the government.

That is, politicians often fall far short of promised ends -- perhaps because of "payback for campaign cash" or a "desire to appease powerful interests." But individual discrepancies often flag larger government inefficiencies.

While universal health care is ideal, health care provided by the government would present a host of problems akin to those already evident in the Obama administration -- inefficiencies that are the result of ulterior motives and static bureaucracy. Although private health care has its many problems as well, it is not necessarily inefficient.

My point is this: Private health care is not ideal, but can we be sure that health care run by the government would be any better? Would it really ensure the best coverage for those who need it?

-- Hugh Barber, Edmonds

Single-payer advocates excluded from reform talks

The recent Senate Finance Committee hearings on health-care reform have excluded those who favor a single-payer system, which would cover everyone with an expanded Medicare-like program ["Status quo in, single-payer out at the raucous Baucus caucus," Amy Goodman column, May 15]. That's because the Finance Committee is chaired by Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who allegedly has received more campaign contributions from HMOs and drug companies than any other Democrat.

Accordingly, he has solicited testimony from almost every part of the health-care industry, but has excluded testimony from anyone favoring a single-payer system. Anyone speaking up for a single-payer system has been arrested by police.

In my opinion, Sen. Baucus should be sued immediately for discrimination. A class-action suit on behalf of the American people should be filed immediately -- reminding Baucus that he and the other senators represent the American people first and the health-care industry second.

Are there any lawyers willing to take the case?

-- Roger Chapanis, Sammamish

Public and personal views can be different

In the recent Gallup Poll results, a majority of people say they are pro-life, yet 75 percent feel that abortion should be legal ["Poll finds majority call selves 'pro-life,' " News, May 16].

While this may be a surprise to some people, it fits with my observations during 18 years as an abortion provider. Regardless of one's public political stance, when a woman wants an abortion, she comes and gets one.

-- Deborah Oyer, MD, Seattle

Biased method could impact results

I was polled during the time frame that Gallup did its polling on the "pro-life" issue, although I do not know definitively if it was the Gallup poll who called me because the polling organization did not identify itself.

The poll was recorded. I was first asked if I was a registered voter. When I responded "yes," I was asked if I was "pro-life" (not "pro-life" or "pro-choice," which is the more appropriate question). I was a bit disconcerted at the question because it was not framed in terms of abortion -- just "are you pro-life?" I gave my answer and the recording thanked me and hung up.

I hung up feeling angry because there was no nuance allowed in the answers and I was not given the option of declaring myself pro-choice. I had to answer no to being "pro-life" because I assumed, correctly, that the opposite answer would register me as being anti-abortion.

However, believing that abortion should be legal does not make someone "anti-life" or "pro-death." I would like to know who polled me in this very biased manner. If this poll was not conducted by Pew or Gallup, it would be nice to know who is trying to confuse the issue.

I suggest the press delve a little more deeply into this issue.

-- Deanna Nelson, Seattle

Religious beliefs can hinder learning

It should be no surprise that U.S. students and teachers are behind on biology ["Report: U.S. students lagging in biosciences," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, May 18]. Many of them don't believe in it. More people in this country believe in the literal existence of Satan than believe in evolution.

That's a fundamental (so to speak) problem for scientific literacy.

-- Chris Nielsen, Shoreline

Low fares do not equal living wage

As soon as your readers have finished bemoaning the fact that many airline pilots do not make enough to live in their domicile cities ["Upstate N.Y. plane crash," Northwest Voices, Opinion, May 18], they will quickly turn to the travel ads to seek out the lowest fare for their next trip.

-- Robert E. Gardner, Renton

Same-sex couples actually help businesses, economy

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has done it again, claiming that gay marriage will financially burden small businesses ["RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, May 16]. Aside: Since when have Republicans cared about small business?

So let me get this, um, straight: Is it that straight marriage doesn't burden small businesses while gay marriage does, or simply that gay people don't deserve health care and other benefits while straight people do?

Steele's comments are particularly absurd coming, as they do, the day after studies published by UCLA's Williams Institute show that, in the five years since it was instituted, marriage equality has been responsible for pumping over $100 million into Massachusetts' economy.

This is due in part to the young and highly educated professionals working in creative fields that are 2.5 times more likely to move to the state than they were before they could marry there, and in part to the money generated by the more than 12,000 same-sex couples that have tied the knot in the Bay State, spending an average of $7,400 per wedding. Obviously, small businesses are benefiting both from the influx of talent and from the revenue related to weddings to the tune of over $20 million a year.

-- David A. Young, Seattle

Democrats deserve respect for commitment to issue

The Seattle Times' series of articles by Kyung M. Song concerning a new state law for organ and tissue transplants has been extremely well done and highly informative.

When reading comments, however, in response to the May 15 piece ["Gregoire signs organ transplant cap into law, despite last-minute concerns," seattletimes.com, Local News], I noticed one area where the actual facts and the impression readers had diverged.

Specifically, Rep. Eileen Cody, D-Seattle, who is also chairwoman of the House Health Care and Wellness Committee, has in fact strongly supported transplant-funding reform. Notwithstanding this fact, it is true that in her committee Premera Blue Cross was able to effectuate a troublesome amendment --an amendment that caused me to cease (for a while) supporting the bill's passage. I have expressed my concern to her.

Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, has clarified legislative intent and Insurance Commissioner Mike Keidler has written that the troublesome language relates to certain complex clinical-practice issues and does not indicate an attempt to capture pre-transplant expenses as transplant costs under the new law.

I am not a card-carrying Democrat. I vote as I see it best to vote. The Democrats Cody, Keiser, Keidler and, yes, Gov. Chris Gregoire deserve great respect for their individual and collective commitment to the important health-care issue posed by organ and tissue transplants.

-- John Scanlon, recipient of a heart transplant, Kent

A misinterpretation of his words

I have to take issue with the writer of "Rush's 2 cents not worth much" [Opinon, Northwest Voices, May 19]. I listened to what Rush Limbaugh said and he did not call for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to resign. What he said was that it will be interesting to see if she resigns, to see if she can really break the glass ceiling, since a couple of male House Speakers resigned when they ran into controversy (Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich).

Also, when Limbaugh says stuff like, "Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair," or, "I was born to host, you were born to listen," it is all tongue-in-cheek, but those who have had a humor-ectomy probably don't recognize that.

-- Susan Robinson, Bellevue

Jeff Haynes / Getty Images

President Obama addresses the Notre Dame University graduating class of 2009 during the 164th commencement ceremonies Sunday in the Joyce Center on campus.

Applause from the Catholic Church

Editor, The Times:

I applaud Notre Dame University's invitation of President Obama to be commencement speaker at its May 17 graduation ceremonies ["President addresses rancor on abortion," page one, May 18].

Both the brilliant introduction of the president by Fr. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, and Obama's carefully crafted address struck me as wise and balanced.

The roughly 35 percent of Catholic bishops and other right-wing warriors who protested the president's presence at this event tend to equate abortion with the sum of all Catholic concern about public life or of all Catholic social teaching.

In doing so, they alienate the vast middle of the American public, deny a space in U.S. politics where pro-life and pro-choice citizens can work together and marginalize the Catholic Church's impact on public policy.

In his initial months as president, Obama's acts did not include the signing of FOCA (still not even introduced in Congress). They did include closing Guantánamo and the CIA's system of secret prisons, the forbidding of waterboarding in interrogations, the ending of funds for nuclear-weapons development and the initiation of discussions to seek the reduction of nuclear arsenals, and the reduction of abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, making adoption more available and providing care and support for women who carry their children to term.

Abortion is, without question, one of the most pressing fundamental moral challenges of our time. Single-issue proponents, however, ill serve our need to engage with other issues such as poverty, health care, torture or war as pro-life matters of concern to Catholics and indeed to other citizens of goodwill.

Nor does their systematic resistance to Obama and his administration, on the absolutist ground of opposition to his abortion policies, justify a comprehensive rejection of his programs, his policies and his approach of respectful listening and dialogue.

Ten thousand participants and 2,000 more graduates at Notre Dame last Sunday affirmed this.

We owe Notre Dame University, and President Obama, our thanks.

-- Fr. Roger G. O'Brien, Archdiocese of Seattle

Only education and health care will reduce abortions

I can only shake my head in disbelief at the protesters of President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame. Where were they when President Bush appeared? He started an immoral first-strike war and supports the death penalty.

Obama is intelligent enough to know we cannot have a law against a surgical procedure that may need to be done and the only way to cut down on abortions is by education, health care for all and help for the poor. That is also my belief as a pro-life Catholic who attends daily Mass.

-- Pat Cervenka, Burien

Ugly building doesn't help

Development company Trammell Crow Residential blames the sluggish economy for low occupancy in its new four-story building, Circa, at Green Lake ["Green Lake bruised by building blues," page one, May 18].

But there's another reason Circa falls flat with prospective tenants: It is an ugly, unappealing box, more suited to a strip mall than Green Lake. Circa's size is not the problem. The problem is the structure's complete lack of visual appeal.

Trammell Crow spokesman Sean Hyatt calls Circa's location "iconic." Yet architecturally, Circa only takes from the Green Lake neighborhood. It gives nothing back in character or charm.

-- Jane Lotter, Seattle

High rent prices missed the mark

The stalled rentals at Circa, the new Green Lake apartment project on the Albertson's site, suffer from rents too high for the demographics of our community -- reason I cannot feel sorry for Trammell Crow Residential's experience. The rent levels at opening for many units require incomes beyond $75,000 per year to afford comfortably.

The hubris and lack of work force rent levels puzzled me from the start. Who did they imagine would pay $3,000 for a two-bedroom unit? Green Lake is a middle-class neighborhood still, and the slow rentals are not a sign of a bad economy as much as they are a market-miss in the pro forma by Trammel Crow.

Rock-star units, perhaps, but rock stars are not living in the Green Lake neighborhood.

-- Robin Landy Amadon, Seattle

Unconscionable to cover up torture

The Times' May 18 editorial, "Obama makes right call on prisoner photos" [Opinion] is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. There is nothing moral or logical to the argument offered by The Times or by Obama for a democracy hiding the truth. I think it is spectacularly disingenuous of anyone to argue that we should hide from the truth to "protect the troops."

Let's assume for the moment that fighting illegal wars has anything to do with protecting America -- if that is the case, then the troops are protecting democracy. If we abandon democracy-- by hiding from the truth, by torturing people who may very well be innocent, by invading other people's countries, etc. -- then there is nothing for our troops to defend.

