Gloating at president's struggles, offering no solutions

Editor, The Times:

Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column ["The president who fell to Earth," Opinion, Sept. 5] shows the attitude of the far right.

The emptiness they feel at not having a Republican president or a majority in Congress must be intolerable. Krauthammer and company attack President Obama and Democrats for what they are doing, or not doing, without a glimmer of an idea from any of the far right about how to fix a broken America -- other than to let business handle it.

They lie and innuendo about bills proposed while they only read sound bites the way news anchors on TV entice you to watch the news even after commercial breaks. They seem to delight in Obama's supposed loss of popularity, while they do nothing to fix the problems. Conservatives also forget the problems that we have now occurred on their watch.

Come up with better ideas before you criticize. America needs your help, not rancor. Do something constructive.

-- Gary S. Silverstein, Olympia

Obama's empty promises, not right propaganda, hurt him in the polls

In response to Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column, President Obama's poll numbers are dropping not because of a liberal doctrine but due to a lack of one.

It's the left of center that is in the majority in this country, and they are the ones who put Obama in office under the delusion that he was going to be any different from his centrist rhetoric.

Bogged down in two unpopular war occupations, reluctant to pursue illegal and unconstitutional behavior by the previous administration, refusing to even look at a single-payer health-care system and failing so far to address campaign promises such as rewriting trade laws that have exported American jobs and exploited the world's poor for private profits are the reasons Obama's poll numbers are down.

It's not because of any so-called liberal agenda, despite the propaganda from the ridiculous right.

-- Chris Anderson, Seattle

There's nothing grass roots about Obama's opposition

Charles Krauthammer can hardly contain his glee at President Obama's failing efforts toward reforming our health-care system.

Krauthammer ascribes opposition to Obama's policies to what he calls a "real grass-roots movement," but most Americans will readily recognize Obama is up against powerful and entrenched special-interest groups.

Public opinion has little to do with what happens in Washington, D.C. these days. This is especially evident when one considers Krauthammer's reference to the U.S. being a center-right country.

This needs to be examined more closely. A Pew poll from late June asked Americans if they would increase or decrease spending in various areas of the federal budget.

Overwhelming majorities favored increasing federal spending on health care, Medicare, education, environmental protection and government assistance to the unemployed.

Krauthammer can crow all he wants about this being a center-right country, but it simply isn't true. What is true is that the forces in control of our country are very much to the right of U.S. public opinion because of the dominant role money plays in our political system. In this light, it is particularly ironic that Krauthammer refers derisively to the "established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington."

Just who does he think these groups are, if not the powerful health-insurance interests who have organized so effectively against real change?

Krauthammer and his center-right colleagues may be quite pleased they have been able to maintain the status quo. But in the years ahead, as the American people continue to pay outrageous medical bills and have few options, they will look back upon this period as a lost opportunity and a tragedy.

-- Blake Wood, Seattle

Republicans let their jealousy show through

I never get tired of Republicans who are so jealous of President Obama they will do and say anything to bring him down (to earth, or better still, beneath it.) Looming larger than the jealousy, of course, is the real fear he might put his dreams into practice.

The 2008 election showed the majority of voters want a new vision for America, one that threatens those who have amassed great wealth under the previous regime. Even though they're in the minority, they have lots of money and mouthpieces like Charles Krauthammer to muddy the waters.

Just a reminder: A lot of people aren't interested in doing the right thing. Don't be fooled by this claptrap. And, speaking of Napoleon, can you imagine if we had elected John McCain?

-- Michael Johns, Seattle

Obama faces massive task while Republicans are bankrupt in policy

Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column likened the current presidency to a carnival with its barker. But the real shell games and cheap tricks preceded 2009.

Enron and Bernie Madoff cashed in, more enabled than challenged, as general living standards declined. Our Constitution and standing among other nations was trashed. Ignorance, belligerence and worship of the market mantra created a stable that needs thorough cleansing.

It's a massive task, which partly, not wholly, explains the Obama administration's spotty performance as it mounts a trial-and-error, not-doctrinaire, recovery.

This residue of the past should not deflect the 2008 electorate's move past the centrism Republicans at large, Krauthammer and those beyond him on the media's right fringe seek, for now, as a default position. Bankrupt in policy, they need something, anything, to halt progressives and swing the pendulum back their way in 2010 and beyond.

Their rhetoric and tactics demonstrate desperation, like just saying "No!" They play on deep fears in our politics and culture, provoke our worst instincts and dishonor our republican vision and democratic practice.

Krauthammer's column merits contempt and a deep, not decent, burial.

-- Milton Krieger, Bellingham

A public service announcement for our nation's children

Editor, The Times:

This message is offered by the Republican National Committee to provide balance to the president's message to America's children.

"Kids, studying is hard work. Don't do it. Don't study, and do not stay in school! If you picked your parents well, your daddy will get you into college and set you up in business with your buddies. If you were born poor or middle class, well it sucks to be you!

In America, it may be true that even a man who was born into a family that broke up and was given a funny name can stay in school, study hard, work hard and run for president! And even get more votes than the other guy!

But it can't happen to you. We're working hard to ensure that, so don't bother trying, OK?
Remember, kids, whether you're in the classroom or just walking around wearing a suit if something really bad happens, you should freeze for six or seven minutes. Sooner or later, another man in a suit will come along to tell you what to do.

You already know school is hard work. And I'm here to tell you it does not matter. Don't study! Don't stay in school!

Hope sucks. Give up!"

-- Randy Winn, Mercer Island

Fox keeping speech only on its news channel

I was amused at The Seattle Times' attempt ["Fox to dance, not sit for Obama speech," News, Sept. 7] to denigrate the Fox network decision to ignore (not air) President Obama's health-care speech Sept. 8 in favor of regular programming.

Is it really necessary for the Fox broadcast network to cover the speech when its cable affiliate, Fox News Channel, will be doing so?

-- Ed Wittmann, Seattle

Why can't Obama reinforce parents' positive messages?

It is tragic how easily fear can be generated and people manipulated into believing President Obama should be censured and shouldn't have spoken to students.
Excuse me, but he is the president of the United States of America. He told the children to, "Study hard, be good, be responsible."

It's a parent's job to talk to their children, of course, but aren't we pleased when other adults reinforce important messages? Could we be reasonable? The president cares about children, including his own whom he obviously treasures.

I'm not happy with all Obama is doing either, but he does know how to speak to children. As angry as I was when Bush was trashing this country in a variety of ways, I would never have objected to his offering a word of encouragement to our nation's young citizens.

No one objected when Reagan and George H.W. Bush spoke to the country's children.
This suspicion is completely unwarranted. Our country is built on diversity, but acceptance of it is tough.

-- Charmian Jondall, Gig Harbor

After Bush, who wouldn't question president's motives?

It's not surprising some parents worried about their children being indoctrinated by President Obama when he spoke about the importance of education to school children ["Obama tells students each has something to offer," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, Sept. 8].

We are barely out of the eight years of the Bush administration, in which no decision was made, no action taken, no speech given that was untainted by politics and ideology.

