Amused, but saddened, by Blethen's views

I read with equal parts amusement and sadness Ryan Blethen's column on "the furor surrounding President Obama's speech to students," ["Some parents missed an opportunity to let kids learn about the world," Opinion, Sept. 13].

I was amused by some jabs at the far right that were perhaps not entirely out of place -- the bit about kids returning home from school on speech day with copies of "The Communist Manifesto" was entertaining -- but saddened Blethen could find no common ground for dialogue with those who opposed the speech -- just "hypocrisy and ugliness" from the other side of the political spectrum.

This was not only odd in a column urging parents to help turn classrooms into political caucuses, but ironically both hypocritical and illustrative of why many people opposed the speech.

So before we abandon grammar and calculus for community-based education and parades, let us have a discussion about exposing young minds to competing views of history, politics and economy. Since Blethen references Marx's "Manifesto," the left can bring that to the table. We on the right will bring "Wealth of Nations."

As many folks on the left have not actually read the "Manifesto" (it's dense and isn't really all that fun), we will bring that, too. In our home, we have copies of both, and we don't need the state to tell our children what they can or cannot read.

-- Tom Steele, Bothell

The problem with health care? Look in the mirror

The Seattle Times editorial ["Needed health reform must contain costs," Opinion, Sept. 6] noting that health-care reform must contain costs identified part of the problems facing quality care as insurance companies, excessive specialist income, how medical services are delivered and paid, and high costs of new technology and procedures.

But I think The Times forgot something: U.S. citizens. Aren't we part of the problem when our behavior contributes to our poor health through excessive eating, lack of exercise, high stress levels and more?

Mom said to eat my fruit and vegetables and get plenty of sleep and exercise. Maybe if we listened to our mothers a little more, we'd be a healthier nation and could then afford as a country to ensure health care is available to everyone.

I'm just as guilty as many when it comes to making a poor choice for dinner and eating too much, choosing TV over taking a walk or working long hours. But throughout this health-care debate, it's made me think about my own behavior and my personal responsibility to help contain costs.

We're part of the problem, too.

-- Margaret Jones, Seattle

Cutting costs, but not with government health care

Medical costs are a bottomless pit. To control costs, does The Times suggest in its editorial, "Needed health reform must contain costs," that doctors work for free? That could happen because patients with chronic diseases usually get worse before they die. So much for paying doctors for better care and better outcomes. And heaven forbid that specialists who save lives should earn more than a tiny fraction of what professional athletes earn.

What unnecessary tests would you eliminate? Be honest: Limiting generosity and rejecting some people and procedures is rationing. "Death squad" is a harsh term, but ethics panels and review boards have always had to make tough choices. Our country cannot even make enough swine-flu vaccines for all of its citizens.

Insurance companies are part of the process. Without them, the government would have to provide essentially the same services, and without a profit motive it may not care if paperwork is handled properly and efficiently.

We must remember that we are the federal, state and local government and must pay for whatever we give ourselves and society as a whole.

-- Byron Gilbert, Burien

Please explain, how is health care not a right?

We can tell how crucial health-care reform must be because big money, with the help of the crazies, is out in force to defeat it! There has been such an assortment of shouted phrases and signs in the crowds like "Death Panels will pull the plug on granny!"

or "Obama is a Nazi!" or "The government won't let you see your doctor!" or "We don't have a clue what we're saying!"

There's one sign, very rarely used and not by the Zany Wackybirds, that at least is down-to-earth and adds to the discussion: "Health care is not a right."

The Health Care for All Washington organization has been using the slogan, "Health care is a right, not a privilege." The opponents of the health-care reform movement seem to differ on that.

I invite these people to take their time, compose themselves and write back to The Times and explain to me, very clearly, why they believe health care is not a right in this country.
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that still treats access to quality health care as a privilege and not as a right for everyone. What would the Founding Fathers say about that?

I somehow have missed the reason why people and groups want to continue this disparity and also choose to sabotage this opportunity we now have to reform the system into something we can all be proud of, as citizens and residents of a free and compassionate nation.

I need detailed explanations from opponents out there to clear away my confusion. Please do not simply spew loaded phrases and distortions of the truth to make your arguments.

There must be some justification why we continue to fail to attain universal coverage, even though this country has been attempting since the days of Harry Truman. I'm waiting for those reasons.

-- David S. Gooding, Normandy Park

The horrors of health-care reform

Health-care reform must be stopped! Can you believe some of the reforms they have in these bills?

Did you know that if this health-care reform is passed, senior citizens over the age of 87 will be forced into hard-labor camps? Also, did you know that if you get rabies under these reform mandates you will be locked in a crate and shipped off to Armenia, and our government will be under no obligation to provide a return address? That's right, no return address! Not to mention, health-care reform will require all doctors to use only 14th-century techniques on the third Tuesday of every month.

Now if these testimonies weren't bad enough, recently someone told me that under this newly proposed reform plan all left-handed citizens who've never had the measles will have to get a frowny-face tattoo burned onto their foreheads! Oh, the horror!

I could go on. But I'm positive someone else will.

-- Brad Killion, Mount Vernon

What Canadians are saying about their neighbors

Canadians think we Americans are stupid. They joke about Canadian expatriates losing two IQ points every year they remain in the U.S.

They also think we are loud, rude and irrationally tolerant of violence. Next time you feel like giving a particularly polite Canadian a patronizing pat on the head, remember that under that calm exterior lies simmering disdain.

Last week, I heard a Canadian rhetorically ask, "What kind of yahoos take toenail clippers away from everyone boarding a plane and allow loaded guns at presidential town halls on health care?" So where do Canadians get that confident sense of superiority? Maybe it's the old saying, "Familiarity breeds contempt." They know virtually everything about us; we're largely clueless about them.

Or maybe it's something basic like their superior health-care system. It's not perfect, but everyone is deemed worthy of care.

With fear and anger, we talk of death panels, socialism, fascism and freedom. Canadians simply ask, "What kind of yahoos leave a population greater than that of Canada without dignified access to health care, just so the rest of them can keep their clunker of a profit-driven system?"

-- Sue Griswold, Mill Creek

Don't forget: Democrats heckle, too

With all the shouting, protesting and cowboy posturing about health-care reform, it makes me think that before we can reform health care in this country we need to reform behavior in ourselves.

Being a Democrat, it would be very easy to point fingers at the conservatives that act both immature and disruptive. But I think it's time to look back at the previous eight years and ask, "Were liberals any different?"

How many times did MoveOn.org draw a Hitler mustache on President Bush? How many times did Code Pink disrupt meetings or events attended by Republican leaders?

It's so easy to point out the splinter in someone's eye yet miss the plank in your own.

-- Jonathan Ursin, Seattle

A signature, like a vote, is private

I want to thank Judge Benjamin Settle for the courage to stop the release of names of people who signed Referendum 71 ["R-71 signatures kept private," page one, Sept. 11].
Even though I did not sign this one, as a private citizen I think of these petitions as a vote. In signing them, people are essentially voting for or against an issue.

In this country we keep our votes anonymous. If these names are released, everyone will be averse to ever signing a petition again for fear of retribution by the opponents of it.
I hope Settle has the intelligence to make this temporary injunction permanent.

-- John Hed, Covington

Retribution is not free speech; signatures shouldn't be disclosed

The threat of publicly releasing Referndum 71 signatures defines what's wrong with today's political discourse: self-interest.

I signed the petition not because I am against anybody, but because I believe in equality of opportunity rather than equality of result. I am 41, never married and sexually abstinent -- not for lack of interest or desire but because of belief and conviction.

That said, I get no break on my health care for living a sexually risk-free life, nor do I enjoy the benefits of married couples or those living in domestic partnership. Equality of result would have me fight for those "rights." Equality of opportunity informs me I will have those benefits, too, someday, should I marry the woman of my dreams.

I signed knowing someone might use my signature against me without knowing me or asking why. Disappointing for sure, but this is still America where we are free to take sides, free to speak up and free to love our neighbors when the dust clears.

I disagree with releasing R-71 names and making them public. Not because I am afraid, but because hatred, anger, retribution and political expediency should never be masked under the guise of free speech.

-- Justin Kawabori, Redmond

Signing a referendum also supports direct democracy

As a teacher of Washington-state history I want to explain that not all the people who signed the petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot oppose extending domestic-partnership rights.

I teach my students about the initiative and referendum process in my class, and we discuss what they will need to consider when they are asked to sign one.

What a citizen is agreeing to is that they want to have that issue come to a statewide vote. In this case, we may have people who signed it because they like direct democracy and believe citizens should be able to vote on as many laws as possible. Or people may have signed it because they believe a statewide vote will get rid of the law, or people may have signed it because they believe a statewide vote will keep the law.

My point is the assumption that all the people who signed it did so for the same reason is not true.

-- Todd Beuke, Sequim

Freezing Israeli settlements a path to peace

In attacking President Obama's demand for a settlement freeze by Israel ["Obama's misguided approach to Israel," Opinion, guest column, Sept. 4], Nevet Basker is either incredibly naive or supremely Machiavellian.

She presents a simplistic version of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to achieve. It's not about adding a few more bedrooms to existing settlements. You don't need construction cranes and heavy building equipment for that.

Jews should be allowed to live anywhere they want, including Judea and Samaria -- as long as they become Palestinian citizens.

The fact is that settlement expansion and even the presence of settlements outside the Jerusalem area is unsustainable. And a Middle East without a Palestinian state is, too. Sooner or later, the piper will be paid. Better to come to terms with that reality now.

The worst thing that could happen to Israel from the Palestinians is not a Hamas takeover. It's the possibility of an anarchic regime in the West Bank like what exists in Somalia where there is indeed nobody to talk to.

Israel should avail itself of talking to the elected Palestinian officials regardless of how weak they are. Maybe when these can deliver an independent Palestine they will be strengthened.

-- Robert Stern, Seattle

A quick fix for conflict: End the occupation

Nevet Basker betrays her own logic proclaiming herself a moderate and a critic of the settlement movement but then says nothing about the many United Nations resolutions declaring Israeli settlements illegal and in violation of international law and the Geneva Convention.

Most settlement construction is not about adding a bedroom for a new baby but the expansion of the footprint to make room for a few thousand more settlers, putting in cement "facts on the ground."

A quick-fix solution has been prepared and waiting for 40 years. Ending the occupation is the more moderate position for all who seek justice in that land.

-- Rev. Richard K. Gibson, Lynnwood

No defense for illegality of Israeli settlements

Nevet Basker's guest column is remarkable for its distortion of the historical and legal record.

She speaks of the Obama administration's position that Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian land must stop as rigid. What is rigid is Israel's unrelenting policy of building such settlements.

Nevet writes that Obama is ignoring Bush administration commitments to recognize realities on the ground. If a Seattle mayor sends a letter to a developer acknowledging the reality on the ground of illegally built condos on city property, that doesn't make the condos legal -- it only acknowledges the lackluster ethics of the former mayor.

Nevet writes that the Obama stance "constitutes a double standard." The plain fact is that Israeli occupation of territory outside of its 1967 borders is illegal by international law and United Nations resolution, period.