It is contradictory to claim that one values the defense of democracy (protecting our troops) but not democracy itself (refusing to confront the troops and prosecute criminals).

It is unconscionable for the public voices of our democracy to not see this, let alone to cheerlead for torture and the covering up of torture. The Times should be deeply ashamed of itself as it abandons all pretense of valuing democratic ideals.

-- Richard Curtis, Seattle

Hidden photos you can believe in

When candidate Obama said, "Change you can believe in," perhaps he should've clarified it to mean "changing" his mind ["President reverses decision on photos," page one, May 14].

-- Mike Moore, Kent

Limbaugh's 2 cents not worth much

Rush Limbaugh is calling for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to resign because, according to him, she lied ["CIA chief rebuts Pelosi's charges she was misled," News, May 16]. That is his opinion; I never heard him calling for George W. Bush or Dick Cheney to resign when they lied.

Personally, I would believe the speaker's version of what was told to Congress about torture rather than some radio talk-show host. Who does this blob think he is to call for anybody to resign? I can't think of one thing he has ever done for the betterment of the country.

He always starts his program the same way: "Where you hear the truth." I will give two examples of things Limbaugh has said on his program that I will agree are the truth: "My listeners don't know anything until I tell them," and, "This program only has one rule: I say it and they believe it."

Be proud, dittohead sheep.

-- Bob Heaton, Seattle

Good for Fido, bad for Supreme Court?

Loved the page-one story about researchers determining that dogs have the moral quality of empathy ["Dogs have souls, but you already knew that," May 16].

It came appropriately after right-wingers loudly denounced President Obama for listing empathy as one of his top qualifications for naming a Supreme Court Justice ["Empathy dirty word to RNC chairman," News, May 10].

Apparently empathy is an asset for a dog, but not a judge.

-- Don Tewkesbury, Seattle

Change not so easy once president

The headline "Clean break with Bush a challenge for Obama" [page one, May 16] raises the question: Why would Obama want to make a clean break with the Bush policies?

It is true that Obama was talking trash during the campaign, but now that he has to govern, he realizes that the Bush policies on the war on terror were well thought-out and worth keeping.

-- Peter Kogler, Seattle

Continuing to undermine the Constitution

As we watch the unfolding saga of whether Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was fully briefed regarding CIA tactics to extract information, we shouldn't be surprised by the outcome. All across the Democratic Party stage, principal actors like Pelosi, but also Obama, are showing that their message of change was indeed a cynical one: Change the administration, but don't change the course this country is taking.

From the Iraq war, which candidate Obama promised he would end quickly, to the Guantánamo Bay prison, which he said he would close, to the military tribunals, which he said he would remove, we are seeing a continuation of overall U.S. policy, with perhaps a slight change in how it is promoted.

We should make no mistake: This president and his party are not so much laying a new foundation, as the recently coined phrase of President Obama might suggest, as they are continuing a path that subjugates the U.S. Constitution -- our only real foundation -- to a newly emerging world order. In this, the Democratic Party is no different from the Republican Party.

We need a new constitutional party for those of us who are disgusted with the left and the right.

-- Thomas Erdmann, Seattle

Obama, not Israel, needs to change

The May 17 article "Obama to meet Israel's leader -- change in the wind?" [News] has it backward. It is not the Israeli leadership that needs to change -- it's ours. Israel knows how to deal with threats to its existence and ensure the security of its citizens. It's time for our government to acknowledge and accept the truth about the Palestinians.

The Israeli electorate has coalesced after bitter firsthand experience. Israeli Jews, Arabs and Christians now accept as immutable that the Palestinians and their leaders in Fatah and Hamas have no desire to make durable peace, and will manipulate the "peace process" only to strengthen their hand. Israeli concessions only bring more aggression and violence -- Gaza says it all.

The authors assume Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be tossed out if he defies the U.S. They are wrong. The mood in Israel has changed even among its most formerly optimistic and dovish citizens. Israelis clearly understand the Palestinian record -- a consistent, 60-year strategy of never-ending war to annihilate the Jewish state.

If anyone needs to change, it's the Obama administration. They should put aside the naive and gullible belief that they can broker peace with a people who very openly and proudly assert that they will never accept Israel's right to exist.

-- Robert Wilkes, Bellevue

Start with creating jobs and affordable housing

In regard to Erick Spencer's letter ["Susan Hutchison: Where does she stand?" Opinion, Northwest Voices, May 15], I have a suggestion.

Why don't you ask Susan Hutchison where she stands on the out-of-control spending in King County, or how she plans to create jobs and affordable housing and not let her wiggle out of it? Then you will know if she has what it takes to be the next county executive.

Later, you can ask irrelevant questions, like if she supports domestic partnership, or her favorite color for that matter.

-- John Cooke, Bonney Lake

Tim Sloan / AFP/Getty Images

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has found herself a central figure in the debate over post-9/11 interrogation techniques.

She's either incompetent or a liar

Editor, The Times:

For those who like political theater, this Thursday's press briefing with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ["Pelosi: I knew about waterboarding by '03," News, May 15] has to rank right up there with classics of the careful word-parsing of Bill Clinton when he was trying to distance himself from lies about Monica Lewinsky.

I almost felt sorry for Pelosi as she was bombarded by fairly tough questions about what and when she knew about the use of tough interrogation techniques and whether she was briefed or simply told by third parties. It's all very confusing and is at the level of he-said/she-said, but now that the Speaker has accused the CIA of lying to Congress it may get ugly from here on out.

Wherever the tale takes us, it should be painfully obvious to all that the Speaker is at best incompetent and at worst an out-and-out liar who is trying to have it both ways on an important issue. Either way, she needs to step down as Speaker or be removed by her own party. This country certainly deserves better in the person who is second in line to the presidency.

-- Scott Stoppelman, La Conner

An infringement on marriage tradition

I do not wholeheartedly support the Democratic or Republican parties. Not just Republicans have an issue with the cause of homosexual marriage ["Why would the GOP rail against a law that fosters stable families?" Opinion, Lance Dickie column, May 15].

This whole issue is aggravating to me, and not because I am a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. To me, marriage is a tradition of heterosexual human beings. Why is it OK to forcibly alter someone's tradition?

I do not think it would be right to impinge on a Chinese tradition, a Muslim tradition or an African-American tradition just because the tradition does not fit my wants and needs but is attractive to me. That would be ludicrous!

Marriage is a tradition that just happens to be supported by legal rights. Traditions are sometimes ancient, and important to those who establish them.

Traditions are not discriminatory in the fashion that some people are trying to pervert the stance of those who want to preserve them. To call people who value an important tradition "haters" or "bigots" is a bullying tactic and they should be ashamed of themselves for it. Granted there definitely are haters and bigots who oppose gay marriage. I am not one of them no matter how you try to twist it.

I know my own heart and my heart says I couldn't care less what legal rights gay couples or anyone else strive to obtain, but I do care that because someone covets one of my extremely valuable traditions, they think they should have the right to forcibly alter it.

Establish your own traditions and with them, the laws to support them if need be. However, it would really be nice if you would keep your hands off mine.

-- Becky Balch, Arlington

Crumbling foundations of family and society

Marriage is the open commitment of spouses to one another, to their society and, for many, to their creator. What they commit to is the care and protection of each other and the care, protection, guidance, good behavior and education of their offspring.

The family is the basic building-block of society. In contrast, cohabitation mentioned in The Times ["Out-of-wedlock births near 40%," News, May 14] as the growing norm is written on the wind. Gays and lesbians understand this and are fighting for the right to marry.

It is no accident that those suffering the misfortune out-of-wedlock birth are greatly overrepresented in prisons and as dependents on need-based welfare programs. They are disproportionately underachievers in our educational systems. We and our politicians delude ourselves in pretending the welfare state can replace the family as the foundation of society. In recent decades, as the family has eroded, we have poured fortunes into schools, all manner of welfare programs and prisons. We have and will continue to have nothing to show for it.

As the foundation of family crumbles, so must the society upon which it rests.

-- Bruce Hand, Medina

New analyses still catastrophic

The article regarding sea-level rise due to Antarctic ice-sheet melting ["Scientists scale back forecast of sea-level rise," News, May 15] describes new analyses showing a potential 10-foot rise in sea levels rather than earlier predictions of 20 feet. This should not put anyone at ease as it is still catastrophic to humankind.

We all need to get serious about our many contributions to climate change. I am tired of hearing that addressing climate change will hurt the economy. The reality is that not addressing climate change will drastically affect our economy, our quality of life and the future of coming generations.

There is no free lunch! We either pay some now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions or pay infinitely more later with no guarantee we will be able to solve the problem. Yes, energy costs will go up initially -- mainly because they have been artificially kept low as their real costs (pollution health impacts, protection of foreign oil sources, etc.) have been primarily externalized. But that initial bump always happens as we transition to a new technology plateau -- which is what we need to do when it comes to boldly moving on to renewable energy, efficient transportation systems and green products.

This coming Thursday, May 21, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be holding a public hearing regarding its recently proposed ruling that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health. The public hearing will be from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. in downtown Seattle at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center. We should all be there to state how important this issue is to our future and the future of succeeding generations.

-- Peter Rimbos, Maple Valley

No justification for inappropriate force

The Seattle Times report of a sheriff's deputy injuring Chris Harris ["Man injured during pursuit in case of mistaken identity," page one, May 12] is very frightening and distressing.

A deputy can easily be misled by a false accusation by a witness, but there is no justification for the use of a body-slamming technique against a suspect who has stopped running and raised his hands. The law-enforcement community appears to be deficient in teaching officer candidates that they must always keep their emotions and adrenaline under control at all times. This deficiency is not acceptable.

Those of us who have been wrongly accused -- my mistake was being cited for going 10 mph over the speed limit and 10 mph faster than I was actually going) -- tend to generalize from one unfortunate experience. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

Is law enforcement keenly aware of how police reputations suffer with these incidents involving the use of police power and force inappropriate to the circumstances?

-- Bob Anderson, East Wenatchee

Similar accidents in trucking due to fatigue

My heartfelt condolences go to all the families of the victims of the tragic plane crash in February near Buffalo, N.Y.

A recent report concluded that fatigue and inadequate training were contributing factors ["Pilot fatigue probed in air-crash hearing," News, May 14]. The same factors cause many of the 5,000 deaths and 100,000-plus injuries in truck crashes every year in the U.S. My husband and a colleague were two of those who died in a 2005 crash near Humptulips.