Unnecessary wars, the firing of federal prosecutors, inept cronies in charge of federal agencies -- all carried out with an eye on the goal of a permanent Republican majority.
Rest assured, parents. As a child of the '60s who grew up in a politically conservative family, my life was constantly scrutinized for evidence that I was being indoctrinated into the liberal agenda of the public school system.

Forty years later, I am a law-abiding, family-raising, hardworking, taxpaying American, just like you. Can we please give President Obama the respect he deserves as the legally elected leader of our country?

-- Karen Knutson, Seattle

Objections to Obama's speech boil down to racism

No argument as to why President Obama should not speak to students at a school can hide the real reason for the dissent: racism.

Racism that is so abandoned to its own urges that it cannot help but make itself obvious in the most vile, contemptible ways. For example, in this phony indignation over Obama's speech to students.

A visit and speech by any other president was an honor in the past, and no valid reason can be given for this to be any different. It is obvious some people will just not accept a black president and that racism is the reason for the whole litany of ignorant objections to Obama's presidency.

It is time for the rest of us to marginalize this hateful group, and call them out for what they are. And it is time for the press to stop legitimizing the thuggery that is so commonly practiced by these racists by presenting it as some sort of normal thing.

At a time like this, the country needs to pull together, not tear itself down, as these lunatics would have it. Enough is enough.

-- Jeremy Smithson, Seattle

Beck's claim of racism not so far-fetched

Editor, The Times:

According to The Times ["Mt. Vernon not united on mayor's 'Beck Day,' " News, Sept. 3], there are some who disagree with the mayor of Mount Vernon declaring a Glenn Beck Day and awarding Beck with the keys to the city.

Their objection to the recognition and award is that Glenn said he felt our president was a racist.

Let's see how Beck might have arrived at that conclusion. The one instance that stands out to all who heard President Obama is the statement he made about the white police officer who arrested the black professor when the professor would not cooperate with the officer and was causing a disturbance in the professor's neighborhood.

Without any knowledge of the facts or hearing both sides of the issue, our president called the officer stupid for his actions. That comes under the classification of assuming.

I learned a long time ago as an adjuster for a major insurance company that decisions must not be made without all the facts. My guess is that Beck and other people thought Obama was showing signs of racism by speaking out for the black professor before the whole story came to light. It's up to all of us, I would think now, to draw our own conclusions.

The mayor of Mount Vernon is trying to honor a native guy who rose from a simple beginning in that town to a giant in the TV world with listener ratings going through the roof. Apparently liberals in Mount Vernon are not thrilled with this fact.

-- Ed Anderson, Kirkland

In honorary day, an endorsement of Beck's radical views

Surely Mayor Bud Norris knows this announcement of Glenn Beck Day amounts to a sanction of Beck's current program views.

His notoriety comes from these views and his program! It is not like he is a talented singer, painter or scientist with shockingly nasty views on the side.

Paris Hilton Day for our daughters anyone?

-- Martin Walters, Renton

A Glenn Beck Day of fear-mongering and hate-spewing

I was aghast to read in The Seattle Times that the mayor of Mount Vernon is throwing wide the doors of the city for an official Glenn Beck Day later this month.

Glenn Beck is a fear-mongering, hate-spewing, ignorant and ridiculous jerk. If Mount Vernon goes ahead with this insane plan, the city will not see one more dime of my money, nor that of anyone else I know who has a grain of intelligence.

-- Judy K. Faaberg, Everett

Beck has a wide audience, smartly critical voice

Why is it so wrong for a mayor of a small town to give recognition to a very successful person who grew up in Mount Vernon. I would guess that if this were Keith Olbermann the tone of Mark Rahner's article would be different.

I am getting tired of the lack of neutrality demonstrated by the press. Does Glenn Beck criticize the president? Yes he does. But why is it wrong to criticize President Obama but OK to bash [former President] Bush?

I feel The Times and most of the media should be ashamed in the lack of reporting. You are giving the public a one-sided view of the facts. For example, Glenn Beck's ratings are much higher than counterparts on CNN and MSNBC.

Rahner, you should watch Glenn's show. I watch both the Fox shows and CNN and MSNBC. I feel Glenn is no more biased than other hosts on the other network or yourself.
Glenn is not liked by the liberal media because he brings up topics like President Obama's green jobs czars Van Jones' past and views. Many Americans would not agree with Jones.

Maybe this is why the ratings for Glenn Beck's show are killing MSNBC. His show is seen by 2.8 million people while the combined total of Hard Ball, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann is less.

Glenn is not a reporter.

Rahner, are you?

-- Ken Hodges, Woodinville

Would mayor invite Hitler, too?

Ordinarily when someone does something especially stupid it is best just to ignore them, but The Times' story ["Mt. Vernon not united on mayor's 'Beck Day,' " News, Sept. 3] about the mayor of Mount Vernon giving a key to the city to Glenn "I don't have a clue" Beck is just too much.

Are you kidding me? The only thing in the entire story that made a small bit of sense was the notion that Beck considers himself an entertainer. That seems appropriate since he works for that famous oxymoron, Fox News.

The mayor says he wants to recognize him because he is from the Mount Vernon area. Presumably, if Adolf Hitler were from Mount Vernon, Mayor Bud Norris would want to recognize him, too.

-- Terry Mercier, Woodinville

Reversing the races, would Beck's criticism have Mt. Vernon up in arms still?

Just consider that if we had a white president who had a history of attending a church for 20 years whose minister spewed out hatred toward blacks and suggested they should all be shipped back to Africa.

Then consider that this same president's reaction to a black policeman handcuffing a uncooperative white professor was to call his actions stupid and then admit he really did not know the whole story.

Then some well-known figure from Mount Vernon decided this demonstrated a hatred toward blacks and then called this white president a racist.

Would you still have a problem with the mayor of Mount Vernon giving this celebrity the keys to the city? Would you condemn this Mount Vernon celebrity?

-- Darrel Nash, Maple Valley

Words of hypocrisy from Bush's politicizer-in-chief

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is again on the talk circuit --in conservative venues that will have him. This time his message is about how President Obama is "politicizing" things. Most recently, he's accusing ["Reviewing interrogations 'outrageous,' Cheney says," News, Aug. 31] Obama of politicizing the torture investigation.

Hypocrisy is to be expected in the world of politics, but this example might just beat all others. The George W. Bush nightmare of an administration did everything for the sake of a political angle.

Does Cheney think we've forgotten about the firing of the U.S. attorneys? How about the war profiteering of Halliburton and Blackwater? Former Gov. Don Siegelman is in prison because of lies fabricated by Karl Rove.

This week we heard Tom Ridge, Bush's Homeland Security czar, admit he was told to raise the terror alert status when it would support the Bush agenda. And in case we've all gone soft as we try to "move on," the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Does anyone need more examples?

Real Americans should be expressing their outrage that the networks continue to give Cheney and friends credibility by endorsing their desperate act to put a positive spin on the most disastrous and culpable administration this country has ever known.