Palestinians have no responsibility to make concessions to end the settlements or the occupation; Israel must end its illegal occupation, because it's illegal.

That is the necessary first step to peace.

-- Aaron Katz, Seattle

Joe Wilson: the next Hulk Hogan?

Editor, The Times:

What an absolute embarrassment Rep. Joe Wilson is to this country ["Republican apologizes for heckling president," CloseUp, Sept. 10] and the institution he takes an oath to serve and represent. Wednesday night on an international stage, he showed his true colors -- that of a complete pompous buffoon.

I hope Wilson and his fellow peers with their juvenile signs and disrespectful twittering during the president's speech (a student would be tossed out of class for that behavior) are all ostracized by their peers from both sides of the aisle for their immature and disrespectful behavior. They all bring shame to the entire process and our fine country.

No wonder so little ever gets accomplished if they represent some of the players involved. Hopefully South Carolina will send Wilson packing and replace him with someone who can control themselves and represent them in a respectable and productive way.

He should get a job with the wrestling federation -- they thrive on grown adults shouting insults and hurling venom. He'd be a natural.

Hang your head, Joe. You can apologize, but your actions speak loud and clear.

-- Wendy Fosnight, Bainbridge Island

The real reasons for Republicans' opposition to health-care reform

After listening carefully to President Obama's speech and hearing the Republican response (by a rich doctor-congressman, Joe Wilson) I must conclude that the GOP has, in reality, only three reasons for being against the plan he outlined:

• Protecting the Republican bottom-line goal of easing the tax burden of the very wealthy.

• Protecting the profit margin of the campaign-contributing insurance and pharmaceutical and medical industries -- bribers, really.

• Hoping to defeat Obama's one big congressional issue of his first year in office just for the sake of handing him a defeat, rather than for any real philosophical or financial reasons.

In the 2010 elections, those House and Senate members who vote against whatever is the bill's final form had better be prepared for some spirited opposition campaigns -- maybe even in their party primaries.

-- Rod Belcher, Des Moines

Outburst was business as usual

Republican leadership and their pals shouldn't act surprised by Rep. Joe Wilson's rude and unprecedented outburst during President Obama's address to Congress.

After all, this is the party that encourages citizens to shout down legislators and interrupt them with shouting, screaming, insults and gibberish at public meetings.

Wilson knows the party line. He was just exercising the new democracy.

The chilling part? The same hypocrites also encourage loaded weapons at our president's speeches.

-- Peter O'Neil, Seattle

Wilson's accusation not far from the truth

Rep. Joe Wilson's shout "You lie!" was inappropriate during President Obama's speech, but what he said was true.

Obama continues to say 47 million Americans are not covered with health insurance when he knows full well that number includes 13 to 14 million illegal aliens.

Everyone with half a brain knows Obama will make the attempt to cover the people he is counting on becoming future Democratic voters. It just is good politics.

Wilson knew this and just couldn't restrain his frustration. Bad response and yet a true statement. Obama does know he is bending the truth.

-- Bob Allan, Woodinville

From a liar, an accusation of lying

Talking about no class, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson is the very personification of the concept. I find his outburst during President Obama's speech particularly egregious given all the falsehoods spewed out by the right on health-care reform.

In this instance I can't help but note the irony that, indeed, no provision in any of the proposed bills calls for coverage of illegal immigrants.

In other words, his shouting out "You lie!" when President Obama made this point clear was in itself a lie.

-- Marshall Dunlap, Kent

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

For homophobes, no marriage

Editor, The Times:

I would like to take a moment to reassure opponents of Referendum 71, those homophobes who want to prevent domestic-partnership rights from expanding.

I don't hate homophobes. I don't fear homophobes. I don't have religious objections to homophobes.

I just don't think they should be allowed to marry.

-- Howard Hance, Snohomish

Confusion, like with Prop. 8, needs to be avoided

The Seattle Times reported that those seeking to overturn extended domestic-partner rights with Referendum 71 have collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November, and The Times published an article immediately below that report with the headline, "Foe of R-71 mulls write-in bid for mayor" [page one, Sept. 1].

This story is about state Sen. Ed Murray, who is a staunch supporter of passing R-71, not a "foe." This incorrect language is sure to confuse voters wondering whether to vote yes or no on R-71. [Editor's note: Murray opposed domestic-partnership rights expansion going to a vote in R-71. Once R-71 gathered enough signatures, however, Murray is a supporter of voting yes on R-71 to extend to domestic partners the same rights as married couples.]

A referendum that has already been passed by the state Legislature is a law; if it goes to the ballot, a yes vote upholds it and a no vote overturns it. While you explain this later in the story, this is not enough for many people who likely read your incorrect headline and moved on.

I am particularly concerned about this misleading headline because of the voter confusion about Proposition 8 in California last November. Polls have shown that many voters on both sides were confused about what their "yes" and "no" votes meant, with many supporters of gay marriage accidentally voting in favor of Proposition 8 and vice versa.

-- Hannah Tracy, Seattle

My marriage doesn't need saving from same-sex 'threat'

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of how marriage between two people of the same gender could be of any threat to my 50-year marriage; it doesn't need any "defense of marriage" group's help.

-- Martin Paup, Seattle

Washington led for women's rights, now for gay rights

I support Referendum 71. It is fair and correct to affirm the rights of Washington's gay and lesbian families. The United States Constitution was written for the people, not just married people, not just single people. For everybody.

Domestic partnerships are not a replacement for full marriage equality. All families deserve true equality under the law. The purpose of our Constitution is to limit the power of government and protect the rights of the people.

Who opposes R-71? People who think our constitutional liberties do not apply to everyone but rather to specific groups they happen to belong to. We have a word for that: intolerance.

This is a time for all who believe in equality of rights to stand up and be counted. Washington state is the nation's leader in women's rights. Let's take the lead on this issue, and make sure our gay and lesbian families enjoy the same protection the rest of us take for granted.

-- Scott Leopold, Everett

Dig deeper in coverage of mayor's race

Editor, The Times:

The all-too-predictable coverage of our candidates for mayor and primary opponents, Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan, by The Seattle Times and other media outlets is very disappointing.

The majority of the coverage ignores the specific ideas from each candidate and paints them as an environmentalist lawyer determined to stop the tunnel -- McGinn -- and a T-Mobile executive who wants to simply restore efficient government services -- Mallahan.
Neither depiction is false, but the coverage rarely digs deeper. Let me give it a try.

I know Mallahan, for example, wants to leverage funds to expand units for low-income families. I know he wants to eliminate the head tax for small businesses, reduce consultant contracts by 25 percent to yield tens of millions in savings for the city. He wants to expedite hiring of police officers to save millions more and help protect he city. I know he wants to fully reinstate and expand the gang unit, eliminate the Mercer Street Project and ensure wealthy developers bear more of the cost burden.

I know McGinn is interested in funding a private-public partnership to create Seattle High School scholarships; he wants to build a citywide fiber-optic network for Internet use; he wants to focus on Metro's plans for Rapid Ride lines and an electric-trolley bus system that potentially will improve traffic dramatically, and at a fraction of the cost of light rail.
How do I know this? Because I've participated at events for both McGinn and Mallahan, asked them questions personally, and I have actually taken the time to read their Web sites in depth, where their ideas are laid out. Have you?

Even The Times' own profiles of both candidates focus less on these ideas and issues and more on surface stuff like their personalities, families and background.

Let's dig deeper. I encourage The Times and all media outlets to really press McGinn and Mallahan on how they will achieve some of the ideas I've laid out above -- taken directly from their Web sites -- in order for the city to make the best, most-informed choice this November.

-- Paul West, Seattle

New mayor will need leadership, not government, experience

I am tired of hearing that the new mayor will spend the first six months looking for a coffee shop and the bathroom.

Your assumption that it takes "government experience" to lead is wrong ["Voters' message is clear: Show us something new," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 23]. It takes "leadership experience" to lead. Maybe we have a patriot stepping up to lead us.
I'm a disappointed voter, not a "cranky voter."

-- Thomas P. Wise, Seattle

Unions endorse, but do they know what they're doing?

All the big unions in Seattle endorsed the incumbent for mayor in the primary election. Mayor Greg Nickels lost and so did the unions. There is a good reason why Seattle politicians go after the union endorsement.

Seattle is one of the few cities left in the country with a union density higher than the national average.

Yet Seattle unions are sticking to the old dogs. Now that their favorite lost the primary, they are running around their halls trying to figure out whom to endorse now. Sticking to the old politicians only reinforces the negative perception most people have of unions: that they are corrupt, outdated and embedded in a romanticized past that barely resembles their present, much less their future.

This should be the question unions should ask of themselves: What about our future? Their future is not in endorsing politicians that play lip service to favoring unions. A politician who creates union jobs yet does nothing while the cost of living increases on those same workers, who does nothing as expensive condominiums replace less expensive apartments, who stands by as the homeless wither in our streets, is not a friend of working people and should not be a friend of the unions.

-- Russell B. Jacobs, Seattle

Message to Seattle pols: Don't mess with voters

The long-held view that Seattle voters simply refuse to get tough with their elective officials, no matter how much they dislike them or disagree with their policies, has finally been consigned to dustbin status.

Last week's primary results sent a resounding message to local officeholders -- voters do pay attention to your words and deeds, and if you screw up or ignore their wishes, there are electoral consequences.

Soon-to-be former Mayor Greg Nickels both screwed up (snowstorm response) and defied Seattle's wishes (waterfront tunnel). As a result, voters unceremoniously gave him the boot while humiliating his political clones, Jan Drago and Jordan Royer, in the process.

Now watch Seattle's political and economic establishment, which sorely wants the tunnel, close ranks behind the pro-tunnel candidate, Joe Mallahan. It is normal for the establishment-backed candidate for mayor to win handily like Paul Schell in 1997 and Nickels in 2005.

But Mike McGinn's first-place primary finish proves tunnel opposition still resonates among voters who had overwhelmingly rejected the tunnel option in their 2007 advisory vote.

Candidates who run against the will of Seattle's voters -- at long last -- will do so at their own peril.

-- Russell Scheidelman, Seattle

Sirota whiffs again on Afghanistan

I always look forward to David Sirota's columns on Sundays. He never ceases to amuse as he steps up to the editorial plate, swings and misses. The truly amusing part is not the whiff itself (I expect him to miss) but the extent of the whiff. One wonders if Sirota even has an editorial bat, much less the ability to swing it.

In this week's edition of "Watch Dummy Dave whiff again," Sirota ["Military's science-fiction pitch sanitizes the brutality of war," Opinion, syndicated columnist, Aug. 30] blames the brutal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the troops. He forgets President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the military. They all work for him.

Obama could, if he really wanted, turn off the wars tomorrow and start bringing our guys home.

The troops don't have that power. They work, ultimately, for the president. They didn't start the war.

If Sirota had been old enough, he would have been one to spit on the returning Vietnam vets, who got drafted and sent off to a war they didn't start.