Many truckers drive exhausted. Some resort to stimulants like as methamphetamines to stay awake. Many suffer from work-related health problems.

Medical studies confirm that performance suffers drastically under conditions of fatigue, in whatever work setting.

Safety is supposedly the primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Yet truckers can legally work up to 88 hours in eight days -- an increase from prior hours limits. Safety groups have twice successfully challenged these limits in court, yet under the Bush administration the higher hours limits remained in place and still stand.

Truck drivers should be paid for all time worked and safety should be paramount in the workplace.

-- Kathleen Ellsbury, MD, Seattle

A worker deserves his pay

Flight 3407 had a sleep-deprived pilot and an underpaid co-pilot. This is very familiar to Washington state's adjunct faculty ["Adjunct faculty at state's two-year schools deserve equal pay for equal work," Opinion, Keith Hoeller guest commentary, May 8].

Sleep deprivation and lack of pay won't kill students as in a pilot's airline crash. But due to our poor work conditions, education suffers. Our employers are, figuratively speaking, attempting to squeeze blood out of a turnip and students suffer.

I know we're in a budget crunch. This is also very familiar to adjuncts. Adjunct faculty have been in a budget crunch for decades. We can earn more flipping burgers, and with better job security and more opportunity for advancement.

Why do we stay? Many of us don't -- statistics show 25 percent get fed up and leave within five years. For others it is truly a second source of income. For the majority of adjuncts, myself included, it is a stepping stone to the full-time position -- the golden ring that seems forever out of reach.

One message from the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 was written in the Bible long, long ago: "A worker deserves his pay."

-- Jim Sizemore, Bremerton

401 (k) contributions should be matched by employer

In The Times' editorial in Wednesday's paper, the editorial board supported a proposal to change the current policy -- arrived at through negotiations -- regarding health-care premiums for King County employees ["A healthy dose of reality," Opinion, May 13]. The editorial board pointed out that King County employees don't pay health-care premiums.

In order to be fair and balanced, your editorial should have also pointed out that 401 (k) benefits provided by King County to its employees don't include an employer-matching contribution. Most private employers who offer a 401 (k) benefit also include some kind of a matching contribution by the employer.

It would seem that in this respect King County employees have an inferior benefit compared to the private sector. That being the case, perhaps The Seattle Times should also editorialize in favor of improving the King County 401 (k) benefit to include an employer contribution.

After all, I'm sure the paper would want to be fair to King County employees.

-- Frank Lippman, Seattle

Methods epitomize nonnegotiable truth

When the Seattle School Board adopted the "Discovering" math texts, I was disappointed but not surprised ["School Board fails math test," Opinion, Bruce Ramsey column, May 13].

I am a math instructor at Renton Technical College. I used to work as a tutor for high-school-age students at University Tutoring Service near the University of Washington. While working as a tutor, I was always uncomfortable when students would show up with one of the modern "discovery"-style math texts. Often, I would spend half of our session just figuring out what they were studying and what they were expected to do with it. This was embarrassing and frustrating.

Compare the "discovery" method of learning math with a violin class. Try to imagine a violin teacher telling students to "discover" how to hold their instrument. No competent musician would advocate such an approach. Imagine a golf pro suggesting that students "discover" the best way to swing a club, or a swimming coach having students "discover" their own swim strokes.

This raises an important question: Why has math, a time-honored discipline comparable to playing a violin, golfing or swimming, been singled out for this treatment? It has to do with a certain modern mindset -- the belief that all truth is negotiable and that if students are taught to negotiate their own truth at an early age they will be more amenable to this approach as adults.

Math, with its axioms and proofs, smacks of nonnegotiable truth. How are we to convince little budding relativists that there is no such thing as objective truth when they have an apparent example at their fingertips?

-- Scott Wall, Vashon

Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times

Activists pour water on Perry Wright during a January 2008 waterboarding demonstration in Westlake Park in downtown Seattle. Multiple groups demanded the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Editor, The Times:

President Obama is to be congratulated for blocking the release of detainee photos, since that would only aid our terrorist enemies ["President reverses decision on photos," page one, May 14].

I only wish he had given similar consideration to publication of the memos about enhanced-interrogation techniques, which has gutted our intelligence-gathering agencies.

-- Edward Wittmann, Seattle

Government is really afraid of outrage

Oh, for criminy sake, let's stop posing and talk about what's really going on with the torture photos and memos.

First of all, it's not enhanced interrogation. It's torture. Second, we aren't afraid of what will happen when the terrorists see them because they already know all about them. Third, it's not even about the photos and memos.

We are faced with two problems that we have never dealt with before and we don't know what to do. We have a deposed leader who is guilty of war crimes and genocide for profit on a massive scale and we are scared to death to open that can of worms. Our government is afraid that airing these things will ferment our outrage to the point of demanding a reaction to this shameful blot on our national pride that might well set precedents that will alter the course of history in ways that cannot be controlled.

The other problem is that, like every world-dominating empire, we are hated for our arrogance and this is typical of the kind of scenario that precedes a massive effort to bring down such a power.

The answer is confession, contrition, apology and correction.

-- Harold R. Pettus, Everett

Have Christians lost their values?

I am saddened that so many of my evangelical brothers and sisters think torture can be justified in certain situations ["An evangelical divide in debate over torture," News, May 14]. This is situation ethics, not Christian ethics. Situation ethics says that right and wrong depend on the situation. Christian ethics says right and wrong are what Jesus says are right and wrong.

In addition to the Golden Rule, Jesus also said that the second greatest commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself. He then used an illustration to show that one's neighbor can be someone from a nation one doesn't exactly like (Luke 10:29-37).

In the U.S., information or a confession gained through coercion is inadmissible in a court of law. At least the law recognizes that people will say what they are expected to say when they are being tortured, whether true or not.

I am concerned for the future of our nation. Have we completely lost our values? Christians: If you have forgotten that God judges nations, may I suggest a reading through the Prophets?

-- The Rev. Deena Jones, Arlington

Fascinated by moral flexibility

In regard to the article "An evangelical divide in debate over torture," I find it fascinating that while white evangelicals in this country are extremely strict and absolutist in regard to just about everything, including abortion, sex before marriage, gay marriage, homosexuality, fidelity and the interpretation of the Bible and the Second Amendment, most of them are so morally flexible when it comes to torture!

-- Alex Zedicoff, Seattle

Hire people who can do job right in the first place

I am absolutely incensed about this latest misuse of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars ["$800,000 to fix street dept.," page one, May 14]. Consultants! Investigations! Payouts! When does it end?

I was under the impression that when people are hired to do a job, they're hired because they know how to do that job. That's the only way I and most other people ever get hired, and we don't get to keep those jobs if we just bluff our way through. Obviously, this isn't the case in the transportation department.

So we taxpayers are expected to fork over more than $800,000 in this collapsed economy so that the people who don't know how to do their jobs keep getting paid to not do their jobs properly, and we have to pay consultants to show those people how to do the jobs they're supposed to be qualified to do. Is there ever going to be a solution to this madness?

Instead of hiring consultants, why don't we fire the inept and useless people who have caused the problems and, for heaven's sake, hire people who can earn their keep by knowing how to get their jobs done in an efficient, timely and -- most of all -- cost-effective manner?

I know I'm not alone when I say that I'm absolutely sick of my tax dollars being sucked into an endless abyss that yields no satisfactory results.

-- Marianne Moon, Seattle

Seattle's leaders are lacking

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels defending his actions on the Seattle street-department fiasco is a matter of incompetence by his bloviating sycophants. What a disgusting waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Mayor Nickels is sorely lacking in management skills and Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis is lacking in everything.

-- Walter Montgomery, Seattle

Beneficial to add more voices

Unless the usual union members or activists are called out, Seattle's City Council meetings are notably quick and bland.

Frankly, the city could really benefit from just an ounce of Balkanization. The fact that your editorial ["Don't Balkanize Seattle City Council," Opinion, May 14] cited only one expert -- from the naysaying Chamber of Commerce, no less -- demonstrates the heavy investment here in the status quo.

For all its thousand-and-one neighborhood councils, Seattle's various enclaves are pitifully voiceless. Why be so dismissive of "yet another attempt" to add to the discourse currently controlled by the mayor?

-- Daniela McDonald, Seattle

Looking for middle ground

Please reconsider your "Don't Balkanize Seattle City Council" editorial and join me in proposing a middle ground for populating city councils in medium to large-sized cities.
How about a council that has both at-large and by-district members? Maybe six elected in districts and five elected at large, for instance.

This enables people who are less well known, or with fewer resources, to try their hands at the district level, likely broadening the number of candidates. Those who are successful at that level might well run citywide in a later election, joining other at-large members in the group who will have demonstrated electability in the larger constituency. Gee, maybe this would serve a winnowing process for producing -- gasp! -- mayoral candidates.

And residents will be the big winners. Their district representative will feel a special responsibility for localized problems, from potholes to cocaine dealers to hours at the branch library. It ensures that all parts of the city will have representation in the city's legislative body. And the at-large representatives should bring a broader perspective to those big issues all cities face.

This approach combines the best of both, making it a true middle-ground option that I believe the thoughtful Seattle Times' editorial writers would embrace enthusiastically. And you can -- all it takes is a modest little "oops," a new perspective and another editorial.

-- George Randels, deputy mayor and City Council member, Port Townsend

Don't blame the messenger

I am amused at how easily we blame the messenger instead of the perpetrator of a crime ["Craigslist must be held accountable," Opinion, editorial, May 15]. Trying to hold Craigslist accountable for the activities of people who use it is like holding a newspaper accountable for printing junk science and tabloid news.

Since The Seattle Times editorial board feels it is appropriate to target the messenger in the case of Craigslist, I think it is time for the readers to hold The Seattle Times publisher accountable. How long have you, the messenger, misled us about the health benefits of margarine over butter? Now it turns out that butter is healthier for us than margarine. Who should we blame for cardiac issues?

-- Warren A. Nadeau, Bainbridge Island

Bring students face-to-face with those in need

I have a great idea on how to discipline the kids who participated in that food fight at their school cafeteria ["Food fight! It's a scene out of 'Animal House,'" NWFriday, May 15].

Rather than canceling their prom, which would punish students who did not participate in the food fight and make those who did feel like "victims," tell those students that took part in the fight that not only do they have to scrub down the cafeteria until it shines, but they have to make a substantial contribution to the local food bank.