-- David McKenzie, Federal Way

Democratic Party fails to keep politicians accountable

The Democratic Party is dead. It might be walking, but it is effectively dead. It is time for a third party. Sure the Democrats have had ups and downs but the long, slow slide started when we failed to prosecute Richard Nixon for obvious crimes.

We let the oil companies steal from us during the gas shortages. We failed to stand up to the "government is the problem" propaganda of Ronald Reagan. We failed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. We didn't prosecute George H.W. Bush and his cronies for crimes committed in Central America. We said nothing when Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1997, which allowed unparalleled consolidation in news media and the spread of anti-public propaganda worthy of Tokyo Rose or Joseph Goebbels.

We allowed the Supreme Court to appoint George W. Bush to a position he was clearly unsuited for and then re-elected him again four years later. We let Bush take away civil rights, violate the Constitution and lie us into two illegal wars.

We allowed the appointment of Supreme Court justices that only serve the mega-corporations and their leaders. And now we are allowing the right wing to kill true health-care reform, change that could transform the lives of millions of Americans for the better, free citizens from dead-end jobs just to maintain health insurance and create a new business climate that would add jobs for millions.

For decades the Democratic Party has failed to stand strong in the face of propaganda, lies and those who have stolen our prosperity. It is time to start a true progressive party, wooing actual liberals from the Democratic Party and wooing true patriots from the Republican Party.

We must start now, with the next election, and never fail to stand up to the bullies who are screaming in our faces as they reach into our pockets.

-- John S. Snow, Woodinville

Cheney justifies means by the ends

It's thrilling to see Dick Cheney speaking out so forcefully in favor of all forms of illegality as long as it serves the cause or to put it another way, the ends justify the means.

Sounds eerily Nazi-like, but at least it's on the table for his supporters to feast on. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

After violating laws, Cheney deserves penalties

Dick Cheney is at it again. He is still criticizing the Obama administration for failing to follow Bush and Cheney policies in the war on terror.

He fails to mention the policies he advocates violate international treaties, the United States Constitution, federal laws and the Military Code. He makes it sound like this is just another political disagreement. It is still vitally important to challenge him in a courtroom.

This country needs to realize there are serious penalties involved in the crimes he should have been charged with long ago.

-- Daryl Strandlien, Kenmore

Offended by torture

Dick Cheney says the current administration's investigations into the Bush administration's interrogation techniques " offends the hell out of [him], frankly."

Well Cheney, your use of torture offends the hell out of me, frankly.

I guess we are even.

-- Carol Barber, Kent

On radio, Monson the most egotistic host around

I was intrigued by various aspects of The Seattle Times article ["Seattle and the 'burbs split on radio tastes," NWSunday, Aug. 30] concerning city talk radio and the rankings of certain shows.

One in particular would be The Times' mention of Dori Monson. This person is truly a man of contrasts and maddening contradictions. For years I listened to him regularly, but a little at a time, I found myself becoming overwhelmed by a few of his individualistic tendencies.

On one hand, I deeply respect his facility with the English language. He has mastered this art in a way too few of us have. His quick mind, which enables him to think on the fly with just about anyone, is most impressive.

The problem, at least to this listener, is not an objection to his political views, nor is it one to his insistence upon lecturing his audience. It is his overwhelming and unwavering self-centeredness -- his need to relate every possible item being discussed to him, to his upbringing, to his girls' basketball coaching and to his daughters.

The contrasts between him and Dave Ross, the host who precedes him, are striking. In addition to the aforementioned characteristics, Monson puts every effort possible into preventing something he has said from appearing to be wrong. Ross, on the other hand, does not demonstrate a driving need to be right, to be all-knowing or to talk about himself.

I was more than amused to read the statement attributed to Monson in your article.

There were two, and despite this limitation, he found a way -- "I was the top talk show in town for 12 years" -- to focus attention upon himself.

Unbelievable. I wish I had a dime for every time over the years I have heard him somehow casually insert his magnificence into what is being discussed.

-- Tom Likai, Shoreline

Rush making more noise than he has listeners

That was an excellent package by Eric Latitis on radio ratings in the area ["New meter reveals whims of radio fans," NWSunday, Aug. 30].

Here we have only 209,000 people, out of some 4 million in the Puget Sound area, listening to late-morning radio. And only 11,000 to 12,000 are listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Fascinating that the amount of echo generated on cable and the other mainstream media can come from such a pathetically small audience.

Talk about a minority making more noise than it deserves.

-- Frank Chesley, Seattle

Civilized debates come without guns

David Sirota echoes ["First Amendment trumps Second Amendment," Opinion, syndicated columnist, Aug. 23] my personal alarm concerning the guns appearing at public meetings.

His Thomas Jefferson quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants -- that makes my blood run cold.

This madness has got to stop. There are means for civilized people to solve problems, and guns are not among them.

-- Mary S. Mitchell, Seattle

Firearms demonstrators well within their rights

David Sirota, thank you for telling the truth.

And the truth is you and your elitist colleagues hide behind your First Amendment rights to attack our Second Amendment rights. Just remember, as Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Law-abiding gun owners are fed up with elitists like you who think they are above all others and use their positions to spread fear and disinformation to attack our Second Amendment rights. In fact, the publishing of arrogant and ignorant statements such as yours are the reason these protesters are carrying firearms.

While I don't necessarily agree with protesters carrying firearms at demonstrations, I understand why they are doing it, and I support their right to do so. It was journalists like you who fired the first shot by attacking our rights. It was politicians like Janet Napolitano, who as the head of the Department of Homeland Security disseminated an official report labeling supporters of the Second Amendment as "potential right-wing extremists/domestic terrorists."

How many attacks do you think a person will tolerate before he or she starts fighting back? These people are making a statement that they are not going to take it any more. Instead of continuing your mindless attacks on our rights, why don't you just start realizing there are people out there that do not have the same opinion as you, and their rights matter just as much as your rights.

I was both surprised and extremely pleased to see President Obama say these people are within their rights. He recognizes and understands why these people are making their statement in such a bold manner.

Obama is displaying a level head by not escalating this further. You, on the other hand, are trying to incite a riot.

-- Neil Foster, Renton

Nice news in story of man who has recovered identity

Editor, The Times:

The Seattle Times has published a great series of stories on Edward Lighthart, the man who woke up in Seattle's Discovery Park and couldn't remember who he was ["Mystery of man's identity apparently solved," page one, Aug. 21]. Many thanks to reporters Ian Ith, Craig Welch and Susan Gilmore as well as The Times.

This is the nicest news story I've read anywhere in quite a while.

-- Doug Muhler, Beaverton, Ore.

Shellshocked with disappointment in Obama

I think I know who Jon Doe is ["Who is this man?" page one, Aug. 20]. He's a guy who voted for that "hope and change" guy Barack Obama, and he just woke up to realize what he got -- an even less transparent and more coercive government.

And the shock is so overwhelming that he lost his bearings and is denying reality.