Then as now, the troops work for the president.

Sirota remains off base once again. Way off.

-- John Hafen, Woodinville

What if Bush were doing this bad?

Here is my what if: What if George W. Bush were in office today? Just imagine the national unemployment nearly at 10 percent and August being the worst casualty month in Afghanistan since the start of the war.

And if in the midst of all that, Bush went on a vacation to Martha's Vineyard ["Martha's Vineyard greets Obamas for weeklong stay," News, Aug. 24], what would the headlines be?

-- Marc L. Totten, Seattle

Not another war like Vietnam

The story "War strategy due for shift as patience runs short" [CloseUp, Aug. 24] says our generals will ask for more troops to fight in Afghanistan. I hope we are not being gradually sucked into a wider war like we were in Vietnam 40 years ago.

-- Richard Partington, Bellevue

Name public option after Kennedy

Editor, The Times:

A better suggestion to naming a health-care-reform bill in honor of Sen. Ted Kennedy ["Honor Kennedy with meaningful reform," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 28] would be to name a true public option after him, for that is the most critical element of any reform that will extend coverage to those who lack it or lose it while bringing competition to private insurance companies to lower costs.

Kennedy twice introduced legislation to do just that. It was called "The Medicare for All Act," and it would have opened Medicare enrollment to any citizen who wanted it as an option to private health insurance.

As for Sens. Patty Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell, each of whom has claimed Kennedy as a mentor and inspiration yet neither of whom has shown a lick of support for any meaningful public health-insurance option, naming such a public option after Kennedy might finally move them to support it.

-- Alex MacLeod, Shaw Island

Leave old Chappaquiddick wreck out of the picture

Was it really necessary to run that old photo ["A man some loved to loathe," News, Aug. 30] of Ted Kennedy's car being hauled out of the water? Didn't he do enough during his life to try to erase that dark chapter?

Let's get a positive outlook.

-- Marilyn Brashen, Kirkland

Why the sensation over Kennedy's passing?

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the minority about some things that just don't make sense to me.

Take for instance the 24/7 news coverage of Ted Kennedy's passing. I guess if I lived in Massachusetts and had benefitted financially or in other ways from the power exuded from the Kennedy clan I might understand it. But this is a guy who in 1969 drove off the road drunk into a creek and didn't seem to care about the woman drowning inside. The only real question here is: Was it murder or was it manslaughter?

It has always amazed me how the people of Massachusetts could elect Kennedy even once let alone allow him to make a career out of his congressional seat. From what I know about his career, he did assist in reaching consensus on quite a number of political issues. I suspect he felt guilty for what he had done and well he should.

I'm trying to remember if we had three days of mourning after President Reagan's passing. I think not.

He was only the president who brought down the Soviet Union, so how could he compare?

-- Don Means, Woodinville

Kennedy's mourners deserve to be focus of health-care debate

Watching the events surrounding the death of Ted Kennedy, I was struck by the thousands of ordinary people who came to pay their respects in a truly spontaneous fashion ["Mourners in streets remember Kennedy," News, Aug. 30].

No one organized their visits to the Kennedy Library nor the lining of the various roads and streets in quiet dignity along the way of his funeral procession.

Why aren't the millions of ordinary people like them the focus of the health-care debate? How in God's name did the proportionately minuscule number of people participating in unruly protests organized especially for the town-hall meetings come to dominate the discussion?

Surely America can do better.

-- Judith Frolich, Kirkland

PCO candidates vital to public involvement

I question Kate Riley's column ["End free ballot ride for parties," Opinion, Aug. 28] in which she questions public balloting for precinct committee officers (PCOs).

What does she propose instead? Should the parties elect them at caucuses? Who attends caucuses? One percent of the people, maybe?

Having PCO candidates on the primary-election ballot gives the general public their one opportunity to choose party officials. Is there not a public interest here?

Take it away, and the parties would be even less accountable than they already are.

-- John Carlin, Edmonds

Parties cut budgets while taking tax dollars for operations

Kate Riley's column exposes the hypocrisy of Washington's Republican and Democratic parties, which demand an election system that favors the perpetuation of party apparatus -- as long as the taxpayers fund it.

It is unbelievable that we effectively give the King County major parties $2.4 million every two years to fund their private precinct committee officer elections, while police, prosecutors, courts and other essential county-government services face repeated cuts.

As a commissioner for a small park district on Vashon Island, we are forced to pay King County a substantial part of our budget every two years to fund unopposed commissioner elections. These costs are determined based on the number of jurisdictions on the ballot and the cost of the election itself. It is unacceptable that we ultimately have less money to support kids playing in parks because the major political parties get their elections for free, and the costs are shifted to everyone else.

But this is not the only area where our major parties have perpetuated their own existence through public funding of party activities.

Our Legislature employs partisan staff that represent the interests of the Democrats or the Republicans, rather than the interests of the public.

At taxpayer expense, these partisan staff are given generous salaries, provided with office space and more. At the same time the Legislature in Olympia is cutting basic public education, it is maintaining its own party structure on the public dollar. This is the same Olympia, by the way, that provides free access to the ballot for its own parties while those same parties sue us in federal court for not giving them enough.

It is increasingly clear that George Washington's warnings against party politics were right. Reflecting our current broken political system, Washington warned that political parties "distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; [and] kindle the animosity of one against another." Sound familiar?

Following George Washington's advice, it is time for our Washington to remove all party apparatus from the state and county dole. It is clear the political parties are not working for us.

-- David Hackett, Vashon Island

Kennedy, a graceful and model public servant

Much has been written over the past few days about the impact Sen. Ted Kennedy made as a legislator and the way he interacted with the people he represented. My anecdote, perhaps more removed than some, is extremely memorable and important to me.

As a Massachusetts native who spent much of my early career working in homeless shelters and anti-poverty agencies, I was aware of the work Kennedy was doing on behalf of people living in poverty.

In 1994, while working for Kennedy's re-election, I wrote The Boston Globe a passionate response to an article about how many young people were unaware of -- or downright cynical about -- Kennedy's work.

"The under-30 crowd, of which I am a part, seems to be paying more attention to Hollywood than Washington, and the ridicule directed at Kennedy is more available to these voters than credits on his record," my letter in The Globe said.

A few days after my letter was published I got something in the mail that remains one of my most cherished possessions: a handwritten note from Kennedy thanking me. For me, it was like God stopping by on his way to work to pat me on the back.

In his lifetime of service, Kennedy represented more than just the people of Massachusetts. He represented the ideals and hopes of millions of young people like me who needed someone to lead the way -- to validate the work we were doing and the idealistic dreams we refused to let die.

As much as Bobby and Jack Kennedy remain my larger-than-life heroes, Ted Kennedy -- like Martin Luther King Jr. -- will always be the boots-on-the-ground ideal of what a public servant is: tireless, effective, fiercely intelligent and always graceful.

-- Jesse Ward Putnam, Seattle

Extend Medicare to all to honor the liberal lion

Sen. Edward Kennedy was a great champion of social justice, active on behalf of the less fortunate and a wonderful advocate for health-care reform.

What better memorial in his honor could we give him than an excellent new universal-health-care bill for the American people, extending Medicare to all?

-- Caroline Herzenberg, Chicago, Ill.

A perfect reason why reform is needed

Keven Drews, with dual citizenship in the U.S. and Canada, provided a stark contrast ["USA or Canada? I chose the country that saved my life," Opinion, guest column, Aug. 25] between his health care in Canada -- with lifesaving measures provided three times at no cost to him -- and the unaffordable costs the same care would have amounted to in the U.S.

His story supports Paul Krugman's call ["Night of the living Reaganites," Opinion, syndicated column, Aug. 25] for an Obama bully pulpit: "We're at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn."

-- Erin Scarlett, Seattle

Like Drews, my husband has gone abroad for care

Keven Drews' guest column hit a nerve, as my husband is also suffering from multiple myeloma and has had to return to England for treatment.

We are in our 70s and are having to live apart because we cannot afford the horrendous medical bills a serious illness can bring in "the richest country in the world."
I shall be traveling to the United Kingdom this week to be with him, and we will be leaving our lovely home in Renton to rent a small one-bedroom flat somewhere near the hospital.

We do need a government health option here in the U.S.
-- Pauline Warby, Renton

Is Canada, despite health care, an undesirable place to live?

After reading Keven Drews' column regarding his battle with multiple myeloma cancer, several things jumped at me.

First, I was impressed and inspired by Drews' strength, perseverance and determination as he fought and re-fought this insidious disease. I am also thankful he's achieved the level of recovery he's reached and pray he remains in good health.

Second, while the purpose of the column was to point out the failings of health care in this country, a few things were revealed between the lines.

He made several references to the fact that his preference was to live in the U.S. He said he was "forced" to return to Canada and "saddened" he could not stay here. He implied that living in Canada was an unfortunate necessity.

This reluctance to live in a country providing a universal-health-care program, touted by many here as the solution to our health care, brings up some unanswered questions.
What is it about our neighbor to the north that makes living there less desirable to the writer, despite all our faults?

Are the burdens of socialized medicine on Canadian taxpayers and businesses so repressive that the cost of living there is economically prohibitive? Many are in the 55 percent tax bracket on top of having to pay monthly premiums. Also, not mentioned in the column is that many Canadians, with the financial means, flee south to receive quality health care in a timely fashion.

I understand his appreciation for the Canadian system, and its benefits in his situation, but he still makes clear that given the choice his preference would be to reside in the U.S.

I've visited British Columbia numerous times and have found the land and people beautiful and hospitable. I hope to visit many more times in the future. During my visits I've never experienced or seen anything to make me wish I didn't want to be there. Yet, apparently the author has reason to wish returning to live in the U.S was an option.

It would be ironic that the Canadian universal-health-care system he speaks so glowingly of actually contributed to the conditions that made his relocation north unfortunate and sad?

-- Bob Brunswick, Bothell

An unforgettable moment with Kennedy

Editor, The Times:

In 1995, the Aberdeen High School choir made a trip to Washington, D.C. As a young staffer for Sen. Patty Murray and a graduate of Aberdeen High School, the senator asked me to accompany her visit with the students. After posing for pictures, answering questions and listening to a couple of songs, Murray needed to leave for a vote on the Senate floor.

Shortly thereafter, some of the talented students noticed Sen. Ted Kennedy looking at them over a balcony. He said, "I just wanted to hear where the beautiful music was coming from." The students implored the senator to come down to visit with them and, to my surprise, he obliged.

As he ambled up to the group of students, he shook my hand and whispered, "Who are these people, and why are they here?" I responded that they were from my hometown, a small town in Washington state, and were here to visit Murray.

Immediately, Kennedy whirled around and spoke to the students about the time Jim Whittaker was speaking with his brother about climbing Mount Rainier. He said, "Whittaker was telling Bobby that everyone should climb a mountain, or visit a national park, to remain close to nature, but Bobby turned it around on him and said that everyone should visit their government to ensure we protect beautiful places in our country like Mount Rainier."