They also have to spend time volunteering at the food bank and interacting face-to-face with the people who are in need -- let the students see for themselves how precious that bowl of fresh fruit would be to someone who is going hungry, and what it is like to worry about getting enough to eat. Then maybe next time they want to have some "fun," they will think twice before choosing to do something so destructive.

-- Joan McArtney, Seattle

Both parties ignore most qualified candidates

In the May 14 Opinion section, E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote a noncontroversial, informative article ["The GOP's 'Obama hugger'"], and yet there is a hidden and likely unintentional shot at the poor state of American politics.

The article was largely about how the Republican and Democratic national committees choose their candidates. The debate comes down to a choice between the ones who toe the party line or ones who are the most electable. What happened to the most qualified? It's never mentioned anymore.

George W. Bush is the poster boy for "electable." John Kerry and Al Gore stuck with the party line. The most qualified candidates were likely ignored by the committees.

In a subtle way, choosing between party line and electability assumes that the candidates, once elected, will vote according to the party's wishes and not with their own brains. We are electing puppets who are controlled by money and some behind-the-scenes Big Brother.

Is it any wonder that we are seeing both Republicans and Democrats vote as a bloc? Is it any wonder that most of us, who are in the middle, feel left out?

Our current president will do well to concentrate on what the middle cares about -- economy, security, energy. Meanwhile, the puppetmasters are trying to steer us into thinking that our issues are guns, abortions and lapel pins.

-- Michael Kovacs, Sammamish

The root of district/union problems

Linda Shaw's story on the Seattle School District and the letter cutting one training day ["School chief's letter vexes union," page one, May 9] is a prime example of what is wrong with education in this city.

The real story here is buried within it and consists of less than a full sentence: "... because state legislators cut funding to pay for it."

In today's parlance, this story is a distraction from the real story: funding for education. Improving education was a primary campaign plank in Gov. Chris Gregoire's re-election campaign. Somehow, some way, the teachers will get their training day. The teachers union will see to that. The kids will just have to do with one less day of in-class education. How is that an improvement to our kids' education?

Funding for public schools should be the very last item on the chopping block, given the deplorable state of Washington state schools today.

-- Jeannie Stratton, Seattle

Help whales assimilate in the wild

It was with great sadness when I read Wednesday's article about Keiko's life and death ["The $20M lessons of 'freeing' Keiko," page one, May 13].

I visited Keiko when he was at the aquarium in Newport, Ore., and I got the overwhelming feeling that he was very happy there. You could just tell he enjoyed his much-improved conditions and it felt like he enjoyed watching the people as much as they enjoyed watching him.

Even though I was thrilled to have seen Keiko up close and personal, I was depressed because it felt like he was finally happy, but that would come to an end since we humans thought it would be better for him to be alone in the wild.

I totally agree that he was a bad example and that Corky and Lolita would have a really good chance of making it back in the wild since their families are still around. I've heard that the plan for Lolita would be to have her in a pen near her family and watch closely to see what happens. They wouldn't just let her go without making sure she would fully assimilate back into her family unit. And wouldn't it be a way better life to be living in a large pen in her native waters than having to perform ridiculous tricks in chlorinated water every day?

The argument that she'd never survive is based solely on the fact that she brings in revenue.

-- Gayle Janzen, Seattle

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has recently been a lightning rod for criticism of the Republican Party.

Editor, The Times:

On Wednesday, The Times had a full page of stories about the Republican Party ["Plenty of GOP voices, but not the right tone," News, May 13] -- by the way, none written by Times staffers. Each discussed the poor standing of the GOP in terms of personalities --Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist, etc.

Hasn't it ever occurred to these writers or your editors that the party may be doing poorly because people don't like the policies it is supporting? This is a far more plausible explanation than whether folks think Meghan McCain is too "curvy."

If we are going to be a one-newspaper town, please give us real analyses.

-- Phil Bereano, Seattle

Stubbornly attached to ideals

Dick Cheney has been hitting the talk shows and making a strong point about the future of the Republican Party: We must be true to our ideals! We must cast out those who are not ideologically consistent. It is less important that we are relevant than that we are pure.

So sign me up, Dick, for the purely irrelevant GOP.

-- Glenn Bonci, Seattle

Kids will suffer consequences of decision

Last night, for the first time all school year, my second-grader uttered the words, "I like math!" She surprised herself, I think.

For the first time all year, my husband and I --no math slouches ourselves -- were thrilled to understand what her homework was asking for and be able to help as needed. This is why: Having completed the Everyday Math curriculum she is required to teach, my daughter's teacher had sent home a math homework packet from another curriculum -- what a difference!

Everyday Math is the elementary math curriculum adopted by Seattle Public Schools two years ago over the impassioned objections of teachers and parents. Now the district has done it again and selected Discovery Math for Seattle's high schools.

I don't know what the political machinations are behind the district's decisions. There must be some, though, because why else would they opt for what is clearly the lesser curriculum in both cases over the strenuous objections of the community they are supposed to serve? The opinions of the teachers, who devote their lives to helping our kids learn, and the parents, whose primary concern is obviously their children's well-being, carry no weight.

I feel so powerless and frustrated by the district's lack of accountability to us. I feel terrible that all our kids will be suffering the consequences of the district's misguided decision for years to come.

-- Robin Kelson, Seattle

Concept-driven math leads to achievement

Real Math as been tossed around as the bad guy for years. Real Math is math for understanding. It is concept-driven. The math Bruce Ramsey speaks of is regressive memorization ["School Board fails math test," Opinion, column, May 13].

Math watered down for parents to understand because they were not taught concepts when they went to school will not put our students on the road to high achievement. I have taught in an international school with many Asian students whose parents often have tutors for them. Perhaps that's what parents need to do if they cannot help with homework.

Thanks to the School Board, which took the advice of the math committee.

I know many teachers and students will thank you, too. I am a retired teacher after 43 years in the classroom. I learned to teach math for understanding late in my career, and it was life-changing for my students.

-- Patricia Martin, Issaquah

A misleading endorsement

Imagine if a real-estate agent were selling a house. If she listed all the features of the house but failed to point out that two independent contractors had declared the home to be unsound, she would be in huge trouble and liable.

Yet that is what the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) representative, Greta Borneman, did at the Seattle School Board meeting with respect to math curriculum. She touted the quantitative review, the results of curriculums mapping to our new math standards, but did not include the fact that Prentice-Hall and Glencoe were ranked third and fourth, respectively. She did show Core-Plus, which was ranked fifth, as though it were ranked third.

Borneman then downplayed the qualitative review, not mentioning the results: two mathematicians independent of OSPI and the publishers found Discovering AGA to be unsound. It was a dishonest presentation.

OSPI gave an implicit endorsement to the district to adopt Discovering AGA. Prentice-Hall was the district's second-choice curriculum. OSPI withheld the information that would have allowed the board to make a truly informed decision.

Some 80 percent of the people who showed up to speak about math to the board begged them not to adopt Discovering AGA. Included in that group were at least four district teachers and one UW science professor.

How can we change course in this state to ensure our students learn real math if we are fighting OSPI?

-- Laura Brandt, Sammamish

Put money in potholes, not pockets

"$800,000 to fix street dept."? [page one, May 14] $515,000 already spent investigating, $150,000 for more consultants, $140,000 to resolve employees claims and more pending? This is tax money "well spent"?

I live on Camano Island, which is rural but has well-maintained roadways, and when I visit my aunt in West Seattle, across the West Seattle Bridge and up Fauntleroy to California Street, its like entering a Third World country. Fauntleroy is a disgrace to the city of Seattle.

What is going on with the maintenance of the roadways, mister big-bucks mayor? Put our money in the potholes instead of the consultants' pockets.

I have been down this bumpy road too many times!

-- Kip Goozee, Camano Island

Seattle's vote means nothing

We learned in the May 13 Seattle Times that Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law legislation to begin construction of a deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct ["Around the Northwest: Governor signs bill to replace viaduct," NW Wednesday]. I fear her memory is short.

As most Times readers will recall, Seattle held a special election in 2007 about the viaduct. The City Council wanted to give the voters a choice between digging a tunnel and building a new elevated viaduct. One can only imagine the look of surprise on many public officials' faces when the results reflected a clear rejection of both the tunnel and the elevated options.

Many, including Carrie Moon of the People's Waterfront Coalition (PWC), concluded that folks in Seattle didn't want either option, and were perfectly willing to live with a third option: surface-transit, which had been kept off the ballot. The PWC published voluminous information to show that moving people in the viaduct corridor could be accomplished by enhanced public transit and careful redesign of traffic flows on downtown streets.

As most are aware, global warming is going to make the world increasingly unlivable for coming generations. We also know that cars produce about one-third of global-warming gas. Shouldn't we take every opportunity to decrease our reliance on cars, as the surface-transit option would have done?

What part of "no" doesn't the governor understand?

-- Brian King, Seattle

The tunnel's numerous warts

Thanks, Gov. Gregoire -- it's our tunnel now, warts and all. And let's examine the futuristic warts.

First, the cost overruns will cripple the city budget in the next decade.

Second, can the artists' renderings of the waterfront boulevard now depict the future reality? It will not be a beautiful park scene with pedestrians strolling along. It will become a six-lane traffic nightmare with all the noise and pollution that comes along with mingling cars and people.

The thousands of affordable parking slots currently in place will disappear. If you want to continue using Embarcadero Drive in San Francisco as your benchmark, go drive it sometime and see its troubles.

Next, the view will not change -- the historic piers in place will not miraculously shrink or receive a makeover.

And last, the buses that bring in commuters from West Seattle, South Seattle and Burien will now have to traverse the city streets. Don't forget the industrial businesses that will now have find a new route to move goods.

Bucolic renderings of a peaceful waterfront are exactly what they are -- a dream. Cold reality will emerge for Seattleites as we "pay" for the tunnel for many generations.

-- David Wilson, Seattle

Receive public funds? You're accountable

Michael Bisesi's self-serving apology for the Gates Foundation really misses the point ["Criticism of Gates misses the point," Opinion, guest commentary, May 13].

Every nonprofit, inclusive of the Gates Foundation, is tax-subsidized; that is, the public incurs the cost of the deductible tax that the and foundations enjoy. Their tax deduction is our tax assessment.

I am not opposed to the tax deductibility of charitable pursuits, but I think the impact of the growth of should be reviewed by the government. I am opposed to the lack of transparency and direct public input into the expenditure and the accountability of nonprofits' public funding.