-- Bruce Martin, Bainbridge Island

Station changes threaten local artistic jewels

Thank you for the article about what is going on at KBCS-FM radio ["Seeking a bigger audience, KBCS cuts its programming," NWMonday, Aug. 17]. The article captured the basics of the situation, but what is missing is a sense of perspective on what is being lost in these changes. It's much more than losing "a place to catch the craziest music" or early morning jazz programming.

I listened to Bud Young's last morning jazz show this morning. Think about that. This is the guy who has been a local treasure, the proprietor of Bud's Jazz Records in Pioneer Square and a tireless supporter of local jazz musicians.

Also gone are a slew of some of the best folk and bluegrass programmers around, and a couple of vintage jazz programmers who are also treasures. If things were so bad, why didn't anyone know about it before they tossed the jewels in the trash?

Steve Ramsey's comment about the station's "huge potential that has gone untapped for years and years and years" tells me that he has had designs on remaking the station for a while.

Dig a little deeper, editorial and arts staff, and see that this is nonsense and that something precious is being lost.

-- Steve Saunders, Winthrop

Thanks to The Times, staying off Boeing's Play Doh plane

The Seattle Times has, for many years, done a great job of untangling complex details of aerospace manufacturing without making its highly readable articles seem dumbed down. This goes back to Byron Acohido's outstanding investigative series on the mysterious 737 rudder control problem, the notorious MD-80 jackscrew story and now the perils of baking the composite pastry that will be the 787 Dreamliner ["787 fuselage work halted," page one, Aug. 14].

I wonder how many other readers share my reaction to these latest events: What a screwed-up way to build an airplane!

Will Boeing outsource the legal defense work necessitated by lawsuits launched by angry customers and shareholders to five foreign nations as well? You know, so everybody gets their fair share of the work.

Just to be on the safe side, it will be many years before I strap myself into one of these Play Doh comets.

-- Charles Pickel, Seattle

If it's a Boeing, I'm not going

My god, what next for Boeing? Now there are more delays in the 787 Dreamliner program. Gee, who's at fault now?

The Machinists Union gets blamed for everything, but they're without fault when it comes to the corporate decisions concerning problems building the 787. None of it is the unions' fault -- not the strike, not anything.

Every decision made about the building of any Boeing product comes from management, period. The workers have no say. Which idiot manager dreamed up this ridiculous idea of farming out virtually all the work on the 787?

It was management's idea, and they made the decision. Will this screwed-up plane ever fly? Who would want to risk their life trying?

There used to be a saying: "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going." Obviously, that should be changed to: "If it's a Boeing plane, I'm not flying."

-- Richard B. Ellenberger, Normandy Park

Pardon me for being appalled

I have had people inform me that there is a secret clause in the "cash for clunkers" program: If you sign up, it lets the government come to your home and steal your computer.

Others have told me that President Obama has a secret plan to enslave the white race and is just like Hitler.

Some have let me know that because I'm a Democrat I love terrorists and hate America and Jesus.

People I know from high school have made a point of stating that a certain crazy lady who couldn't find Mexico on a map of North America would make a brilliant choice as leader of the free world. You betcha!

Where I live, there are lots of people like this, who do not seem to be able to tell a basic common-sense fact from the most outrageous and impossible ideas. When I say lots, I'm talking about probably 70-80 percent.

All of these people are registered voters. Many of them are college graduates.

Many news organizations are not acting responsibly. Instead of saying: "You realize that this is a stupid and impossible idea, the president enslaving the white race, don't you?" they will instead say, "And how do you feel about this plan to enslave them? Is there a protest march in the works?"

In a half-century of living, I have seen, or imagined I would see, the level of ignorance and radical extremism in this country that I am seeing now. It is beyond my ability to believe that responsible people, including journalists, could think there is something even remotely funny about making remarks that some of our political leaders should be killed. Assassination has now become something that's being promoted, it's even been done on CNN. To later say, "Oh, I was just kidding," and think that excuses it, is appalling. It is inexcusable and borders on treason. And it doesn't seem that anything is being done to stop these people.

When we have to wonder if the neighbors might try to lynch us because we dare to disagree with them about our president being compared to the most horrible monster of the 20th century, we have reached a new low as a society and come to a point at which it's fair to say that a mob mentality has replaced the concept of open debate and psychotic ranting has replaced the most basic ideas of common sense for a shockingly large segment of our population. It is a form of national suicide and there does not seem to be any end in sight.

We should not be surprised that our country is falling apart around us.

-- Derek Tyler, Yakima

Scientology story didn't give faith, its leaders a fair chance

The Seattle Times recently printed a story about my church that originally was published in The St. Petersburg Times ["Report: Violence common among Scientology managers," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, June 21]. The story lays bare the bias that newspaper has against my faith, and with only a few quotes from Church of Scientology representatives, it didn't even vaguely give the appearance of a balanced report. It was a disappointment that The Seattle Times republished this biased story.

The article uncritically accepts as truth statements from a handful of former church staff without ever addressing their lack of credibility, their underlying motivations and the voluminous evidence proving their stories were false. These individuals lost their positions of authority within the church for incompetence and for serious misconduct. The sources named in the article plainly targeted the man who removed them, David Miscavige.

Seattle Times readers should be aware that Miscavige had agreed and made arrangements to be interviewed in Clearwater, Fla., in early July. The article was rushed to press without hearing from Miscavige, much less the dozen other church executives who traveled to Clearwater specifically to talk to reporters.

The portrayal of Miscavige is completely contrary to his true personality and is belied by the respect and admiration he has earned from millions of Scientologists worldwide for his leadership. We've witnessed unprecedented growth under his stewardship and fully expect more expansion in the years to come.

-- Rev. Ann Pearce, Seattle, Church of Scientology of Washington State

Wealthy may donate but hate paying taxes for social services

David Sirota's syndicated column, "An uphill health-care battle against the 1-percenters and their allies," is so very timely [Opinion, July 27].

I am a pastor in an affluent Seattle suburb, though my parish is comprised of the economic extremes. We are active in homeless programs, including hosting migrant tent cities.

While my parishioners are generally indulgent of the clear social responsibility Gospel preached around here, I confess that even after 22 years in this parish, it feels lonely when it comes to encouraging the wealthy to view self tax as an opportunity to be in community.

The wealthy will write a $10,000 check because they are asked, but if I encourage them to consider the same as a tax, I might as well as ask them to come to sit in church in their underwear (I would not enjoy that either).

-- Thomas Kidd, Bellevue

Too much Christianity, front and center, in The Times

All right, enough is enough. I sat idly by after the feature photo of the Mars Hill Church baptisms ["Spiritual plunge," NWThursday, July 16] which, incidentally, showed up as the featured article on your Web site the whole day, but the page-one article on the Christian rock festival at the Gorge is truly the last straw ["'Music and a message,'" July 24].

What is rotten at The Seattle Times? Has the Christian coalition paid you that much to keep their faith front-and-center? Please remember the diversity of your readers and the fact that not everybody in this country is a Christian.

In fact, to read such blatant advertising toward that faith is truly discriminating and exclusionary. How do you think I feel, a non-Christian, having to read so many articles geared toward a faith I don't follow or subscribe to? And where in your fair and balanced reporting are the articles on other faiths?