Over the years, I had several opportunities to be in Kennedy's presence both in Washington, D.C., and Washington state. He always remembered I was from Aberdeen. And I will always remember how easily he related to "normal" people.

And, I'm confident those students will always remember their trip to visit their government. He will be missed.

-- Shay Hancock, Washington, D.C.

An era passes with Kennedy's death

And so, Camelot comes to an end.

For those of us who watched the'60s unfold as children, the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy is particularly poignant.

Whatever their political affiliations, presidents and colleagues praised that his passion for causes was tempered by his willingness to compromise -- qualities lacking in today's polarizing politicians and pundits. And if they did not agree with him, they never questioned his commitment to those Andrew Jackson identified as "the humble members of society."

At a time when concentration of power in the president and vice president has rocked this nation and its Constitution to the core, I offer King Arthur's closing lines in Camelot in remembrance of the Kennedy's perseverance: "Thank you for saving Camelot. You have reminded us that a kingdom's strength is not based on the strength of the king but the strength of the people."

Kennedy promised at the 1980 Democratic Convention that his "work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die."

"By whom, now?" is the question that should haunt us in coming months, as public frustration simmers over perceived haves and have-nots.

Because if average Americans lose faith they can still aspire to prosperity, then what?

-- Douglas Jensen, Sequim

Name health-care reform after the Liberal Lion

The Kennedy family name will live forever in America's psyche, but none more so than Ted Kennedy's.

The Liberal Lion was passionate in his liberal social causes, but health-care reform was at the top of his agenda, and in the'70s he gave a firebrand speech that delineated what we as a nation must do to attain coverage for all. The way he went about it was with all the verve he could muster.

Kennedy had many friends across the aisle, as well as within his own party, and his death yesterday couldn't have come at a worse time, but I have a suggestion: Let us name our health-care reform in his memory.

How about the Ted Kennedy Health Care Plan?

-- Max W. Don, Mukilteo

Not just a lion of liberalism, a phoenix committed to justice

Who among us hasn't sighed -- especially during the George W. Bush years -- and wondered what John F. Kennedy might have achieved had he lived?

From the loss of Joe Kennedy Jr. in World War II, to the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, to John-John Kennedy's unspeakable accident, it's easy to focus on what might have been.

Even when we speak of Ted Kennedy, whom we have only just lost, we may recall the "long shadow" of the Chappaquiddick car accident and bemoan the missed opportunity for another Kennedy president.

But Ted Kennedy was a phoenix. Call it penance for a fatal mistake on that bridge in Massachusetts, but he has served the people in the truest sense -- wholly committed to the causes of justice.

In 47 years in the Senate, he achieved his lion status through the force of his personality, passion and commitment -- especially when it came to universal health coverage, for which no one worked more tirelessly or spoke more eloquently.

Though the outpouring of grief and personal tributes are fitting expressions of our loss, the real tribute to Ted Kennedy's legacy will be when -- like Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act JFK had worked to achieve -- President Obama signs into life Kennedy's dream of health care for all.

-- Teresa R. Herlinger, Portland, Ore.

Honor Kennedy with real health reform

Sen. Ted Kennedy spent a long and important career fighting every day for real health-care reform. We should all honor his struggle by letting our senators, Congress and president know we want and need real reform with a strong public option.

Don't let the squeaky right-wingers stop this.

-- Peter O'Neil, Seattle

Reform is all about saving those ill like Kennedy

The coverage of Sen. Ted Kennedy's death brings more attention to the partisan arguments regarding health-care reform. However, we must remember that reform is about saving lives. As an advocate for an organization without a partisan political agenda, I can tell you the reform bills being debated represent tremendous progress for people fighting cancer.

Under the existing system, even if a person is lucky enough to have affordable, quality health care, they risk losing that insurance. A cancer patient or survivor who is laid off or cannot work is virtually uninsurable. Annual and lifetime insurance caps can limit treatment, and pre-existing conditions can be used as excuses to limit or even deny coverage.

In comparison, the health-care reform bills would guarantee affordable access to treatment and prevention services. Annual and lifetime benefit caps would be eliminated, and no one would be denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

There is room for further progress, but we need reform now, so all Americans have access to affordable health care. We need Congress to make sure people no longer have to choose between losing their life savings and saving their life.

-- Ray Sasaki, Seattle

Ban bags, don't just tax them

Many people, my wife and I included, would strongly support banning plastic bags but voted against the ill-conceived measure we were offered in Referendum 1.

A ban would require shoppers to bring or buy reusable bags or otherwise carry purchases in their arms.

Longer checkout times and ugly checkout disputes in our view seemed destined to ultimately doom needed regulation. In any case, this loss should not be interpreted to mean that Seattle voters want to continue using disposable plastic or paper bags or wouldn't adopt a more sensible regulation.

-- Charles and Wendy Ordine, Seattle

Poor marketing may have lost bag campaign

Seattle missed the marketing and terminology boat with pitching a bag "tax."

I just got back from Austria and Germany and found that when you grab a plastic bag there, you have to pay for it. That changes people's habits in a hurry.

It's not a tax, it's the cost of doing business or "cleaning up the bag mess."

Just require all bags to cost 25 cents as a cleanup fee, and you'll be surprised how many folks starting bringing their own.

-- Andrew Nemethy, Adamant, Vt.

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

Group Health innovative, but maybe not affordable

I enjoyed the article about Group Health Cooperative ["Does Group Health hold answers in health-care debate?" page one, Aug. 23] and certainly have been satisfied with the quality of care I've received from it during the years when I was working.

However, as a model for affordable health-care reform, it is too expensive for the unemployed. The costs for my wife and I range from $10,692 to $12,932 annually for Group Health's two plans that are not burdened by higher deductibles or higher out of pocket limits. Couple this with their annual double-digit increases and those costs will hit $24,000 per year in just seven years.

Now I ask, how can the unemployed afford that or those who are forced to take Social Security early at 62 at a lesser amount and are too young to qualify for Medicare?

MSNBC just quoted today the average Social Security check as being $1,153 per month or $13,836 per year. Seems to me the Social Security check is not going to cover Group Health, food and rent.

We need some kind of health care that is truly affordable since many who don't think reform matters because they have employer coverage may soon find themselves laid off in this wretched economy.

-- Clayton Chinn, Seattle

Those who saw U.S. change should know better in health-care debate

When Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier, angry people screamed that the national pastime was doomed. In the 1960s, anger erupted during the civil rights and women's liberation movements. Change seems to create fear, making people susceptible to misinformation and emotional appeals.

Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck lament the loss of the America they grew up in. I grew up in that America, too, and remember it was segregated --that I could be punished as a female college student for wearing pants on campus. That the search for communist conspiracies turned Americans against each other. That political assassinations became a too common occurrence. So I am amazed when I see people, who grew up like me in those tumultuous decades, angrily shouting at town-hall meetings.

Baseball did not end because Robinson played. Grandparents delight in seeing their granddaughters have opportunities for education and careers that were once denied them. Change is not a conspiracy but is often a positive in our lives.

We may have differences on issues, but by not listening, we become pawns in a narrative not based on facts or fairness. Conflict sells better than reasoned discussion. People who have lived through periods of hatefulness before should know better than to contribute to its rise again.

-- Nancy L. Snyder, Shelton

Nazi comparison only about socialist policies

Leonard Pitts Jr. secured his reputation as a fiery, emotionally charged writer with his post-9/11 syndicated column, but his pretended ingenuousness ["The other 'N' word," Opinion, syndicated column, Aug. 20] over the issue of comparing President Obama's plans for socialism in America to Nazi Germany's socialism goes too far.

No, Pitts; the right is not saying Obama wants to murder Jews, as Nazi Germany did. Most of us don't even think he wants to invade Poland.

The comparison -- and all radio hosts I've heard discuss it have been very clear on this matter -- is with the Nazi Party's socialism in their health care and economic policies.

What Obama is calling for isn't new; socialist societies have been failing for many decades now. The atrocities came much later and not necessarily as a result of the socialism, though that's a debatable point.

Presenting some of the facts can be just as dishonest as presenting untruths, Pitts. Please try to play fair.

-- Daniel Gilmore, Des Moines

In shut parks, a lost connection to earth

Editor, The Times:

A great sadness filled me as I read of the possibility that 39 King County parks may be shut down due to recent economic woes ["39 King County parks may be shut down," page one, Aug. 18].

Alas, what a devastating picture of national economic and global policies over these past eight years coming home to roost in our local neighborhoods, where there is little money for the needs of ordinary citizens but billions of dollars still handily available nationally for wars and corporations.

What will become of us if our green spaces are inaccessible? What will become of our children, many of whom have little access as it is to experiencing the joys of running across an open field or lying on the sweet green grass to look up through leafy trees at clouds against a blue sky?

How will our young ones learn to love the Earth so they grow up to become citizens who will care for it?

-- Jackie Leksen, Lynnwood

No sense in expensive light rail, closed parks

There are many, but rarely have I seen a better example of a dangerous malady that has been sweeping this state and country. A recent Seattle Times headline read, "39 King County parks may be shut down."

At the same time, Seattle opened a $2.5 billion light-rail line. This is the most expensive light rail ever constructed, costing $180 million per mile or $10,000 per Seattle household. Now, the operations of the train must be subsidized by taxpayers with $10 per ride if the number of riders estimated by Sound Transit are realized, which is doubtful. Further, Sound Transit is planning to spend many billions more to expand this ineffective rail system.

This indicates an unconscionable disregard for community priorities and the placing of politics and ideology ahead of the community's greater good. There are no winners but many victims.

Those who need transit and have no alternative will pay more and have less service, taxpayers will subsidize mostly people who have an alternative and the more than 90 percent of travelers who use the roads will continue to experience increasing congestion because money wasted on rail systems will not improve congestion or pollution.

When will we connect the dots between this stupidity and elected officials?

-- Jim Skaggs, Gig Harbor

Herbold's and Powell's economics don't make sense

The guest column in The Times from Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell ["Government-dominated reform will not improve health care," Opinion, Aug. 23] only left me confused. But when I saw that both individuals were associated with the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank, I realized sewing confusion was the purpose.

They vaguely state that collectivism fails dismally in economics. First, every other industrial nation has more government involvement in health care with better results and on average half the costs.

Could that be considered economics? Second, individuals will often exercise independent initiative and decide it is more efficient to make certain decisions collectively. This is reflected in our fire departments, police departments, parks, schools, military, roads, patent offices and more.

Herbold and Powell fail to admit that having government involvement in health care is not the same as having the government making computers or socks. But they need to take that disingenuous leap in order to make their straw-man argument that government involved in health care equals Chinese-style communism from the 1950s, among other unsubstantiated conservative talking points.

Health-care and insurance executives can make $100,000 an hour. Yet 18,000 people a year die from lack of health care. I guess that's the good economics Herbold and Powell subscribe to.

-- Mike Thies, Seattle

Code words and scare tactics, but no solutions

Gun-toting hecklers don't attend town-hall meetings because they're interested in quality health care for Americans. They are motivated by ideology, and their aim is not to participate in the national conversation, but to stifle it.