-- George W. Mauer, Shoreline

Consider the big picture

I am writing regarding The Times' editorial titled "A healthy dose of reality" [Opinion, May 13].

I have to wonder -- did the editorial board consider the unionized employees when it wrote this piece? The proposed cuts affect only the non-unionized county employees -- less than 15 percent of the county work force. This is the same minority group of employees that have been saddled with a pay cut in the form of furloughs.

What about the other 85 percent of the employees -- why are they not being asked to take cuts in pay and benefits? How can the county manage budget shortfalls when 85 percent of the employees are under union contracts?

A well-written editorial would have considered the big picture and not just the political grandstanding of two campaigning council members.

-- Mark McCulley, Seattle

Letters show a lack of understanding

The letters published on the Northwest Voices blog [seattletimes.com, Opinion] on May 13 show some lack of understanding about the issues raised: equal rights and hate crimes.

Lee Fowble of Edmonds writes that hate-crime legislation is unfair and unwarranted, making the erroneous argument that hate-crime legislation is about assigning greater value to some people's lives than others.

This is not what hate-crime legislation is about. It is about terrorism. Attacking a person because of his or her identity is an attack on that identity; the attack terrorizes the entire group of people. It is this act of terrorism that merits the higher degree of punishment.

Frank King of Mill Creek chastises The Times for suggesting that we avoid signature-gatherers for Referendum 71, because apparently extending equal rights to everyone challenges his beliefs. If his belief is that people should not be given equal rights because of how God made them, then the majority of us with a sense of fairness should rightfully avoid the signature-gatherers, and The Times has a First Amendment right to so suggest.

-- Roger Burton, Bothell

Hate crimes have broad, toxic effects

Lee Fowble misunderstands how hate-crime laws work. Punishment is not harsher for these crimes because of the minority status of the victims, but because of the bigoted motives of the perpetrator; the laws focus strictly on those motives. This is why, if a straight person is assaulted because the perp mistakenly believed he was gay, it's still a hate crime.

Why harsher penalties for these crimes? Because they cause greater harm than their parallel, underlying crime. The victims include not merely the immediate victim, but the members of the broader target community to which the victim belongs. Moreover, these crimes have a broadly toxic effect, particularly on minority relations, that the larger society has a real interest in punishing harshly.

So a swastika painted on a synagogue is not treated like ordinary graffiti on an underpass, and a violent gay-bashing assault in which the perps seek out gay victims is not treated as a mere bar fight.

-- David Neiwert, Seattle

Where does she stand on Ref. 71?

Susan Hutchison is a favorite in the County Council race? ["County exec hopefuls raise $200,000 for bids," NWWednesday, May 13.] She has name recognition, but her views on the issues are largely unknown.

I have a suggestion: The next time she appears at a debate or interview, somebody please ask her if she supports or opposes Referendum 71. That's the referendum that would roll back the recently expanded domestic-partnership law. Don't let her wiggle out of this one. Does she support it? Yes or no?

Her answer will say much about whether her views are in line with the mainstream of King County, and about her prospects to be our next county executive.

-- Erick Spencer, Seattle

Win McNamee / Getty Images

President Barack Obama, surrounded by members of Congress, applauds after he signed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 5. Obama is looking to further overhaul the nation's health-insurance system.

Editor, The Times:

As a registered-nurse at a medium-sized Seattle community hospital, I find the recent offer by the insurance industry to reduce its prices for health insurance ["Health-care sweetener for Obama," page one, May 11] akin to a bank robber making an offer to be let out of the bank if they agree to take $998,500 instead of a million.

What everyone fails to see is that insurance companies fail to deliver anything that we as a people can't do more cheaply ourselves. Public schools in this country are by and large respected and they are not for profit. They are an example of "socialized education."

Fire departments and police departments function the same in almost every municipality in the country. Imagine your response if when your house caught fire, you called 911 and the operator asked "Do you have fire insurance, sir?" The military is also "socialized," but most fail to see that.

To a lesser extent, credit unions are also "socialized" and they have shown they can compete with banks on rates and still deliver better service. By the way, banks tried mightily to keep them from being legal.

The wordsmiths of the insurance companies have demonized what people used to simply call tribal, community or national. It is time that we demand to be able to insure ourselves. Medicare is able to insure the elderly for a 3 percent overhead while insurance companies charge between 20 and 30 percent!

So instead of our employers paying premiums to a for-profit company, they would pay the premium to our government and we, the people, will use the premiums to pay health-care providers, diagnosticians, pharmacies, etc. for their services. As for the workers in the insurance companies who are presently on our payroll, they could go to work for the new National Health Service, or be retrained to do something useful, like be a pharmacist, ultrasound tech, doctor or nurse.

-- Thomas Booze, RN, Seattle

Kick out abusive insurance companies

The power of insurance companies is becoming more and more evident. Is it possible that a group of senior white men will be able to dictate to the president of the United States the terms of what's what on issues of health care? I sincerely hope not!

Just like the banks, the insurance companies in their greed did not foresee that increasing their premiums at unaffordable rates in unsustainable ways, denying claims, using endless discriminatory practices and granting huge CEO compensations would eventually lead them to offer changes that no one believes in. Our bankers became investors and ignored the consequences of high-risk investments, and where are they today?

I hope that President Obama will stand up to them and protect hardworking citizens from continued abuse from these insurance companies. They have no right to be involved with health care to start with.

President Obama can start by putting an end to Medicare Advantage Plans and then give Americans a choice of coverage that is affordable. People who are happy with their insurance coverage need not worry. They can keep what they've got. Making health care possible and affordable is what is needed for the millions of Americans who have no coverage.

-- Edyth Koch, Seattle

Supporters simply defending beliefs

How dare The Times tell its readers to avoid people who are collecting signatures for Referendum 71 ["An unnecessary campaign against gay partners," Opinion, editorial, May 11]. What a stupid thing to say!

The signature-gatherers do not have any contagious disease. They are not aliens from space. In fact, they are up to their elbows in democracy. As the United States is a representative republic, it is our duty to protest when our beliefs are challenged. The supporters of Referendum 71 are defending their beliefs. What's more, if the supporters of gay partnerships gain a victory at the ballot box, the opposition will have to be quiet.

Bring on the debate and the vote; then and only then will it be supported by the people. I think The Seattle Times had better take a look at its words; when free speech goes, so goes the country. It may not be easy or pleasant, but this is free speech.

The paper certainly can support the gay movement in Washington state, but seems to me there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

-- Frank King, Mill Creek

Economy shouldn't influence democracy

So somehow bad economic times requires us to forget about balloting against a very divisive issue like gay partnership and marriage? I think not!

The Times says not to put the state through another rendition of the culture war. You are forgetting that this "culture war" was started by the gay community. We are just trying to hold our own.

Sure, young people (indoctrinated by public schools) favor gay marriage. But when have young people been wise?

Our culture is founded on moral values that the left keeps wanting to redefine. This will end. The pendulum will swing back toward the right. This is a fight worth every bit of effort. To my last breath I will fight against the idea that it is OK for two men or two women to push their behavior in our faces.

-- Christopher Van Auken, Buckley

It's about bad-faith negotiation

Once again, The Times has reinforced its reputation among teachers as biased toward administration and against actual teachers ["Union's ire over letter misdirected, unhelpful," Opinion, editorial, May 12].

The Times completely missed the point behind the anger with the non-continuation letters sent out Friday. It takes the district's word at face value and doesn't go any further in its analysis. I will concede that the Seattle Education Association's response was bungled. They missed the point, as did you.

The point is not the single day. This is also not some legal formality during contract negotiations as apparently the district is telling you. It's about bad-faith, union-busting, negotiation-circumventing tactics by the district.

The teachers operate year-to-year under a continuing contract that gets renegotiated periodically. They have in the past renegotiated work days, planning days, benefits, class size --all that is handled in contract negotiations.

Never before to my knowledge has the district sought to terminate all contracts through this law because of a need to change the contract. This is purely an attempt to circumvent the union negotiation, a process I'm sure Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson sees as a rather pesky and cumbersome one.

This is a bad-faith negotiation tactic. Basically, since all of the teachers have been non-renewed, they're possibly in the position of no negotiation at all. The teachers have, by all appearances, been given the option of taking the new contract or nothing.

What's almost comical is that your editorial faults the union for not understanding the financial position of the district. You give the district a pass for a "mistake" in sending the letters out Friday. However, Goodloe-Johnson's credibility is increasingly compromised at every turn -- making the announcement and sending the letters at the end of Teacher Appreciation Week right after sending an "appreciation" e-mail to all teachers. Then saying it wasn't intended to go out -- it was a "clerical error." Then saying they're obligated by law to notify teachers of the contract change, which is wholly untrue.

The union's only blunder was a PR one. They didn't make the right points in the right way.

The Times does so well in other areas, but its education coverage is so slanted with little to no investigation or research that it is completely unfair to those who dedicate their lives to educating our kids. They deserve more.

-- Julia Renouard, Shoreline

Additional penalties unfair

On its face, the whole concept of hate crimes seems to be discriminatory and a form of double jeopardy ["Hate crimes jump 27 percent in a year," NW Tuesday, May 12].

If the law dictates a certain level of punishment for each type or degree of crime, then ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. of the perpetrator and the victim should not be a factor in the amount of punishment leveled against the offender. To do otherwise is essentially giving legal credence to the idea that one kind of victim is somehow more valuable to society than another. It's as though the penalty for car theft should vary depending on the whether it was a red Ford or a blue one that was stolen.

The idea that additional penalties are warranted, above and beyond those which would otherwise be imposed for a given offense, is nothing more than an another example of political correctness run amok.

-- Lee Fowble, Edmonds

The only sensible option

Grant Degginger, mayor of Bellevue, is correct in his opinions for East Link through Bellevue in his guest commentary published Tuesday ["Keep tunnel options on table for East Link," Opinion, May 12].

The proposed surface route along 108th and 106th Avenues Northeast is on four-lane streets surrounded by condominiums, apartments and businesses. In one block on 108th between Northeast 10th and Northeast 12th there are about 750 parking spaces.

The train would require two lanes down the middle of the street, leaving only one lane on each side of it for car traffic. With the train running often, these cars would not be able to egress or ingress the buildings. If they want to go east or west, they would have to cross over the tracks within a very limited time period. The resulting gridlock would make it difficult for anyone to move along the roads. Driving to I-405 would be almost impossible!