And why are Christian articles deemed front-page news? I notice the article on the atheist summer camp ["Kids' camp for nonbelievers," News, July 20] was relegated to the middle of the B section. Articles on Muslims are in the middle of A section at best. Do those groups not deserve their chance in the sun?

Just remember, the Christians don't need any help advertising their religion. They do a fine job of that themselves. And also remember, if your readers want current Christian news there are plenty of media outlets already catering to them and their beliefs.

-- Laura Morzov, Shoreline

Only leadership needed is from God

I have to disagree with the article on the religious right ["State's religious right: 'a leaderless army,'" page one, July 21]. Jesus' and God's teachings are all the leadership we need. I believe churches should focus less on same-sex marriage and instead focus their energy on the sanctity of life.

The church needs to speak of morality and personal responsibility regarding life. The pastors who were insulting others never helped any cause, but people will listen to reason and follow God's teachings.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Close marriage of religious and conservative hurts politics

The U.S. Constitution establishes the separation of church and state as one of the primary governing principles of our nation.

However, over the course of our 233-year history, this dictum has been bulldozed by the marriage of conservative Christianity and conservative politics. Our Founding Fathers never intended to have our nation's politics so closely aligned with any religious belief as a unity of this nature would only threaten and undermine the right to freedom of religion.

In addition to the threat that a fusion of church and state poses to our founding principles as a whole, it is arguable that the bond between religious and right also greatly hinders American Christianity and the Republican Party. In this union of piety and politics, all Christians are portrayed as political conservatives and all Republicans are painted as devout believers.

This governing image is a gross generalization and simply is not true! If anything, dissolution and lack of leadership within the religious-right movement of Washington state can only bring about good for the Republican Party, Christianity and our nation as a whole.

-- Megan A. Wilson, Seattle

Religious right might be realizing Republican isn't its party

It may be that supporters of the so-called religious right are taking a second look at the political choices they are making. President Obama and his supporters are engaged in a campaign to bring health care to all Americans -- the poor, the widows and orphans -- as in biblical terminology, while the opposition, led by the bankers and money lenders, seek to stop, delay and deny that campaign.

People who claim to be followers of Christ might well be taking a second look as to which side they are on, as in labor's terminology.

-- Carl Schwartz, Sammamish

Keeping an open mind includes talking about God

The story on the camp for children of atheists and nonbelievers ["Kid's camp for nonbelievers," News, July 20] says thinking for yourself is encouraged at the camp.
Not really.

If the camp wanted children to think for themselves, they would also have believers presenting the case for belief in God.

-- Dan Hochberg, Seattle

There are more nonbelievers than you might think

Thank you for highlighting one of the fastest-growing segments of society. The article on nonbelievers' camp gave a few statistics from the Pew Forum on Religion. These percentages -- 1.6 percent of U.S. adults are atheist, 2.4 percent agnostic -- do not sound significant until you compare them with major religions from the same Pew survey. This same Pew survey says Jews make up only 1.7 percent of the adult U.S. population, Mormons 1.7 percent and Muslims 0.6 percent.

Thus, the total percentage of atheists and agnostics makes up the same percentage of population as Jews, Mormons and Muslims combined.

If you again look at that same survey, they list the total percentage of unaffiliated as 16 percent. That is almost as much as the total for mainline Protestant Churches.

Just putting the numbers in perspective.

-- Don Van Valkenburg, Seattle

Hutchison slammed by biased Times

In the finest tradition of The National Enquirer, The Seattle Times has taken the muckraking hatchet to Susan Hutchison ["Hutchison to fight unsealing records," NWThursday, July 16]. Not content with merely making inquires, The Times has used its Opinion page to slam her ["Open up, Hutchison," Opinion, editorial, July 17]. The contents of her successful lawsuit against KIRO-TV were sealed by a judge. How dare he?

Hutchison has headed a $100 million foundation for the past six years yet is still referred to by The Times as a "former news anchor." KIRO-TV, still smarting from their loss, says they have no problem unsealing the record. How kind of them. Anything that would help, right?

The Times might be better served to investigate the stalking tactics of Dow Constantine showing up at Hutchison rallies ["Rivals show up at Hutchison news conference," NWThursday, July 2].

But then, that's what I love about the media --they are so objective.

-- Denny Andrews, Bellevue

The Times practicing yellow journalism against Hutchison

This is yellow journalism at its best! Expect nothing more and certainly nothing less from The Times. I believe you have hit a new low regarding the candidacy of Hutchison, with your attempts to find out the details of a sealed, settled private lawsuit between her and her former employer. If ever there was a more blatant attempt to discredit a candidate, I'd like to hear about it.

Shame on you, The Seattle Times, for seeking out what you know to be unproven allegations about a candidate on the eve of an election and then inevitably printing them as fact. Is it your job to create news or to report news? Have you delved into the backgrounds of all the other candidates to such detail, or is it just because this is a conservative?

Your lack of integrity is astounding, but then when you are the only daily newspaper in town, you must believe you can do and say anything. What type of journalistic standard do you hold yourself to?

-- Dave Herrington, Edmonds

No need to disrespect dead

I am disgusted and dismayed at the cartoon you published [Opinion, July 8].
If you find it necessary to pay your disrespect to the dead then aim it at the person who started that terrible war, President John F. Kennedy.

Better yet, let the dead rest in peace.

-- Darlene Gardner, Port Ludlow

Why haven't we learned from McNamara's mistakes?

Robert McNamara is finally dead, long after most of his victims on both sides of the Vietnam War. I'm sure he's joining Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson and the other monsters of that war in a special section of the ninth level of hell in mirrored rooms where they finally have to look at themselves and really see just how hideous they were.

As I watch the Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan wars escalate, I wonder --what did America learn from the incredible mistakes and lies of the Vietnam War?

-- Doug Morrison, Seattle

Media oversaturates audiences with Jackson death

Enough already -- no more Michael Jackson.

According to a recent poll, two out of three Americans believe the media's coverage of Jackson's death has been over the edge. I couldn't agree more. For almost two weeks, we have been saturated with tributes to him. He has been portrayed as an iconic and historic hero.

I am not saying he wasn't talented or that his death isn't a huge loss, but Jackson was a celebrity and an entertainer. He was not an American hero. Speaking as the mother of a son who is deployed in Afghanistan, I'm convinced the men and women who serve in our military are our true heroes. Violence is escalating in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. troops are losing their lives. How is it possible that the death of a superstar is more important and receives more coverage than the deaths of our soldiers serving overseas?

Reports say Jackson was an insomniac and died from an overdose of an anesthetic administered as a sleep aid. One could say Jackson may have unintentionally caused his own death.

Soldiers in combat do not cause their own deaths. Bombs and bullets do that dirty business. As a military parent, I do not sleep well at night, nor do the families and friends of our soldiers who are in harm's way or have fallen. Yet all the public hears and reads about is, "Now Michael Jackson can rest in peace."

Somehow our society has lost sight of what is important. I am sorry that Jackson is gone. I feel more sorry that our soldiers and our loved ones have been set aside in the sad pursuit of what is considered by many to be real news.