Robert J. Herbold's and Scott S. Powell's screed is merely another form of heckling. Their column is long on code words and scare tactics but short on analysis and ideas. With their rhetorical guns blazing, they contribute nothing to the national conversation about affordable, quality health care.

Herbold and Powell write that health-care reform represents "an irretrievable loss of freedom" that undermines individual responsibility and free choice. Fourteen times they use the term collectivist or collectivism, and they throw in references to socialism and narcissism for good measure.

But they never mention the tens of millions of American children and adults who lack health insurance. And they fail to address the imbalance between the cost of American health care -- the most expensive in the world -- and its relatively poor health outcomes.

Those shaping the health-care-reform effort have tried too hard to accommodate the Herbolds and Powells.

Responsible lawmakers should stop attempting to appease the unappeasable, and consign them to the margins by calling them what they are: ideologically motivated hecklers.

-- Matt King, Seattle

Too much Ayn Rand from elite Americans

Robert J. Herbold´s and Scott S. Powell's commentary in The Seattle Times sounds like it was written by a couple of guys who read Ayn Rand and suffered a -- dare I say it -- collective attack of foolishness. They purvey myth after myth about government and the citizenry´s relation to it in a democracy as well as the ultimate fantasy -- that the unfettered will of capital defines freedom.

Let us begin with what the authors mistakenly call the visceral reaction that members of Congress encountered this summer. Here they unfurl the banner of spontaneity, the idea that voters on their own have risen up in anger -- collectively? -- against an elite that wishes to impose a government program upon an unwilling people.

Let us leave aside the fact that if in America there is an elite, then plainly the authors are card-carrying members. It is more interesting to address the supposed viscerality of the voters' responses. In actuality there was next to nothing spontaneous about it. On the contrary, it was cranked up by demagogues in the media who equate the action of government with encroachment of personal freedom.

Yet the authors' argument that the president's reforms will fetter our freedom has an unstated corollary -- that in the context of health care the insurance companies are the embodiment of liberty. Anyone who has lost or been refused insurance, who has been dropped from their rolls or who has duked it out with them over coverage knows that to be a delirious proposition.

Finally the authors retail the myth, a Rand favorite, of government action as collectivism. In this myth, all government action is created equal. The Soviet Union and China are no different from Great Britain, France and Germany, or indeed from an America that finally seems willing to extend health-care coverage to all its citizens.

The authors, pillars of one branch of America's elite, have turned a tired crank. If that is the best they can do, then reasoned political discussion of life-and-death issues is in very deep trouble in America.

-- Edward Baker, Seattle

Guest columnists don't understand Kennedy's call

Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell show us clearly that the right's chorus of personal responsibility as the solution to our health-care problems is an evidence-free mythology. In fact, they base their entire piece on President John F. Kennedy's famous inaugural line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country."

Herbold and Powell, he didn't say "but rather ask what you can do for yourself." Kennedy's statement was a call for each of us to contribute to the collective good, not to descend into the selfish individualism you advocate.

-- Aaron Katz, Seattle

Nickels cut funding that was empowering Seattleites

Editor, The Times:

I was disappointed to read Danny Westneat ["Seattle likes debate, not action," NWSunday, column, Aug. 23] parroting the tired refrain of the Greg Nickels administration: You need to choose between engaging citizens and getting something done. History shows this is a false choice.

Norm Rice involved 3,000 citizens in his education summit, paving the way for the Families and Education Levy. He then empowered 30,000 citizens in a bottom-up neighborhood planning effort that, under the Paul Schell administration, resulted in voter-approved bond and levy measures for 27 new and improved libraries, 13 new and expanded community centers and 100 new and enhanced parks. Schell tripled the size of the Neighborhood Matching Fund, a program that has empowered tens of thousands of residents to implement more than 4,000 community self-help projects.

And what has the Nickels administration accomplished? As Tim Ceis says, "This isn't supposed to be a participatory democracy." So it killed the bottom-up planning program and made deep cuts to the Neighborhood Matching Fund. Nickels' administration opposed the successful citizen-initiated parks levy.

True, Nickels did get new fire stations along with huge cost overruns. He secured a new streetcar for Paul Allen while reducing bus service for existing riders. It took seven years to reach an agreement on the waterfront tunnel precisely because Nickels tried to impose his own solution; Nickels' failure to listen to the people may mean this project will never be built.

It is telling that the politician who focused on his own legacy being more than "footprints in the sand" left the rest of us stranded in the snow. I hope our next mayor will understand that Seattle's active citizens are its greatest strength.

-- Jim Diers, Vashon [Editor's note: Diers, former director of the Department of Neighborhoods, was fired by Nickels.]

A 'B' for snow, a 'B' for understanding what Seattle wants

Greg Nickels deserves a "B" grade for his understanding of and comments about the voters who favored other candidates in the primary.

-- Russ Baker, Federal Way

Nickels did more for Seattle than it knows

Mayor Greg Nickels has long done the right thing regardless of political expediency. He was one of the first elected leaders in the country to support President Obama, at a time when it was risky.

He led a national movement to stand up to the Bush administration on global warming. Out of fundamental decency, Seattle provided health benefits for domestic partners of city employees. He finally brought a viable public-transit system to our city. And our dangerous and blighted waterfront freeway will be replaced, reconnecting the people of Seattle on foot and bicycle with our tremendous God-given natural asset, our waterfront. Our city will be greener, more livable and even more beautiful.

The people in Seattle (or the few who voted in this primary) have spoken, and Nickels will not be the second Seattle mayor in history to be elected to a third term ["Nickels all but finished," page one, Aug. 21].

I have known Nickels for 14 years, and I can say this for sure: Whether you agree with him or not on issues (and yes, he is human just like the rest of us), Nickels' integrity, love for this city and leadership are unassailable.

I thank him for his service and will miss him as our mayor.

-- Manrita Sidhu, Seattle

Nickels couldn't manage the nuts and bolts

Danny Westneat ignores a major reason that Seattle voters decided to toss out Mayor Greg Nickels: nuts and bolts.

Certainly, some folks perceived Nickels as a strongman and wanted a return to process in decision making. But many others, including me, think he just didn't manage the city very well.

The 2008 snowstorm and its self-congratulatory "B" grade indicate Nickels was badly out of touch.

But I also think of the mayor when I get jarred by potholes, read about stupid actions by city departments, try to find a parking place I can afford, learn about yet another bureaucratic barrier to business, wonder why city employment levels and pay are not reigned in and ask myself why Seattle is more friendly to misbehaving drunks in Pioneer Square than to citizens who pay taxes and want to enjoy the place with their families.

Was Nickels too corporate? Hardly. He has worked his entire professional life in government. It's about time Seattle has a mayor who can manage the nuts and bolts of the city. I think someone with experience in the private sector has an excellent shot at doing a better job.

-- Phillip Johnson, Seattle

Forward-looking mayor paid the price for progress

Danny Westneat's column on why Seattle didn't vote for Mayor Greg Nickels was so great that I have decided to save it as a clipping, but unfortunately, as with some of his other fine columns, he came to the table too late.

Nickels has actually been a fine mayor for Seattle, and he deserves a lot more credit for what he has done than discredit over what he didn't do during two weeks in December.
It is possible to both love Seattle and to seek change when change is for the better -- such as gentrifying South Lake Union and adding streetcars and light-rail trains with their attendant transit-oriented development.

The current mayor had plenty of vision to look beyond repairing potholes, and he paid the price for it. As Westneat correctly said, what we will get for it is endless dithering for yet more time on the tunnel question.

As I have argued many times lately on the Seattle Transit Blog, all of this second-guessing elected leaders leads to an inefficient use of democracy as a weapon and risks being saddled with an electorate unwilling to trust and leaders unwilling to lead for fear of being closed down.

Nickels served as a punching bag in this election and got beaten by it unfairly in my view, showing flaws in a primary process that is more about ego than anything else.
I think a fine way to honor his leadership would be to let him retain a seat on the Sound Transit board so his voice can continue to be heard. I do not have any confidence that the two candidates in November have anywhere near the current mayor's breadth of leadership on transportation issues for Seattle.

Mike McGinn is a one-issue candidate who will plunge the city only to yet more turmoil over the tunnel-vs.-street-option replacement for the viaduct, and in the meantime, nothing will get done and prices will rise.

-- Tim Whittome, Issaquah

Nickels stood above the crowd

I didn't vote for Mayor Greg Nickels the first term, but he has brought home the bacon on transportation issues and does not deserve the eye-rolling commentaries and citizen complainers. Yes, I didn't like the snow either. Big deal.

Now one candidate for mayor seeks to undo half that critical progress of the last two terms and kill the Alaskan Way tunnel.

I think Danny Westneat's Aug. 23 column nailed it. Nitpick if you want, but Nickels turned out way above the crowd. He got something done. Unusual.

Now, are we going to revert to type and start "Doin' The Seattle"? Yuk!

Please don't, people.

-- Don Bell, Seattle

Some required reading for health-care debaters

Kudos to The Seattle Times for printing an excellent guest column by Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell ["Government-dominated reform will not improve health care," Opinion, Aug. 23]. These two guys really nailed it. It should be required reading by anyone interested in the current debate on whether or not to allow the federal government to become so heavily involved in our health-care system.

As the writers point out in such easy-to-understand wording, government health care would be a disaster, as a majority of Americans seem to be grasping. With the news now coming out of more and more trillions of dollars being added to President Obama's -- not Bush's -- deficit in the near future, the country simply cannot afford to let Uncle Sam further screw up the system.

-- Scott Stoppelman, LaConner

Diminished regulations, not collectivization, the threat to economy

Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell try to compare failure of collectivization in the manner of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to an anticipated failure of collectivization in government-paid health care.

Encouraging borrowers to amass massive debt in an attempt to make huge profits cannot be equated to spreading risk over the entire population to make health care affordable. To bring about the housing crisis, regulations were diminished, thus encouraging fraud and foolish behavior. To obtain affordable universal health care, enforced regulations and standards would discourage abuse and foolish behavior. Collectivization, in itself, has nothing to do with it.

Read H.R. 676 instead of the endless explanations by Congressman Rick Larsen, Blue Dogs and agenda-driven think tanks that believe a single-payer health system will not work.

Denis Cortese of the Mayo Clinic ["Fresh ideas boost health reform," Opinion, syndicated columnist, Aug. 2] says it will work, and he has no incentive to deceive us.

-- James Bruner, Oak Harbor

Time for personal accountability from corporate crooks

I certainly hope The Seattle Times didn't pay Robert J. Herbold or Scott S. Powell for their thinly disguised market-knows-best rant.

Not only do they attempt to tag proponents of national health care as collectivists, but they blame the entire financial collapse on government bureaucracy. The financial collapse isn't due to the fact that twice in 30 years lenders have gamed the system with straw buyers and conveniently obfuscating financial instruments. No, financial collapse was due to government mismanagement and the suppression of infallible market forces.

Their thesis is hogwash, and until this country demands accountability out of both individuals and corporations, we will be systematically fleeced again and again. We need to treat swindlers harshly. No more country-club jails. Life sentences and hard labor.