Additionally, there would be significant environmental impacts in these narrow corridors resulting in increased noise, pollution, vibrations, difficult fire truck and emergency vehicle access, substantially reduced safety and many traffic and train conflicts.

These issues are true for most of downtown Bellevue. A tunnel is the only option.

-- Helen Kester, Bellevue

Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times

Part-time professor Dana Rush lectures during Astronomy 101 class at Green River Community College.

Editor, The Times:

Keith Hoeller's guest commentary ["Adjunct faculty at state's two-year schools deserve equal pay for equal work," Opinion, May 8] correctly describes community-college funding run amok.

Only 25 percent of the instructors are making a professional wage with the job security necessary for the legal requirements of academic freedom and freedom of speech. As ruled by the Washington State Supreme Court in Mader v. Health Care Authority, instructors are mis-classified as part-time and work 12-week contracts, often for years.

The result is that students are denied 100 percent, full-time instructors. The teachers unions are often staffed with faculty who move back and forth into administration, and therefore our bosses are often also our union reps.

Hoeller has aptly described a state of siege, where 75 percent of the instructors are kept under the iron heel of fake unions and fascist administrators. Gov. Chris Gregoire has done nothing but go along with the present "the-sky-is-falling" scenario.

If she really wanted to fund all the colleges and universities, she could easily do it. Instead, Gregoire, the unions and the colleges are working in collusion and cutting the students, teachers and our communities out of a chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

-- Teresa Knudsen, Spokane

Legislature should stop mulling, start acting

In a recession, the state Legislature cannot be expected to solve many problems. But irrespective of budgets, part-time instructors deserve equal opportunity, as Keith Hoeller argues in his commentary.

Hoeller mentions annual contracts, which, while far short of tenure, would be a terrific benefit for those part-time instructors "who have taught half-time for at least three years" and would not cost state taxpayers. Unfortunately, our Legislature has seemed more willing to "study the problem to death" than take corrective action.

It is a sad irony that we have a system that, in Hoeller's terms, aims to provide "expanded job opportunities for every citizen except the professors" who deliver the instruction.

Most immediately, the state should stipulate that state funds for paying part-time faculty unemployment should be returned to the state's general fund, as Hoeller proposes, not remain as an incentive for colleges to discourage part-time professors from applying for unemployment or challenge those claims when they do.

-- Jack Longmate, Poulsbo

Need respect within unions

The suggestion of allowing community college part-time faculty to form their own unions is common sense, but why is it such a distant dream?

Currently, I as a part-timer am forced by state law into the same union as the full-time tenured faculty, the patrons who blithely control the union despite token part-time participation. In many cases, the full-timers are the de facto bosses of the part-timers, even controlling whether or not we are rehired next quarter or whether or not we get extra assignments. Would you like to be in the same union as your own boss?

Part-timers will get little respect from the full-timer-dominated unions until the part-timers have the legal right to organize separately. That doesn't mean the part-timers must organize their own unions. It simply means that we could organize separately if the full-timers don't include us fairly in the union's efforts.

-- Doug Collins, Seattle

Laughable effort to contain costs

Forgive me this chuckle for [the] headline, "Health-care sweetener for Obama" [page one, May 11], but especially for the subhead "... industry vows to contain costs."

For years I have watched these health-related insurance companies and pharmacies raise rates ever higher and higher and always with the same justification, they say, of merely being competitive and keeping their heads above the economic flood of inflation. And now with a Democratic president and Congress, they want to look like the guys in white hats by "containing costs."

How laughable.

They might hunker down for now, but as soon as the next W. sits on the corporate knee, you'd better believe these companies will be back with rising fees faster than you can say "sick."

-- Bink Owen, Walla Walla

Corporations only care for profits

The for-profit private health-care-insurance industry is offering to try to reduce rate increases by 1.5 percent per year. They say this will save U.S. citizens $2 trillion over 10 years. We must not believe them. There are many reasons why.

Two trillion dollars buys a lot of corporate jets. Two trillion dollars buys a lot of vacation homes. Two trillion dollars buys a lot of fancy corner offices. Two trillion dollars buys a lot of Rolls-Royces. Two trillion dollars buys a lot of politicians.

The CEOs and boards of directors of publicly held corporations are legally bound to maximize profits for their shareholders at the expense of their customers. Voluntarily reducing premiums might even be illegal unless they can show the shareholders that this will actually increase profits.

The private, for-profit health-care-insurance industry is pledging 1.5 percent reductions in premiums. However, we currently pay about double what other industrialized nations pay for health care and our health-care outcomes are worse!

Write or call your senators and representatives today. Write the president. We need government-financed and -run health care now.

-- John S. Snow, Woodinville

Allow some healthy competition

The people who have given us the most expensive health-care system in the world are finally talking about reducing costs.

We need a Medicare-like system open to everyone. Let the private insurance companies compete with it if they think they can offer something better.

-- Bruce Pringle, Normandy Park

If not now, when?

Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said of the transportation-management travesty, "No one's losing their job over this" ["Street honcho under fire long before snow fiasco," page one, May 8].

I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which the leaders of an organization that spends more than half a million taxpayer dollars on a single investigation of internal discrimination and favoritism complaints shouldn't be losing their jobs.

-- Steve Poole, Shoreline

Problem: secure-job culture

I can answer Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata's question --why was a manager with documented problems related to his management style promoted, and why a $515,000 investigation into workplace issues at the department produced no noticeable change a year later ["Promotion of 'unsafe' manager questioned," page one, May 9].

When I returned to Seattle after college many years ago, I naively felt comforted that Seattle appeared to have a more open, clean and "run as it should be" city government than the convoluted, corrupt and impenetrably bureaucratic other cities that I knew.

It wasn't until I served on Seattle's Human Rights Commission a few years later that I learned the disturbing truth about Seattle's city government: The city's institutional culture placed (and apparently still places) a much higher priority on assuring that everyone kept his or her job than on any concern about whether the job is being properly performed.

Until this culture changes, the citizens of Seattle will suffer the indignities and worse of a failed bureaucracy. What it will take to change this culture I do not know, but it has been clear for a long time that simply exposing mismanagement is not enough to correct it.

-- Greg Bartholomew, Seattle

Stockholders deserve more for investments

If George Will's column in the May 8 Times ["Auto companies should be left to the rigors of bankruptcy," Opinion] is correct, the government's plans for saving the auto companies will create great injustices.

He says the government will end up owning 50 percent of GM. The United Auto Workers will own 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler. Government ownership of Chrysler was not specified.

The injustice lies in the treatment of the current shareholders of the companies. The bailout funds from the government justly earn a sizable government share of the companies.

But the huge shares -- 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler -- going to the union are outrageous. The union contributed considerably to the plight of the companies, yet it gains control of them while the innocent shareholders end up with only 11 percent of GM and probably less of Chrysler.

The article speaks of greedy "speculators" contributing to the company failures, and surely some investors deserve that comment. But many investors in the auto companies were innocent stockholders saving for their futures in the face of the approaching Social Security breakdown.

Certainly they deserve more for their investments than just 11 percent of GM or a comparable share of Chrysler.

-- Spencer M. Higley, Edmonds

Two-state solution the only possibility

I would like to register opposition to Charles Krauthammer's pro-Israel/anti-Hamas column in Sunday's Times [Opinion, May 10].

The Israeli bombing and occupation of Gaza some months ago was disgraceful and inhumane, to say the least, with cluster bombs and indiscriminate killing. And what did it accomplish?

Hamas is stronger today than it ever was. And we must remember that Hamas won the transparent democratic election some years ago. Do we have the luxury of just ignoring this exercise in democracy?

The United States sends billions of military dollars to Israel each year with no strings attached, and Israel overreacts with military retaliation for the comparatively few deaths that occur in Israel. There is a growing peace movement in Israel today, and I believe our government should listen to those Israelis as well as to the Jewish voices for peace in our own country. We often are too responsive to the Zionist lobby in this country.

I believe that a two-state solution offers the only possible solution to the Israel-Palestinian challenge, despite the many problems that such a solution entails.

-- Robert Kauffman, Seattle

Tired of agency's neglect

Thank you for this excellent reporting ["DSHS settles for $2 million," NW Friday, May 8].

I am sick and tired of reading and hearing reports about the extreme neglect of this department, which generally goes unpunished. Where are the legal consequences for these workers who have shown so much irresponsibility in so many situations? Why are excuses always made for them?

Children (now adults) do not lie about such things, and it would be entirely unlikely that anyone could make up so many horrific details of abuse anyway.

I am appalled and call for action on the part of this community against this state-funded agency and these negligent individuals!

-- Carol Meyer, Seattle

Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times

Maria Goodloe-Johnson is superintendent for Seattle Public Schools.

Written out of arrogance or ignorance?

Editor, The Times:

It vexes me why Seattle's school chief Maria Goodloe-Johnson failed to consult union officials before she wrote a letter to teachers about the reduction of paid days for next year ["School chief's letter vexes union," page one, May 9]. If she had taken the time to talk with the union, the whole problem could have easily been avoided.

It's quite a coincidence that an adjacent article reports that the management style of Paul Jackson, Seattle's manager of transportation, has come under City Council scrutiny ["Promotion of 'unsafe' manager questioned," page one, May 9]. While they're working on management practices, the council should ask Goodloe-Johnson if her letter to the teachers was written out of arrogance or ignorance.

-- Bill Whetham, Seattle

Union ignores students, pursues power

It's all about power, isn't it?

The Seattle Education Association is mad that it can't run Seattle Public Schools. They think they are co-superintendents and should have the final say on how the district runs.

Nowhere in the article do union spokespeople mention the children or education. You might think the union would be complaining that reduced class time means reduced success in education our children, but no --its complaint is about usurping the union's "rights."

Throughout the country, teachers unions are -- while giving lip service to education -- demanding policies that give them power. They insist on length of service as the criteria for pay increases. They fight back at the slightest suggestion that competency or merit should be reflected in their pay or that poor performance can result in termination.

In the last week, the Obama administration caved in to union pressure and let die an extremely successful scholarship program in Washington, D.C., which has one of the worst school systems in the country. Scholarships to private schools were given to a few students. Every report indicated that students in this program were far more successful than those in the D.C. system. About 10 applications were received for each vacancy. Never mind -- the power of the union was threatened.

Everyone agrees that today, as never before, a good education is essential for the success of the individual and for the nation. Everyone agrees, that is, except the unions, who would rather trade their power today for our country's future.