-- Julie Bonnette, Kalamazoo, Mich.

Soldiers, not Jackson, deserve tribute

This past week, nine American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. They received no national tribute, not even on the Fourth of July.

Instead, the media and millions of Americans celebrated the apotheosis of a burned-out, drug-addicted rock star.

Who will represent America in the annals of history? Those who died in the service of their fellow citizens or those who squandered talent and wealth on narcissistic fantasy?

-- Alfred LaMotte, Steilacoom

King of Pop now a god, thanks to media

Editor, The Times:

Are we a country that has more interest in tabloids? It has now been over a week, and we are being inundated with Michael Jackson.

It would have been great if Jackson died when Iran was going through its election turmoil -- then we would never have had to hear why from our loudmouth senators, who have all the answers but would not take the responsibility. Blame it on the president.

There are many Americans that have had their property in foreclosure. Jackson has a debt of half a billion and no one bats an eye. The governor of California should study how Jackson has managed and use the same technique.

America, we are witnessing the birth of a new deity: Michael Jackson.

-- Leo Shillong, Bellingham

Jackson, never convicted, deserves better

Another Republican has shot himself in the foot ["NY congressman's video calls Jackson a 'pervert,' " seattletimes.com, Entertainment, July 6]. Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican, posted a video on YouTube calling Michael Jackson a lowlife. He called him a pervert, child molester and a pedophile. He also said, "Jackson may have been a good singer and dancer," but then continued to harangue him.

Where was this guy when the Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina was off having an affair in a foreign country? Did he post anything about this? I guess I missed that one. And unless I've been asleep for a number of years, Michael Jackson was never convicted of anything.

King is considering a run for the U.S. Senate, so I'm guessing he's trying to look good for his potential voters. I'll give you that there was an appearance of wrongdoing, but just because there's smoke, that doesn't mean there's a fire. High-profile people like Michael Jackson are many times targets for crazies, be they with a gun or a need for campaign money.

Let Jackson rest in peace and remember him for the joy he gave the world, not for what someone attempting to gain more for himself says.

-- Steve Drake, Seattle

MJ has a long list of good deeds, too

Let us refocus our attention on the good deeds that Michael Jackson did in his lifetime. Just a few examples of his legacy include:

Setting up the Michael Jackson United Negro College Fund Endowed Scholarship Fund and fighting prejudice against black artists.

Proceeds from his song "Man in the Mirror" went to Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times, a camp for children who suffer from cancer.

Jackson's "We are the World" album and Hands Across America raised almost $100 million for famine-relief efforts in Ethiopia.

These are only a few of his good deeds. Who among us has had this kind of effect on the world?

I ask the public to stop listening to the rumors regarding Jackson's death. I ask that the media sensationalism stop. Let his friends and family mourn his passing in peace. They have lost a family member and a friend. We all have lost a talented musician and dancer who will be greatly missed.

-- Carol L. Crowell, Seattle

Fremont Zombie Walk coverage made light of serious holiday

Of all the Fourth of July front-page stories you could feature -- about our troops, our Northwest military pride, the freedom we enjoy today -- you chose to print some obscene picture with a nonsense zombie story with the headline "Spritzing up for the red, white and dead" [page one, July 4]? What were you thinking?

Thank you, though, for your merchant marine story ["Merchant marine veterans wage battle for recognition," page one, July 4]. That was worth it. Too bad it was so badly overshadowed.

Give us more insightful, personal and newsworthy front-page features like these Marines' story and choose your publication days wisely.

Thanks to our fighting men and women for allowing me the freedom to vent.

-- Gib Hinz, Freeland

No to zombies on front page

When I glanced at the page-one story with the headline "Spritzing up for the red, white and dead," I thought it might be about our military on the red, white and blue national holiday. How disappointed and dismayed I was to see this article featured the Fremont Zombie Walk, which hoped to attract more than 5,000 zombies and break a Guinness World Record.

From someone who attended, I learned the event was a lot of fun, and I'm not taking umbrage with that. But the cover picture of fake blood on a young participant is an insult to our young military men and women who suffer wounds with real blood.

What incredibly poor judgment you used to herald this event so prominently on the Fourth of July.

-- Eleanor G. Nash, Kenmore

Everybody deserves praise in finding Amy Story

Normally I am not a fan of good-news stories in the newspaper. But I find myself on the other side with respect to Amy Story's story ["Missing woman found safe," Around the Northwest, June 26]. But The Times buried the news that Story had been found on page B3. I think it should have gotten far more prominence.

Most of what we get is someone screwing up or being accused of screwing up. But look at this case. The ferry crew did the right thing. They sprung into action after discovering her car. She was quickly identified and an appropriate search was made. The family did the right thing. They were open with the media and the authorities about her medical condition. They were careful to say Story was not dangerous and provide reasons to believe their characterization.

The police did the right thing. They were able to find her and reunite her with family. Even the media behaved responsibly, at least judging by The Times' coverage. Except the final story, coverage wasn't sensational and entirely appropriate.

If you are going to criticize, it is appropriate to also praise. And the public gets a lot of "here's what's wrong." This needs to be balanced with "here's what's right." Otherwise, we will undermine our ability to do the right thing in a misdirected effort to fix what's wrong.

-- Patrick J. Russell, Seattle

Planted questioner, not question, at conference

I read Dana Milbank's column ["Briefing room is now a stage?" Close Up, June 24] on Obama's first daytime press conference, and I have some problems with it.

First of all, having someone preselected to read a question from someone else in Iran is not the same as having a planted question. A planted question is when you know the question in advance, not when you know the questioner in advance -- or in this case merely the person who relays the question.

Admittedly, Milbank starts off by accusing him of having a "planted questioner" near the beginning, but then Milbank calls it a "preplanned question" later. He takes the fact that Obama answered a question relayed to him from someone in Iran and uses it to leave the reader with the impression he was answering a planted question -- an accusation for which Milbank offers no evidence.

Secondly, what was it doing in Close Up instead of Opinon? It represents neither an in-depth look at the situation in Iran, nor America's response to it, the apparent Close Up themes of the day. Instead, it seems like someone's desperate attempt to dig up any kind of dirt on Obama and then pretend to find something they haven't.

Either that, or Milbank was just miffed because her daytime soaps were canceled for the conference.

-- Andre Duval, Seattle

Column belonged in opinion, not news

Dana Milbank's column is not news. In the article he writes about the supposed use of "planted" reporters at President Obama's news conference Tuesday.

Is the subject matter newsworthy? Absolutely. But Milbank's article should not be mistaken for news and should therefore be (if anywhere at all) in the Opinion section and not Close Up.

The article is all unsubstantiated speculation. The closest Milbank comes to real reporting is in his loose reference to what Nico Pitney, one of the so-called planted reporters, said. He writes, "Pitney said the White House ... asked him to come up with a question proposed by an Iranian."

Where is the journalism here? What the column should tell me is who at the White House talked to the "planted" reporters. What was the background on Pitney's connection to the Iran story? Was he planning to ask the same question regardless? Are all reporters at briefings given general guidelines? Is there traditionally some picking and choosing of news agencies happening? And finally, where did Milbank get his information?