Complete forfeiture of all property and equities including those belonging to anyone accepting transferred assets. And while we're at it, break up the corporate boards of directors who enable the "your lotto winnings are peanuts compared to my annual earnings" corporate pay structures.

Don't let businessmen tell us how to receive benefits that should be national services, or we are all going to become commodities working at the discretion of corporate overlords.

-- Michael McInnis, Seattle

Government shouldn't need to have all the answers

The article by Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell was the best I've seen on the range of things it covered.

I hope there is still time to avert becoming just another country with citizens expecting the government to answer all of society's problems instead of taking personal responsibility for the choices made in life.

It's difficult to choose which of their points is best because the article is full of excellent ideas, but this one is right up near the top: "It is ludicrous to spend additional hundreds of billions for supposed health-care reform that will limit options, weaken competition and create the largest U.S. government bureaucracy ever while ignoring the reasons behind the insolvency of Medicare and Medicaid."

-- Jeanie McBee, Kenmore

Talking personal responsibility from an ivory tower

When Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell claim in their guest column that "over the past 45 years personal responsibility has been marginalized by collective government policies," they presumably refer to the adoption of Medicare in 1965 but lack the guts to say so.

In their rant against "collectivist political power" from the sanctuary of the Hoover Institution's ivory tower, they display an insufferable arrogance and ignorance of the real world in which the United States is the only economically advanced country on the planet that doesn't or can't provide its people with the peace of mind of guaranteed adequate health care.

Herbold and Powell may have failed to notice that China, which they seem to offer as a model of economic and social policy, is still a communist-collectivist state that provides universal health care to its people.

I have no doubt that Herbold and Powell would also welcome the abandonment of Social Security and a return to the good old days of the late 19th century before the government started interfering with private industry by regulating child labor, wages, hours and the right of workers to organize.

-- Dan Levant, Seattle

Constitutional argument being used in the wrong way

Not since Publius and Cato battled over the ratification of the Constitution has such a base debate about the nature of government taken place.

One can notice that the rhetoric of the right seems not to be directly attacking the notion of a government-run option but the underlying notion of federal dominance. Many at Congressman Rick Larsen's town hall held high signs declaring the necessity of originalism, or the idea that we must look to the Founding Fathers as the arbiters of all modern Constitutional questions.

Most jurists, and even James Madison himself, dismiss the idea: "Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the constitution."
We cannot look to the framers alone for the answers to the health-care question. We must look to the wording of our Constitution, both implied and direct.

Congress is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of the United States, and nothing is more general or basic than health. This does not mean providing people expensive cars or swimming pools; it simply means the government is responsible for taking care of the most basic societal requirements, such as ensuring a healthy workforce.

We must move forward on health care, and we must not let these frivolous arguments stand in the way.

-- Peter J. Wagner, Blaine

Democrats falling apart on health-care reform -- again

It looks like the Democrats are self destructing again. It happens every time they get in power. Whenever Americans give them votes enough to make a difference, Democrats start bickering among themselves and initiatives like health care fall apart.

This time they've sold out for 30 pieces of silver. When will people learn to think for themselves and stop looking for saviors?

First, single-payer health care was off the table, and now they're not going to consider the so-called public option, which would provide government health care for those unable to afford health insurance.

Obama is so desperate for something he can label health-care reform that he's sold out to the right wing and the insurance companies for a patch job to the current system, which means continued skyrocketing health-care costs and huge taxpayer-funded subsidies to insurance companies.

It seems no matter which side wins, millions of Americans lose and will still go without coverage, hundreds of thousands will go into financial ruin over health-care costs and insurance CEOs will laugh their way to the bank.

The Democrats haven't the courage to stand up to the moneyed interests and pass a single-payer plan that would cover every American regardless of income, age or prior medical condition. Single-payer works well in every major industrial western nation and the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office studies have stated that single payer would save billions in health-care spending. It would eliminate the administrative costs, waste and high CEO salaries of for-profit health insurance.

Until we take the money out of politics and adopt clean campaigns, we will continue to have the best government that money can buy, and we will fail to have a courageous Congress that would adopt such measures as HR 676, the single-payer health-care bill.

-- Howard Pellett, Anacortes

Obama clearly from another world

Those birthers who think President Obama is not a U.S. citizen are only partially correct.
Our group, earthers, contends he is actually from another galaxy.

Our proof? He is unquestionably way too smart and reasonable to be an earthling politician. Do you need additional evidence that he is a politico from another planet? He occasionally admits it when he makes mistakes, and he is faithful to his wife.

He's clearly not a terrestrial elected official.

-- Kevin Cole, Seattle, USA, Planet Earth

Why cooperative health-care is a viable alternative

There is a lot of interest in the health-care debate and in Congress about cooperative health care and especially in Group Health Cooperative here in Puget Sound. Since cooperatives may be a viable alternative, I feel I should share my own recent experience.
In December 2004, I had a major one-car accident. My chest was crushed, and I bled into my lung cavity causing major damage to my lungs.

A Seattle Fire Department Emergency Response team cared for me at the scene and transported me to Harborview Hospital. I spent about a month there in intensive care. Next I went to Regional Hospital for six months of critical care. From there I went to Kindred Hospital for another five months of critical care. Finally, I spent 100 days in Bothell Rehab center and then in February 2006, I went home for good.

You might suppose that to pay for this amount of care, (estimated to cost more than $1 million) that I would now be financially destitute. Not so. We have had to pay only a small amount of this. As a member of Group Health Cooperative, my eligibility for Medicare, the $10,000 from my car-insurance policy and the Seattle taxes that pay for emergency responses, the rest of the bill was paid for me.

My experience shows how all these programs can work together toward their common goal. I still use supplemental oxygen but other than that, after four and a half years, here I am.

I still live a pretty good life for an 85-year-old man thanks to cooperative health care.

-- Frank Baker, Bothell

In Washington, take advantage of high-quality marijuana

In response to the guest column "State should decriminalize marijuana" [Opinion, Aug. 21], don't mess around, legalization is the only answer for Washington state.

For some reason, we grow the strongest, highest-quality herb in the world. Ask the Drug Enforcement Agency or experienced consumers if you don't believe me. California talks about a $50 per ounce tax on legalization. That is the error. A $200 per ounce tax is more like it.

That would still keep prices at current street level, plus create profit for growers and retailers. That would result in a $300 to $400 per ounce sticker price on the world's highest-quality herb. To lowball a guess, that would be an easy $50 million each month to our state's tax base, and add to that the jobs that would be created. Our tourism would boom to a world-class level.

Experienced herb smokers are stunned at the political attack on herb. The reason is the stupidity of it all. Herb is being treated the same as heroin or crack or meth. That is like saying aspirin is the same thing as morphine. Just because it is an illegal drug does not mean the effect is the same. In comparison, having three martinis is so debilitating that one wonders why that is not in the same category as a crack high.

Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Spinning around and getting dizzy as a kid is a gateway drug. It's illegality is a gateway. Being illegal makes users enter the illegal market, where you can find stolen cars, illegal weapons and more. If legal, no need to go there.

-- Douglas Mays, Seattle

Won't smoking pot give you cancer, too?

I'm still waiting for someone to address the glaring fact that inhaling pot will probably cause lung cancer.

Seems odd that our plucky populace, after rising up and crippling the iron grip of the tobacco crowd, has apparently forgotten that sucking smoke into your lungs can kill you.
Anybody?

-- Jerry Bredouw, Edmonds

Not just stoners enjoy the herb

Kudos to Vivian McPeak, current director, and the other organizers of Hempfest for encouraging diversity and bringing more representation to the event. It is time our politicians see firsthand who marijuana legalization supporters include.

Pot is used by ailing cancer patients, senior citizens and others looking for help with pain and illness. It is smoked recreationally by thousands -- business people, career types, athletes, politicians and just about everyone. And yes, stoners, too, but they are not the majority, just the most visible.

Hempfest should do more to encourage those people outside the cliché dope culture to be seen supporting legalization. Maybe then policy will change, and we can move forward to address the real issues facing our country -- health-care reform, the economy and two ongoing wars.

I am very impressed with Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata and Representative Roger Goodman for their leadership in speaking at the event. It is about time our government started supporting the will of the people.

-- Tom Baker, Woodinville

Low voter turnout the true disappointment of primaries

According to the most-recent election data, only 24 percent of registered Seattle voters bothered to vote in the primary election. How pathetic is that?

All of the constant whining one hears on the streets and on talk radio, in editorials in our local papers and blabbed in blogs represents only one quarter of the potential voting public.

Seattle residents should be ashamed of themselves for being so cavalier about this city's future and the issues that will make an enormous difference in the day-to-day lives of its citizens, such as the viaduct replacement and consumer taxes.

Unless you bothered to exert the extreme effort of mailing in your absentee ballot, please refrain from polluting our air with your complaints and opinions regarding the direction of this city -- one of the finest in the country, no thanks to you.

-- Brent Stavig, Seattle

Times editorial elitist and patronizing

The Seattle Times published an editorial headlined, "Partisans Move On" [Opinion, Aug. 19]. Since I live near Lynnwood, I have absolutely no dog in this hunt as it were. But after reading this rather pointed editorial, it appears the editorial board of The Times not only has its collective nose out of joint, but also must be at a right angle to its face.

I'm not sure whether the board believes the peasant masses of Seattle to be stupid or foolish or both. How dare Seattleites disregard the editorial board's collective wisdom and guidance and act on their own?

As I said earlier, I don't care who the folks in Seattle elect for dogcatcher much less mayor. However, I find the attitude of The Times editorial board to be both patronizing and elitist.

-- Phil Bate, Lynnwood

Seattle needs a mayor who can build that tunnel

There may be reason to be against the way the tunnel situation has played out, but the tunnel is the right answer, and it needs a mayor that knows how to do it properly.

-- Hugh Coleman, Kelso

A doctor is exaggerating the cost of preventive care

It is disappointing that a former physician such as Charles Krauthammer would put forth such a misleading analysis ["Preventive care is no panacea," Opinion, syndicated column, Aug. 15] of the cost of preventive care, using an expensive $500 hypothetical test for mystery disease X.

His example assumes that all expensive preventive tests would be given to all people regardless of risk, which of course is a wasteful approach. There are very economical examples of preventive medicine that Krauthammer conveniently leaves out, like asthma screening in children or blood pressure and glucose checks for adults.

Catching asthma early saves in expensive emergency-room visits. Identifying people who can benefit from inexpensive blood-pressure medicines saves money by preventing years of heart disease later.

The prevention examples I gave are cheap and take only a few minutes. This is not "nonsense" or "deus ex machina" as Krauthammer claims.

Nonsense is when you make up a hypothetical disease with an expensive test to support a flawed hypothesis that prevention will cost us money.

-- Mark Damberg, Seattle

More preventive care would save tax dollars

Charles Krauthammer wrote that prevention, on a societal level, costs more, not less. Prevention is much more than costly procedures, however. It includes vaccinations to prevent epidemics, counseling people about behaviors that can lower their risk for diseases, providing primary care to prevent expensive visits to emergency rooms and treating illnesses in a timely manner in order to prevent complications.