-- Henry Kroeger, Redmond

Eliminating the most valuable commodity

We hear a lot about cuts in teaching positions, but we haven't heard anything about elimination of administrative positions. My memory from university teaching/research and my wife's 20 years as a senior-high science teacher is that in tough times, deans, department chairmen and principals save the bureaucrats above all.

Teachers, of course, are the most valuable commodity. But watch the school boards cry, "We mustn't eliminate programs!" Teachers, yes, but programs, no. That would mean reducing the often-excessive number of administrators and counselors.

-- Luther E. Franklin, Issaquah

Out with the new, in with the old

I'm an amazing teacher. I'm young, vibrant, love what I do each day and am knowledgeable about the best practices in education. In fact, my final evaluation, written by my principal, started with the line, "Jessica is one of the best teachers in this school."

Why am I writing to an editor then? On Monday, there will be a letter waiting for me at school -- a "Reduction in Force" letter. This letter means that next year I, along with hundreds of other young, vibrant teachers across Washington, will not have a job. The funny thing is we suspect we didn't get our letters on Friday because it was the last day of Teacher Appreciation Week.

Who are the people replacing us? They are the people with far more experience -- try 35-plus years. They are the people who are tired, who complain around the lunch table about their rowdy classes, the people who teach using the "best practices" from 1985. These are the teachers who will be teaching our children next year.

Me, I'm crossing my fingers that I'll hear back about an application I put in at Nordstrom. I hear those employee discounts are pretty great.

-- Jessica Simonson, Everett

Can share wealth any way it pleases

In regard to the article in The Times about some folks complaining that Bill Gates needs more transparency in his philanthropy ["Journal article critical of Gates giving," NW Saturday, May 9] -- ingrates!

Gates can put his money anywhere he damn well pleases. It's his money. And nobody can say Gates hasn't shared the wealth.

-- Harpur Evoy, Bellingham

No good deed goes unpunished

Do I misunderstand the role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Does it have to be transparent or accountable to those for whom it provides funding? Does it have to be accountable and transparent to those of us not receiving their funding? I think not.

The foundation -- which provides more funding to do good around the world than most nations -- can do no good deed without being punished.

To the management of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I say please keep up the wonderful good you do around the world. If you wish to emphasize high-tech solutions, it is your right to do so.

-- Thomas H. Parsons, Seattle

Surface rail would be traffic nightmare

I agree with and appreciate The Seattle Times' view on Bellevue's "Creative tunnel vision" [Opinion, editorial, May 10].

A surface or at-grade light rail will create such a construction nightmare and disruption to businesses, residents and traffic that it is unimaginable to even consider such an option. The Times is absolutely right that the added cost should not be taken lightly.

That's why three of the seven Bellevue Council members voted to keep the B7 Alternative alive. This alternative represents the least community and environmental impact on existing right of way. Sound Transit must look at the overall system to find savings and achieve the vision people have voted to approve -- mobility for the Eastside and the region. Downtown Bellevue is only one piece of the bigger picture.

Bellevue wants to be at the table. This is a project for the next hundred years, not to mention the costs to the city if it's not done right. Who knows better what's good and right for Bellevue?

There is also a regional vision -- to bring the system to the whole Eastside. This can only be done if we have the funding to do it. Therefore, as The Times says, we have to find ways to reduce costs of the project.

We have done it in endorsing a surface route through the Bel-Red corridor. We did it not just to save money, but because it complements our land-use development plan.

Also as The Times says, we have to do it more creatively and with an open mind. Bellevue communities have been working and urging the Sound Transit board and staff on the B7 Alternative.

I hope Sound Transit will listen to keep the tunnel option and B7 Alternative.

-- Conrad Lee, Bellevue City Council member

Officers can't choose their wars

Bert Sacks demonstrates abject ignorance of American government and of military law in supporting 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's refusal to serve in Iraq ["Refusal to deploy: a crime to participate in war of aggression," Opinion, Northwest Voices, May 8]. The Times didn't do much better with its suggestion to drop the rest of the Watada case ["Time for Army, Watada to part company," Opinion, editorial, May 8].

The United States is not Nazi Germany. U.S. soldiers have been prosecuted for misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, as were Lt. William Calley and others for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

In our democracy, the president and Congress determine whether a war is legal. Officers and senior enlisted leaders are entrusted with ensuring that the conduct of soldiers conforms to the law and military directives.

Obviously, the system isn't perfect. But allowing American military officers to choose their wars and to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice without fear of prosecution undermines discipline and subverts the chain of command. The flip side of this slippery slope is that senior officers could say, "Oh, by the way, Mr. President ... we've started a war without you."

I bear no malice toward Watada, who seems like a sincere, though naive, young man. But the legal machinery of his court-martial should continue until its legal conclusion.

-- Phillip Johnson, Seattle

A leader of uncommon courage

The Seattle Times editorial board states that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada is not a fit military leader and should receive less than an honorable discharge. What he did, in calling attention to U.S. war crimes in Iraq, makes him a military leader of uncommon courage that exceeded that of most other military leaders, the media, Congress and the public.

The editorial failed to note that Watada did agree to deploy to Afghanistan. The Army could have let it go at that, but decided punish him for exercising his right not to participate in a war crime.

Watada was right that President Bush committed a war crime by initiating a war of aggression against Iraq. His resistance was not just in accord with military law, as noted by letter writer Bert Sacks in the same edition; it was in full accord with the U.N. Charter and the findings of the Nuremberg Court. That court defined "aggressor" as that state which is the first to declare war, invade, attack or support armed aggression in another state. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, a Nuremberg prosecutor, stated that a war of aggression is not only an international war crime is the ultimate war crime.

The editorial board should be embarrassed to ignore the crimes of the powerful and focus its wrath on lower-ranking officers and enlisted people. This is a disservice to the country, to our military and to Watada.

-- Malcolm D. McPhee, Sequim

Why join Army in the first place?

In regard to Bert Sacks' letter on May 8, I was thinking that perhaps 1st Lt. Ehren Watada should have thought of all that before he joined the military. What was Watada thinking he would do in the Army --get paid to sit around and philosophize?

Saddam Hussein told the United States he would "crush us." He said he would "make the streets of the United States of America run with blood." He said that in the first war and he promised it in the second.

It doesn't sound peaceful to me, and I am puzzled why so many seem so disappointed that he wasn't able to make good on his threat. Whether he had more weapons than they found or not, he certainly threatened to engage us in the "mother of all wars." It's not up to a lieutenant, or event a military judge, to decide what the U.S. should do. You don't get to vote on following orders.

I am also surprised that so many focus on Iraq, but ignore that we're having a war in Afghanistan. Iraq's leader threatened us. Didn't we go into Afghanistan just to find Osama bin Laden? Now we're escalating the conflict and having a war. How can you rage about one and ignore the other?

Even so, nobody is refusing deployment there and only one publicly refused to go to Iraq. All the hundreds of thousands of others have followed orders like they agreed to do when they joined the military in the first place.

-- Paula Heinrichs, Seattle

Programs are investments, not entitlements

Having finished reading the latest David S. Broder column ["Nation ripe for entitlement reform," Opinion, May 10], I am reminded again that he remains a stalwart spokesman for the "establishment" and he continues to distort reality to the bent of those in power. He has no concept of how those of us in the dwindling middle class really think.

The first and most obvious distortion is in the title of his article -- America is ripe for entitlement reform. I would contend that Americans are ready for reform, but the most immediate need for reform should be directed at our broken financial system and always-growing military-industrial complex, both of which serve to enrich the wealthy and powerful and take from the average taxpayer. Significant reform in these areas would be a real benefit to America.

The other, more subtle distortion is in the word "entitlement." To the best of my recollection, I and others like me have been paying into the Social Security and Medicare systems all of our working lives. Not only have we funded those systems for ourselves, but we have also propped up those of the previous generation. This is not my definition of an entitlement; it is an investment.

Do not tell me now that I am ready to cut my benefits and that I should work to an older age. Instead, we need to shift our national priorities to policies that benefit the working people.

-- Todd Ramsey, Brier

Mismatched ramps endanger the disabled

"Making it safer for foot traffic"? [NWThursday, May 7] How about looking at simple things first?

Take a walk on Fourth Avenue from James Street to Pike Street. Notice the large number of mismatches between the crosswalk stripes and the sidewalk ramps. The elderly or disabled who have difficulty with curbs are encouraged or forced to cross intersections partly or completely out of the crosswalk. In an hour or two, a Times photographer could make a scary montage of what downtown-Seattle pedestrians face.

Other improvements are certainly possible, but the above offenses were created/allowed by city planners and inspectors. Is that what we pay them for?

The crosswalk/ramp mismatch is true in many other spots throughout downtown. I just happen to see the Fourth Avenue examples every day.

-- Robert Bradley, Kirkland

Ted S. Warren / The Associated Press

U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, center, addresses the media and supporters, on June 7, 2006, in Tacoma. Watada said he feels the Iraq war is illegal and immoral and he refuses to deploy.

The Times has it wrong

Editor, The Times:

The disgraceful editorial on U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's judgment ["Time for Army, Watada to part company," Opinion, May 8] misses the mark on several counts: acting as judge and jury by convicting him of "conduct unbecoming"; assuming the Iraq war is legal (still very much an open question); and advocating a discharge that is less than honorable.

The most glaring error, however, is the pretzel-logic that Watada's judgment doesn't align with military service because he acted in "concern for his own prerogatives." Nothing seems further from the truth.

Watada said repeatedly he opposed the war in Iraq not merely for selfish reasons, but for other soldiers under his command.

From a June 7, 2006, interview with Sarah Olson of truthout.org: "I am fighting for my men still, and I am supporting them. But the conscionable way to support them ... is to oppose this war and help end it so all soldiers can come home. It is my duty not to follow unlawful orders and not participate in things I find morally reprehensible."

We can only hope that military officers, as Watada did, take command responsibilities seriously -- intended to protect their soldiers -- and adhere to all aspects of military justice and the rule of law, not just select parts The Times feels are appropriate.

-- Kendall Watson, Seattle

Bush administration deserves more scrutiny

I appreciate the thoughtful Bert Sacks' May 8 letter regarding 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ["Refusal to deploy: a crime to participate in war of aggression," Northwest Voices, Opinion] and would like to further point out the absurdity that this man of conscience has endured incarceration and a long legal battle with the military when war criminals George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz will never see even a modicum of justice for the illegal war of aggression they perpetrated, which resulted in the misery, death and injury of hundreds of thousands.