As it is, the column seems like little more than thinking out loud.

-- Greg McBrady, Seattle

Neutrality is misguided

The recent Times' editorial on network neutrality ["A presidential boost for Internet access," June 9] asserts that this misguided policy is needed to protect the integrity and growth of the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What net neutrality proponents aren't telling us is that this new policy would result in slower connection speeds and more government regulation of a private industry that has seen tremendous growth over the last 15 years.

Free and open access to the Internet indeed helped technology grow and thrive, as your editorial states. But where is the evidence of Internet service providers (ISPs) suppressing innovation and growth? There is none. Only a few countries restrict access to the Internet. The U.S. is not one of them, and government, not the countries' ISPs, implemented those restrictions.

The fact is that ISPs spend billions improving their networks every year. Consumers in Seattle used to pay $50 a month for a 1.5 Mbps connection -- that same consumer can now get 15 Mbps for the same price. That's improvement -- and it didn't take a government mandate to make it happen.

It is important we expand broadband availability and usage in rural and low-income areas, but net neutrality will not accomplish this goal.

-- Carl Gipson, director, Technology and Telecom, Washington Policy Center, Seattle

Honest reporter who angered the powerful

The completely outrageous eight-year prison sentence imposed on American broadcast journalist Roxana Saberi last week by an Iranian court says far more about the theocrats who rule that nation than about Saberi herself ["Journalist's case complicates Obama's evolving Iran strategy," page one, April 19].

Born to Iranian parents and raised in that most American of places -- Fargo, North Dakota --Saberi was one of the few Western journalists who was fluent enough in the Farsi language to talk to average Iranians. Her work, broadcast locally on NPR stations KPLU and KUOW, as well as on ABC Television, showed a very different Iranian reality than the one favored both by Tehran and Washington.

Her reporting brought the voices of average Iranians into the homes of Americans. It lifted the veil, so to speak, and introduced us to average men and women who were far more like us than our governments want to admit. She isn't a spy. She's an honest reporter who angered the powerful.

As the union that represents broadcast journalists across America, we add our voices to the tens of thousands of others who are protesting this life-threatening decision.

Saberi should be released and allowed to return home without delay.

-- Steve Krueger, president, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Auburn

Foreclosure on the fourth estate

Nothing has disturbed me more in my lifetime than the death of newspapers.

I don't sense the public understands that democracy is unimaginable without the Fourth Estate of the press. We have become complacent as a nation not to be horrified at the loss of century-old institutions of news reporting. It becomes possible to imagine a post-democratic America without these vital institutions that, at their best, expose the corruption of the government and the marketplace and provide the public square with the information needed for renewal.

This might seem a bit extreme to some people. However, newspapers are the last bastion of investigative reporting carried out by full-time salaried journalists. Although this reporting still exists in a few TV programs and magazines, it is the exception and not the norm.

Whatever other failings newspapers have, and they have many, investigative reporting is their raison-d'etre and the critical public good they provide in safeguarding our democracy.

The Seattle Times is to be applauded for its series called "The Democracy Papers" [Opinion] that explores this alarming trend, but I would encourage it to expand this coverage into an award-winning series of investigative journalism pieces that helps to jump-start a robust exploration of how to save journalism and, by extension, our American democracy.

-- Michael Godfried, Seattle

Newspapers have squandered citizens' trust

The authors make a number of good points addressing the decline of journalism --in particular, the comment about the failure of newspapers to adequately address serious problems in our nation and region, while reporting stories of prurient interest like the octomom and other items of insignificance to readers' lives ["Breathing new life into journalism," Opinion, April 5].

They fail, however, to address a major issue regarding the reasons for the demise of journalism as they see it: the squandering of the trust that people once placed in newspapers.

The destruction of that trust, in my opinion, began in the 1960s in reporting events associated with the war in Vietnam, when journalism became unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate in order to support a particular political agenda.

Case in point was the portrayal of the 1968 Tet Offensive as a defeat for the U.S. and its allies, when the truth was that it was a devastating defeat for the North Vietnamese and their allies. I do not deny that Tet was a tipping point for the U.S. in the way the public viewed the war, but it was clearly a failure of journalism that the public then, as well as now, did not get a balanced view of the events surrounding it.

Journalism has become patently unfair and unbalanced, and more often than not, inaccurate. Couple that with local stories that do not point out, forcefully, as an example, that the latest budget brouhaha in Olympia is not, as our politicians would like us to believe, a $9 billion problem, but a less-than $3 billion problem if the current budget is used as a basis.

When newspapers become biased to the point where they disregard the views of the mostly conservative, or conservative-leaning moderates in the country who make up more than 50 percent of the public, and can no longer be trusted to be fair, balanced and accurate, their public purpose and interest in their product, dies.

-- Dale F. Williams, Sammamish

Times makes things happen

Thursday's Seattle Times contains work that is yet another example of the value of this daily newspaper.

Example No. 1: One day after The Times prints the Jesus Barajas sidewalk story, Mayor Greg Nickels steps in to help these hardworking folks caught in a city ordinance that, up until The Times broke the story, had no apparent solutions. The Times "helped" the city to find a way.

Example No. 2: Times articles brought to light Fire Chief Gregory Dean's apparent protection of Lt. Milt Footer and the demotion of the whistle-blower Jim Woodbury. Without these articles, it is unlikely this retaliation would have ever surfaced and Woodbury would have been the loser.

Reporters like Sara Green and Bob Young are not just reporting what has already occurred. By their proactive work, they made things happen.

I believe we would not receive this degree of community information from an online-only version. Seattle needs to find ways to continue the existence of The Times and the investigative reporters it employs.

We pay for all kinds of programs for our own benefit. Why not this one, too, because it benefits each of us, sometimes in intangible ways.

And without it? Well, the bad guys win and the good guys ... well, you know how the rest goes.

-- Paul Heins, Redmond

Save the printed newspaper

A recent column by Ryan Blethen, "Newspaper transition: Preserve local newsgathering" [Opinion, March 13], discusses how a past column of his resulted in numerous e-mails declaring the death of the printed newspaper and how that's OK. Blethen states that may be all right as long as we can preserve the local newsgathering aspect of the old-style printed newspaper online.

Well, I for one will greatly miss getting the newspaper (in paper form) daily and I believe that its passing will be a great loss. I'll miss those discussions and debates with my wife over coffee in the mornings as we each read our sections of the paper. I just can't envision us with our laptops on the breakfast table, each reading a "newspaper."

Or, how about all of the patrons of a breakfast diner sitting at the counter all with their laptops beaming the news to them. Great for interaction, right?

Call me old-fashioned but it just doesn't ring true. I'll miss the printed newspaper, and I'm certain there are a lot of other people who will as well.