I have often seen patients that have been unable to afford their medicines, the supplies necessary to monitor their blood sugar or to obtain medical care. The result? After years of inadequate or no care, they develop blindness, kidney disease and/or foot ulcers.

At this point, they become disabled, finally get medical care from the government, and we taxpayers pay for dialysis, ophthalmic treatment, amputations and prosthetic limbs, vision services to teach the blind person how to function in the world and more. In addition, we have lost a productive member of our work force.

However, I agree that preventive care is not adequate to solve the problem of our country's high cost of health care. Until we address the problem of health care for profit, the costs will continue to escalate.

Single-payer health care is the answer to affordable, sustainable and universal health care.

-- Diane Bommer, RN and Certified Diabetes Educator, Port Townsend

Early care saves lives, money

This is not the first time I find Charles Krauthammer's statements over the top and downright wrong.

This time he is telling us preventive care is for the birds and a waste of time and money. With his overlong diatribes, using many examples, he is trying hard to convince the reader that preventive care would cost us more than it saves. Is he saying being healthy is more expensive than being sick? What kind of nonsense is that?

Preventive care should be the stalwart of health care. Fortunately, we have started on the road to preventive care, with tests for many diseases. A good example is seen in cancer detection. A test may not necessarily prevent the disease but discovering it at its earliest stage is saves lives and money.

Krauthammer, by saying preventive care is nonsense, is doing the public a disservice. One expects more from a syndicated columnist.

-- Jutta Kurtak, Bellevue

Without public option, no meaningful reform

I read in The Seattle Times ["Viability of public option in question," page one, Aug. 17] that the Obama administration is considering dropping the public option as one of its goals in current health-care reform legislation.

I would prefer a single-payer plan but was willing to compromise on anything that included a public option. If this feature were to be eliminated from the plan, then I am afraid it would lose all my support as well.

The fact of the matter is: Without at least a public option, no meaningful reform in health care can possibly take place. That is because, in the end, the insurance companies will still be in charge of the system.

Like any business in America, insurance companies are profit driven. As such, their objectives are always going to be to take in as much money as possible while expending as little as possible.

The health care of any of their customers will always come secondary to that principal. A public option is the only way to address this problem effectively. That is obviously why it is meeting so much resistance from the industry.

-- Marshall Dunlap, Kent

Gun toters just intimidating health-care discussions

Recently there has been a disturbing overlap between freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. What is the purpose of having machine guns, assault rifles and holstered handguns at playgrounds and town meetings? Where will this stop? Isn't the sole purpose to intimidate others, especially when many are shouting and suppressing those with polite and legitimate questions?

Gun toters intimidate those without guns. It's that simple. Why should guns be necessary at public forums on health care? Does the right to bear arms mean unarmed attendees should stay home out of fear, or alternatively, arm themselves for potential confrontations? What about the right to feel safe and secure when engaging in civil discourse about political matters affecting us all?

Police must hire more security for these events, even though the average non-gun toting person bears the economic burden.

Emotions have run high at the town meetings. What if somebody fires a shot in the crowd, creating panic and potentially a massacre?

Once again, the National Rifle Association has gone too far. Truly, it does not represent Middle America -- only the fringe.

-- Mark Litchman, Olympia

Protesters not trained to have weapons safely in a crowd

As a retired police officer, I was troubled by the sight of openly armed civilians at political rallies. But not for the obvious reasons.

I realize that each had a right to be armed, but from the images that I saw on television, none of those armed appeared to have the situational awareness that being armed in a crowd requires.

With the exception of one man, those that were portrayed wore holsters that were designed for concealment rather than secure weapon retention. Most had their hands holding other items like signs and microphones, making any attempt to prevent someone more sinisterly motivated from disarming them unsuccessful.

Being armed in a crowd, one must be constantly vigilant to protect the weapon from others. None of those that I saw were mentally prepared for such a misadventure.
Shame on them for being so cavalier with the safety of others.

-- Jerry Kempe, Shoreline

Trying to drown out free speech with fear

Why are the people bringing guns to political rallies not being charged with domestic terrorism?

It is obvious their only intention is to intimidate those of us who want a responsible dialogue. If liberals had done this they'd be hauled off to jail in a hot second. Of course, that's why we are liberals. We actually believe in free speech -- not drowning it out.
We believe in democracy, not mob rule. And we live according to certain moral credos such as, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That's the difference.

-- Rob Moitoza, Seattle

Vote against Ref. 1 a vote against liberal agenda

Editor, The Times:

It's the same strategy. Just like the right-wing attack on President Obama isn't really about health care, the vote against a tax on plastic bags was really a vote against the liberal agenda, specifically environmentalism in Seattle.

It's what the Republicans will call a backlash against that liberal agenda.

But really it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's just more dangerous Republican misinformation on how to reduce our waste and pass on the goal of a better place to our kids. The only goal Seattle Republicans have is winning the next election, at any cost.

Republicans seem to believe global warming and other environmental dangers don't exist anyway. There's no real reason to be environmentally conscious in the minds of the Republicans.

-- Doug Morrison, Seattle

Bag tax failed because it wasn't evenly applied

I take offense at Brady Montz's assertion ["City voters don't buy shopping bag charge," News, Aug. 19] that Referendum 1 failed because big business spent more than the Green Bag Campaign 5-to-1.

My friends and I voted against the 20-cent bag tax because it was arbitrary and discriminatory. Some businesses, but not all, had to pay the 20-cent bag tax. Grocery stores, food banks and convenience stores had to pay. Large mega-stores like Target, Sears, Fred Meyer and Macy's were exempt.

The tax would save us from all those non-biodegradable plastic bags but would also tax all those biodegradable paper bags. If the green-bag supporters want a law that will pass then they should outlaw all plastic bags, leaving only paper and reusable bags as alternatives.

Do not write a law, like the one that failed, penalizing only certain businesses and service organizations assisting the poor.

-- Suzanne M. Banchero, Seattle

Despite failed tax, quit plastic bags cold turkey

Many voters felt the plastic bag fee was too nanny-ish. Understandable, but still, the environmental problem remains.

Here's an idea. Judging from the massive sums they spent to defeat this measure, the plastic producers clearly expected plastic-bag sales to take a huge dive if the fee was approved.

Let's all see if we can make that happen anyway by resolutely swearing off plastic bags at the grocery. Cold turkey.

Let's develop a culture in which those who regularly use plastic grocery bags are assumed to be either self-absorbed people like those who talk too loudly on their cellphones or people for whom reusable bags are genuinely beyond their means.

We can roll our eyes at the former and empathize with the latter. But for ourselves, let's do what's right, even without the official prompt. The inconvenience will be minimal.

After all, if you've got a life, plastic bags can't be a very big part of it.

-- William R. Andersen, Seattle

Inefficient system only to get more expensive

For five years, I worked as a physical therapist aide in a small clinic in Des Moines. During this time, I talked to hundreds of patients from all walks of life.

Sadly, they all had to deal with high health-care costs. It was heartbreaking to see people at their most vulnerable not only struggle with injuries but also financial insecurity and mounds of paperwork.

Our undependable health-care system is not a political game but a harsh reality for many Americans. I am sure most people know someone with health insurance who is drowning in medical debt or being denied coverage because they actually need health care.

Unfortunately, if we do nothing, this inefficient system will only get worse with costs predicted to double by 2016. Small businesses and families will be hit the hardest, and I don't how our economy can deal with these higher costs. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have to realize that we are done with rhetoric.

A public option will create the competition in the market that can cut costs and red tape. It is time to finally get strong reform and a dependable, affordable health-care system.

-- Tiffany McGuyer, Des Moines

Future after reform: a cool, free vacation in the hospital?

It's been hot in Seattle this summer, so let's get this socialized medicine up and running fast.

Because then instead of going to the mall to cool off, we can go to the hospital and not only get an air-conditioned room for free but three squares and a view.

Ding, ding, ding. What's wrong with that nurse? My dinner's cold and my bed pan needs a changing, or I'll lawyer up and sue for malpractice!

-- David Hagen, Seattle

A veteran who wants everyone to have his health care

As a combat-disabled veteran, I have been enrolled in the Veterans Affairs health-care system for more than 50 years.

The system has faithfully delivered the finest health care to me while residing in several states.

I am most grateful for the undivided attention I receive. The VA Hospitals in Seattle and American Lake are, by far, the most efficiently operated.

Why can't this nation offer each of it's legal citizens the same government care?

-- Curt Lint, Herron Island

A health-care solution in a vegan diet

Our nation is in the grip of a raging debate over reforming a grossly misnamed "health-care system" that threatens to bankrupt our economy. In 2008, U.S. medical costs reached $2.4 trillion, or 17 percent of our gross domestic product, growing at an astronomic annual rate of nearly 7 percent. That's $8,000 per person or $20,000 per household. It's a major factor in mortgage defaults underlying our economic crisis.

And these numbers don't even begin to account for the economic toll of lost productivity or the emotional toll of crippling disease and premature death.

The tragic irony is that these outrageous costs have little or nothing to do with health care and everything to do with medical care, directed mostly at alleviating chronic killer diseases that are self-inflicted through our flawed lifestyles.

Actual health care is absolutely free: It consists of regular exercise, adequate rest and abstinence from smoking, hazardous drugs and meat and dairy products.

Yes, meat and dairy. According to the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, nearly 1.4 million Americans are crippled and then killed annually by heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and other chronic diseases linked conclusively with consumption of animal products. That accounts for 70 percent of deaths from known causes, and presumably, for a similar percentage of medical costs, or $14,000 per household.

We have no control over the national costs of medical care. But each of us can exercise a great deal of control over our household's $14,000 share every time we visit our favorite supermarket.

-- Alex Nelson, Seattle

Not just politicians should be able to afford vacation, health care

Congress has adjourned for a month of vacation -- briefly interrupted by town meetings. Their family time is, I'm sure, financed via savings from the simplified health plan they enjoy.

It's only fair the House vote to pass the Affordable Health Choices Act once they reconvene so we, too, can afford to spend time with our families.

We promise to reinvest some of that savings into increased vacation spending next year in Western Washington; money not available to many working families who struggle to keep up with double-inflation rate premium increases under our current system.

-- Philip Bradford, Tacoma

America itself is sick with lies

Like viruses, two big lies infect America, threatening us more than any foreign terrorists: First, the illusion that our nation can sustain itself without taxing wealth, and second, the illusion that government is the enemy, when in fact our government is we the people.

Spread through propaganda funded by private corporations, these lies convince gullible citizens to vote against their own best interests. At town-hall meetings on health care, these gullible Americans shout down the very democracy and government that is the last best hope among nations.

Which is more democratic and American: We the people owning our health care, or health care controlled by an elite cartel of corporate profiteers?

-- Alfred K. LaMotte, Steilacoom

A taste of Bush's treatment for Obama

I nearly spit out my coffee when I read Paul Krugman's syndicated column in The Seattle Times ["Obama must deal with the death of his postpartisan dream," Opinion, Aug. 16].