If we were truly a nation of laws and not of men, these pathetic despots would assuredly experience the inside of the world court in The Hague instead of their happy retirement, and people like Watada would be well-deserved heroes.

-- Brian Williamson, Seattle

Duty is to protect the Constitution

Following 9/11, George W. Bush insisted we destroy weapons of mass destruction and remove Saddam Hussein, but WMD weren't found, nor any link between Hussein and al-Qaida.

Bush reputedly intended to invade Iraq before 9/11. If information was skewed to convince Congress in 2002 to authorize force against Hussein, then Bush abused authority, deceiving the public and Congress.

In 2004, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the U.S. invasion of Iraq in nonconformity with the U.N. Charter. Many international legal experts and world leaders believe the Iraq war is illegal.

The Nuremberg trials held an officer's duty to disobey illegal orders. The U.S. endorsed the Nuremberg principles and ratified the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Charter, making them legally binding under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice stated lawful orders must conform to the Constitution and U.S law. The Army Field Manual denotes an explicit duty to disobey unlawful orders.

Watada refused deployment only after intense consideration. His offer to serve in Afghanistan, a military presence he believed lawful, was rejected.

An officer's duty is to protect the Constitution.

-- Bambi Lin Litchman, Tacoma

Headlines collide, anger

Two items in the NWFriday section of the May 8 paper collided with each other, broke my heart and made me mad.

Nicole Brodeur's column on the huge need at local food banks broke my heart ["Brother, can you spare some food?"]. The adjacent article, "DSHS settles for $2 million," made me feel hopeless about the seemingly nonstop payments to settle lawsuits by government agencies.

When Department of Social and Health Services caseworkers and their supervisors are negligent, not only do their victims suffer, but so do all Washington citizens who need food -- or training so they can get jobs and buy food -- and who would have benefitted greatly by that $2 million.

-- Karen Richards, Redmond

Blame: too late, wrong guy

The Seattle Times' attempt to blame Seattle's botched snowstorm response on the management style of Paul Jackson Jr., Seattle's former street-maintenance director, is not persuasive ["Streets honcho under fire long before snow fiasco," page one, May 8].

The blame clearly falls on the decision by Mayor Greg Nickels to forgo the use of de-icing chemicals and to use rubber-bladed plows to smooth over the icy snow, rather than remove it from Seattle's streets. Now it is May in Seattle, and your front-page article is just another late-season "snow job."

-- Darryl Wareham, Mill Creek

Swine-flu scare reveals little respite

I was pleased to read John Burbank's guest commentary in The Seattle Times on May 2 ["Sick leave should be part of our swine-flu defense," Opinion].

His take on sick leave in our country is totally correct. He explains that two-fifths of full-time employees in our state do not have the right to sick leave; it is even worse for part-timers.

We must be the only country in the so-called developed world where many companies do not grant sick leave. The reason? They do not have to! There is no law in our country that mandates sick leave.

I heard suggestions from all types of people in the papers and on TV: Don't go to work sick and infect others. Either these people are kidding, or they have no idea that many people simply cannot afford to stay home. It is a situation that is totally unacceptable.
I truly feel it's a crime not to offer employees at least -- at the very least -- 10 sick days a year, which is little enough. Until that happens, I can only say: Shame on America!

-- Jutta Kurtak, Bellevue

Mandatory sick leave can do more harm

Especially with Washington's unemployment rate skyrocketing 92 percent from March 2008 to March 2009, the push to mandate paid sick leave is thoroughly misguided.

Forcing employers -- a majority of whom already have sick-leave policies in place -- to commit to this time off will hurt the very employees this mandate purports to help.

Imposing a typical sick-leave mandate will likely increase employer costs by as much as 5 percent per year. Research from the University of California, Irvine shows that a 5 percent increase in labor costs will cause another spike in unemployment beyond current levels (with the largest unemployment increases among high-school dropouts and minority teens).

Businesses offset additional labor costs by reducing staff hours, benefits and wages. In today's economy, this can mean eliminating jobs entirely, or even forcing some businesses with tight margins to close their doors.

Especially at a time when the economy is struggling, state policymakers should focus on promoting job growth instead of pushing mandates that create barriers to entry-level employment, especially for the state's most vulnerable workers.

-- Kristen Lopez Eastlick, Employment Policies Institute, Washington, D.C.

Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times

In January, street-maintenance director Paul Jackson Jr., right, and Seattle Department of Transportation Director Grace Crunican listened to Seattle residents protest snow-removal procedures.

Nickels, Crunican, Jackson -- all must go

Editor, The Times:

Mismanagement of the snowstorm response pales in comparison to mismanagement on the part of city transportation chief Grace Crunican and Mayor Greg Nickels ["Streets honcho under fire long before snow fiasco," page one, May 8].

How was it possible to spend one year and $515,000 dollars to produce an 8,000-page report on the questionable performance of Paul Jackson Jr., a mid-level manager? Jackson was promoted to street-maintenance director despite the findings of the report -- perhaps fairly, perhaps unfairly.

What really happened was mind-boggling dithering and wasting of taxpayer dollars by Crunican and Nickels. It is they who need to leave, perhaps taking Jackson with them.

-- Thomas R. Dyer, Seattle

Seattle deserves better

The Seattle Times' front-page article on the ineptness of the Seattle street-maintenance division's management during the winter snow events -- not the least your photograph of both city transportation chief Grace Crunican and maintenance director Paul Jackson Jr. in bewildered poses -- must surely raise the question as to why none of the mayoral candidates have, as a plank for his election, included the dismissal of both these fine examples of expensive ineptitude.

And Crunican then shifts Jackson to the traffic division? Good grief, that tops the list for stupidity. What traffic-engineering skills does he have? His management skills are obviously minimal.

I get it -- this is the Peter Principle in full action. For $108,000 a year, we surely deserve better.

-- Christopher Brown, Seattle

Find someone -- anyone -- who understands snow

During the 2008 blizzard, Mayor Nickels said on television, "Seattle is not a snow city," and I felt sorry for him. Citizens were expected to suspend reality and believe that there was no problem. There was.

Holed up for five days and waiting like an ostrich for sunshine or rain, Nickels finally felt the urge to emerge and explain it all away. No luck.

Now we are told a national search is required to find someone whom understands snow. The local street guru had an epiphany and declared himself a $108,000 distraction. Many of us would welcome that much distraction.

We were told salt is "bad," but it worked well on Interstate 5 -- the only clear roadway, plus the one in front of the mayor's home. All of the "good" sand plugged up the waste-treatment facility. Are you feeling green yet?

Now, lots of green money might be paid to upset city workers. They claim they perceived individual discrimination allegedly caused by the former street guru's hostile work environment. Yes, the environment was chilly back then. When do I get my check?

Poor Nickels. Miami is not a snow city.

-- Norm Colbert, Seattle

Value equality? Decline to sign

It seems as though we are still living in the days of Greek mythology. Like Sisyphus, the stone of equality in marriage laws for all Washingtonians had been pushed near the summit of realization through the state Senate's passage of Senate Bill 5688. But just as weary activists were ready to celebrate this victory, as monumental as the civil rights struggle of 40 years ago, along comes another far-right effort to send the stone of equality crashing back down into the abyss of bigotry and hate ["Religious right split on push to undo gay benefits," [News, May 5].

A coalition of "values voters" have filed Referendum 71, which will place SB 5688 before the voters in November. Simply by filing, the right has succeeded in delaying enactment of this expansion of domestic-partnership rights to all areas of state law until at least July 26, the deadline for gathering enough signatures.

For those concerned with marriage equality, there is only one strategy -- decline to sign 71. Don't let the forces of hate and bigotry win another round. When the paid signature gatherer put Referendum 71 before you, be polite, but firmly decline: "No, I don't agree with your petition. All Americans deserve equal protection under the law."

-- David Palmer, Des Moines

Hold taxpayer-funded churches accountable

The government loses hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue by granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations. Translation: We, the citizens of the U.S., pay hundreds of billions of dollars more in taxes so that churches, mosques, temples, etc. can exist in a much-favored tax-exempt environment. The rational here is that they are supposed to do good for society by engaging in activities that help people, unite people and incite the will of others to do even more good and help even more people.

Instead, religious organizations consistently and predictably have lead the most extravagant and expensive anti-gay campaigns in history for the sole purpose of harming people in our society. There is absolutely no benefit gained by a straight person when a gay person is harmed.

We should all know that zero good comes from hurting people. Churches should know this better than anybody, and they do not because so many of them are now largely political entities.

The IRS needs to take action in its role as our fiscal agent. Unless a church, or any other tax-exempt organization, can show that they are causing good for society -- or at the very least not causing harm -- they should not enjoy their taxpayer-subsidized existence.

We are paying, in more ways than one, for the actions of the religious institutions that we voluntarily and involuntarily support. Every single taxpayer supports every single church. It's time for some realistic accountability.

-- James Lenhardt, Seattle

Where are the protests?

President Barack Obama -- who appears to have changed his name to "O-bomb-them-all" --has recently sent 21,000 more troops into Iraq, above the Bush administration levels of troops ["Gates: Afghan-bound U.S. troops outpacing equipment," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, May 7].

He is sending more than 100,000 troops above the troop level of the Bush administration and yet there have not been any protesters. Remember, the Russians went into Afghanistan with 130,000 and without the U.S.'s concern for civilian casualties and got their butts kicked.

It seems to me that the many Seattle war protesters, Democratic Party politicians (where are Rep. Jim McDermott and Sen. Patty Murray?) and Seattle media who constantly protested and spouted anti-war sentiments are no longer concerned about war and the frightening consequences of major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time.

As an independent, I worried about this when the Democrats took control of the military because of their well-known history of war. I am actually old enough to remember when the cry across this land was, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" -- and they were not talking about a Republican president.

-- Preston Massey, Oak Harbor

Pursuing Pakistan's prize

Throughout recorded history, no country or empire that has invaded Afghanistan has ever emerged victorious. Think about that; from the Roman Empire in ancient times to the U.S.S.R. about 20 years ago, no invader has ever succeeded.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2003 under the Bush administration's misguided and totally inept policies. Now, the Obama administration is going to send thousands of additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan to counter the resurgent Taliban, which is well on the way to gaining political and military control of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But the stakes are higher now, because the prize is greater than ever before. And just what is the prize? Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the people who know how to use it.

Perhaps the only solution is to remove the prize from the table.

-- Harry B. Bosch, Silverdale