-- Robert Oberlander, Issaquah

Limbaugh's weight is immaterial

As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh and his venomous blather, I feel I must come to his defense in one area. Why is it acceptable for anyone, but especially the media, to make disparaging comments about his weight? Recently referred to in The Seattle Times as a possible "enraged Jabba the Hutt" or "deranged Stay Puft Marshmallow Man" ["Somehow, 'apocalypse' seems right for the times," David Sirota syndicated column, March 9], such labels speak volumes about our nation's continuing ad hominem attacks on people.

How are references to Limbaugh's physique in any way pertinent to criticism of his ideas? If he weighed 150 pounds, would his ideas be any less offensive or any more sensible? Weight has been called "the last acceptable prejudice" in our society, and I tend to agree.

As someone who recently lost 70 pounds and continues to lose more, I am quite aware of the prejudice society shows toward larger people. Whether we like it or not, someone's size (or their facial features or their hair color or their wardrobe or their sexual orientation or their skin color) has nothing to do with anything other than revealing our snarky prejudices.

"Rush -- you are wrong" is far more effective than "Rush, you fat slob -- you are wrong." Unless, of course, you cannot defend your ideas and must resort to personal attacks.

-- Wally L. Larsen, Redmond

The grist of the matter

I want to thank you for your recent article "Seattle's Grist fuels Facebook's climate-change forum" [Local News, March 4]. Michelle Ma provided excellent information about the positive uses for social networking Web sites such as Facebook.

As a student pursuing a major in Journalism at Seattle University, I am proud that locally based organizations such as Grist make an effort to utilize Facebook as a medium for generating environmental awareness.

I myself visit Facebook once or twice on a daily basis and have firsthand experience regarding its place in the future of journalism and communication. The site offers an incredible opportunity to spread the word on social issues in addition to employing the global-forum aspects, which are literally at our fingertips.

Getting in touch with younger generations about important global issues is of utmost importance to future generations and to our planet. I applaud coverage of companies that aim to do this, and hope to enjoy coverage of further developments in communication.

Thank you for representing our city as leaders in environmental activism.

-- Elaine Genest, Seattle

Allowing corporations to pollute, deceive and kill

Regarding freedom of speech, please be aware of the difference between the fairness doctrine and the new "Broadcaster Freedom Act" being sneaked into Washington, D.C.'s, Voting Rights bill. It's very reminiscent of Hitler burning books.

Proponents of the act really want total control of all broadcasting. They now have 90 percent control. Please don't let them slip this filthy thing past you. Especially now that our newspapers are in trouble.

We're lucky here. The Times is an independent paper and still does a good job. But sadly, many people depend on broadcasting for their understanding of the world.

Our shortsighted, misguided friends on the right would like to control everything they ever see and hear.

I'm a nurse, and I've watched over the years as big drug companies have taken over what both the doctors and the public are allowed to know -- what serves Big Pharma's interests with absolutely zero regard for our health.

They have created an unholy alliance with big publishing and big broadcasting through their "advertising" (bribery) moneys.

Any big corporate industry will pollute, deceive and kill if we let them. Don't let this so-called Broadcaster Freedom thing slip past you. Push back against it if you still can.

-- Susan Liddell-Jones, Renton

Muddying the waters

Don't muddy the waters; let's not allow it. Voting rights should be for all Americans; broadcasting should be separate.

Let's expose these tricksters! Put their name on the wall for all to see!

-- Marc Carter, Issaquah

Lengthening one's lifeline

Progressive radio is my lifeline. I work with children and need the opportunity to decide
what is true for me.

Talk-radio programs, such as "The Thom Hartmann Program," are intelligent and help me to take part in what is left of our democracy.

-- Jeanie Mandas-Huling, Fall City

Slipping on icy jingoism

Your editorial ["Newspaper ownership matters in a democracy," The Democracy Papers, Jan. 27] declared, "The $250 million loan by billionaire Carlos Slim to The New York Times Co. is said to be innocent of any motive of influencing U.S. news and opinion." I imagine you are referring to the ideal of impartial journalism. And yet, many journalists have crossed the line into the entertainment domain (colorful Rush Limbaugh and Chris Matthews come to mind).

Are these wealthy journalists considered to be capitalists with loyalties to a political party, similar to the criticism you hurl at Carlos Slim? When Rupert Murdoch (reportedly holding assets worth some $8 billion) bought the New York Post, Fox News and many more, did you raise similar alarm?

Careful, you could be slipping on icy jingoism.

Your editorial concludes, "The New York Times is not just a company, but an institution." This could be true, but the U.S. Treasury has not refused foreign investments from China, Japan, the U.K., Brazil, oil exporters or even Russia. When the U.S. Treasury accepts investments from other nations and wealthy individuals, why shouldn't The New York Times do the same?

Our beloved Constitution sets forth the law of the land, but does not establish any "news institution." Come to think of it, the Constitution does not establish any "capitalist company" either.

With the recent announcement about The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, your sentimentality for newspapers is understandable. But does the ownership of The New York Times rise to the level of national pride?

We do live in a global economy these days. This global economy is not established in the Constitution either.

-- Richard Morris, Redmond

Let it be

We agree that the next head of the Federal Communications Commission should be committed to maintaining the open Internet we all enjoy today ["Free and varied broadcast speech should be the goal of Obama's FCC," Editorial, Dec. 12].

I am writing to correct the claim that the current FCC opposes "the idea your Internet provider should not be allowed to bar you from sites it doesn't want you to see." Since August of 2005, the FCC has had Internet principles in place that plainly state that "consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice." These principles have been enforced by the FCC and they have the broad support of the nation's Internet service providers.

As this historic election has illustrated, an open Internet plays a vital role not only in our economy, but also in our democracy -- inspiring unprecedented citizen engagement across the political spectrum. And all of this participation and discourse took place in the absence of new regulations.

Particularly in the current economic climate, new regulations would be devastating to the private capital investment that is bringing broadband into more communities and building up the capacity, speed and sophistication of these essential networks.

We enjoy an open Internet today where people are free to go to any legal site they so choose. We deserve a robust and innovative Internet tomorrow. Further regulation will harm, not help, this progress.

-- Tom Amontree, Washington, D.C.

The last thing we need is a cultural whitewash

I was incensed in many ways when I read Nick Perry's article about the furor over a University of Washington Daily opinion piece decrying gay unions ["UW newspaper column sparks campus controversy," News, Dec. 5].

I support The Daily and its editor -- not because they made good choices, but because I am appalled that well meaning student groups, rather than attacking the column or its author, John Fay, have reacted by calling for an apology and "sensitivity training."

The Daily was doing exactly what it should be doing: presenting reality, and the reality is there are a lot of hateful loudmouths out there. A call for increased sensitivity is a cultural whitewash -- taking reality and filing down all the sharp edges until it no longer hurts us.

If history is any guide, 40 years from now, gay marriage will be a non-issue even to conservatives, and people like Fay will change the subject when anyone mentions the bigoted column they once wrote for the college paper.

How will students of that time ever understand the cultural struggles of ours? Not by reading the archives of a paper whose staff had to undergo sensitivity training. If our goal is to change the ugliness in our world, inserting layers of padding between ourselves and the ugliness seems to be a poor strategy.

-- Eric Jones, Seattle