He charges that President Obama is now dealing with an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, threatens his health-care proposals and eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.

This is such a vivid description of what the left did to President Bush over the past eight years, but now it's outrageous because it's happening to Obama?

Krugman's hypocrisy is his own business, but he shouldn't insult our intelligence.

-- Freddy McLaughlin, Seattle

Executive race was simply a popularity contest

Editor, The Times:

It's official: Most voters in King County are morons.

We know this because Susan Hutchison came in first in the primary for King County executive ["Former TV anchor to face off against council veteran," page one, Aug. 19].
Here's what most of her voters said to themselves: "Oh, I recognize her name and saw her on TV a lot. Therefore she should run our county government!"

Meanwhile, folks who are actually qualified got few votes by comparison. Pitiful.

-- Matthew J. Barry, Issaquah

In most candidates, a dearth of relevant experience

In the end, I voted. But only for two candidates and the referendum. Why?

Because nearly all of the candidates failed to provide evidence that they were qualified for the job. We know they love Seattle, King County, Washington, the USA., Mother Earth and the Universe.

But did any of the candidates have relevant experience? Apparently not -- otherwise, they would have said so, right? And why waste our time promising they'll solve our economic woes or fulfill any other absurd claims all by themselves? If elected, they'll work with others, negotiating and compromising, right? Isn't that what politics is all about in a democracy?

Since the candidates didn't provide qualifications, precious little relevant experience and nothing but empty promises, here's my suggestion for future voter pamphlets: Let a special election committee draft a blanket statement that covers all the things you have in common -- piety, patriotism, familial devotion and love of apple pie -- together with critiques of how badly it's going, overblown generalities about what candidates will accomplish and declarations that only candidates can save us from disaster.

That can go in the front of the pamphlet, where we can ignore it. Then tell us your actual qualifications.

-- Paul J. Smith, Seattle

With long-term tunnel vision, easy to see it's a poor choice

The Seattle Times' tunnel vision regarding the anti-tunnel vote is extremely shortsighted.
According to The Times' editorial, "A wounded mayor" [Opinion, Aug. 19]: "McGinn's solution, surface transportation, will jam our streets and overwhelm the freeway."

In addition to the short-term consequences of tunnel construction, the long-term global-warming consequences have been ignored. Hopefully our country will admit to the threat of global warming before it is too late for our children and grandchildren to correct the damage we have done.

If we decide to be responsible adults, the tunnel will be obsolete by the time it is finished or shortly thereafter. It is time we stop subsidizing single-occupant fossil-fueled traffic.

The money wasted on a tunnel would be better invested in a first-class bus-rapid-transit system.

-- Bob Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle

Avoiding political storm with mail-in ballots

I would like to thank King County for instituting mail voting and giving me back so much time. I voted the day my ballot arrived, and therefore could hang up on robo-calls, fast-forward through campaign commercials, skip reading all The Seattle Times stories about the candidates and the election and change the subject when friends brought up the election.

And of course, walking to the mailbox is much faster than driving to my old polling place and actually engaging in a communal event of civic engagement.

-- Silvia Ceravolo, Seattle

Bag vote hijacked by well-funded opponents

Thank you Seattle for once again proving that big money buys politics. With fliers, ads and phone calls flooding the residents of this "enlightened" city, how can anyone possibly say defeating the bag tax was the public's will?

If the proponents and opposition had been evenly funded, one could claim it was the public's will. But the way it was done proves otherwise. The poor didn't win -- the chemical industry did. Everyone else lost.

What a bunch of suckers we are!

-- Jack M. Pedigo, Seattle

Like in health-care reform, public is the loser in bag-tax defeat

They've done it again. In voting down the bag tax, people have allowed themselves to be duped by disinformation, lies and distortions, becoming stooges for the oil and chemical industries and not realizing they already pay for plastic bags directly and indirectly in many ways.

The same thing has happened with health-care reform, with people allowing themselves to become pawns of the insurance companies out to protect their profits at the expense of us all.

Some undoubtedly just hate the president and will do anything to bring him down. Either way, they're working against themselves.

And in voting for Mr. Anti-Tunnel, Mike McGinn, they're jeopardizing the chance of a lifetime to make Seattle one of the magnificent waterfront cities in the world.

What a shame it all is.

-- Tim Walsh, Seattle

Who is Congress really representing?

Editor, The Times:

So it's happened. Not only is single-payer health care off the table, but it looks like President Obama and Congress are ready to cave on the public option as well ["Viability of public option in question," page one, Aug. 17].

Democrats hold the White House and have large majorities in both houses of Congress, and yet they don't have the spine to pass a bill that might upset the Republicans and the insurance companies?

We should change our nation's motto to government "of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations."

-- David Pfeifle, Lynnwood

With present course, health-care reform will fail

How sad that The Seattle Times' Aug. 17 editorial ["End-debate distortions doom end-of-life care," Opinion], excellent though it was, needed to be written in the first place.

As someone who has spent the bulk of their career in health-care communications and desperately hopes this nation can find a way to seriously reform health care (including provisions for better end-of-life care and counseling), I greatly fear the current reform effort is likely to go the way of other doomed attempts to ensure all Americans receive quality health care.

One would think it would be relatively easy to fight hysteria and other manifestations of nuttiness with facts. One would be wrong. Unfortunately, the American landscape has become of late a place where disagreements cannot be registered without masses of wild accusations, vicious taunts and outright lies.

And if all else fails to vanquish an opponent, the death card often seems to do the trick. As a result, all of us suffer.

-- Mary Stanik, Minneapolis

In Post Office lines, an argument against government-financed health care

I can answer the question in your article about the fight against health-care reform ["Who's behind the fight against health-care change," Close-up, Aug. 17]! Who's behind the fight against health-care change?

Everyone in the Post Office line last time I was there. While waiting in line, everyone had something to say about health-care reform. No postal delivery on Saturday? What if that meant no health care on Saturday?

If the U.S. Postal Service is going bankrupt, why would I want the government running health care the same way? Bankrupt health care could be worse than expensive health care. Long lines, poor service and overworked staff led to frustration as we waited.

I know our health-care system isn't perfect, but making our medical care into something resembling our Postal Service is not the solution!

-- Lee Binz, Normandy Park

Lucky protesters obviously haven't had it tough enough

I have seen some of the footage of outraged citizens speaking out against health-care reform at town-hall meetings. It is their right to be outraged, their right to speak out and their right to influence the debate. Unfortunately, I can't share in this outrage --I'm not so lucky.

They are lucky they have never lost a job and had to worry about how to pay for coverage for their family.

Lucky they have not witnessed emergency rooms filled with people receiving care in the most expensive environment for low-cost preventive treatment because they have no insurance and no other way to receive care.

Lucky they have not had to witness their employer deciding how to address the double-digit annual premium increases -- by reducing benefits or increasing employee costs.

Lucky they have not known anyone whose lifesaving cancer treatments were stopped because a maximum benefit had been reached.

Lucky they have not known anyone with pre-existing conditions, which are used to deny coverage or make necessary coverage expensive.

Lucky they have never known anyone working two or three jobs who cannot afford health care still.

In the health-care debate, there are many things to be outraged about. I am outraged that for the last 15 years, private insurance companies have promised market-based reform that has never materialized.

It is outrageous to believe that it ever will.

-- Kevin Jahne, Seattle

Individual freedom won't disappear with health-care reform

Newsflash to everyone worried about losing your precious freedom in the face of health-care reform:

In Canada you are allowed to dance. You can also freely criticize the government.

Germany also allows dancing and kids can drink when they're 16 years old. And you can drink at public festivals without being penned up in a "beer garden." They even let you carry the glass around with you. You can also bring your dog with you to restaurants and to any park.

Travel more and you will learn that America no longer corners the market on freedom --if it ever did. In the meantime, take comfort in knowing that only in America you still have the freedom to choose between getting an operation and keeping your house.

-- Peter Poirier, Woodinville

In clunkers program, forgetting the three Rs

It seems people remember only two of the three R's: Reduce (what's that?), Reuse (huh?), Recycle (aah, there we go).

Many people seemed to have adopted a mindset like this: "I never reduce anything I consume, or reuse old but still workable things, but I throw that empty gallon in the green bin every time, so I can feel self righteous about my environmental efforts."

This same flawed mindset about helping the environment by recycling while not reducing or reusing is as flawed as the Cash for Clunkers program. People trade in perfectly good used cars for newer ones with better gas mileage, and although there is a benefit to better gas mileage, it doesn't offset the bad environmental impact that comes with destroying a good used car that could be reused.

This is simply a taxpayer-funded bailout of the auto industry that ultimately is going to cause a short boom followed by another hard bust. And the low-income folks, or just those trying to not live off credit like me and my family, now have fewer good used cars on the market to choose from, and with less supply there is more demand and higher prices.

Sure this will help the auto industry, but what about the auto-repair industry, which now has fewer used cars to maintain? People forget these government actions that help one group always hurt another group.

A better alternative is HR 1768, which would give tax rebates to those trading in for more fuel-efficient cars. This would allow those who trade in to keep more of their own money through a tax rebate, while not causing the taxpayer to be billed for an environmentally unfriendly program. It would also give those with less money more used cars to choose from.

-- Seth Copeland, Edmonds

Automated campaign calls just too 'phony'

Automated phone calls to promote political candidates are doing just the opposite as far as this voter is concerned. It shows the candidate cares only about numbers, not individuals; has little if any initiative or imagination; has poor economic training; and possesses no sense in making more than one "robot call" while only multiplying the inconvenience.

In other words, such efforts are not only annoying and impersonal but "phony."

-- Bill Wippel, Normandy Park

An inconvenience, a lost vote

When will political candidates understand that for many of us, myself included, a phone call from a candidate's campaign immediately puts that office-seeker on the do-not-vote-for list?

We get all the info we need from personal observations and from newspapers, mailings, the Internet and attending forums. A phone call is just a rude irritation that interrupts what I am doing and that takes up my time to either hang up from or to delete from my voice mail. The only exception is when the candidate is on the line live.

I'm on the do-not-call list, and my phone number is unlisted and unpublished.

Unfortunately, politicians are allowed to disrespect this choice. Their choice to do that will cost them a lot of votes.

-- Carolyn Walden, Seattle

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

Not just conservatives protesting 'Obamacare'

It's interesting to note there's not a word of concern heard from the Democratic leadership when Conservative speakers are shouted down by organized liberal students and those allegedly from unions and minority groups or when conservative guest speakers are uninvited by colleges and universities for fear their words might lead the students to become unruly.

But Democrats are screaming that those vocally protesting ["Rowdy protests at health forums," page one, August 6] against the Democratic-backed health-care plan at town-hall meetings are part of a Republican plot to get Obama. Worse yet, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer, these protesters are well dressed, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi likens them to Nazis.

It would seem that in the Democratic leadership's opinion, it's only mean-spirited and uninformed conservatives who object to having a government-mandated health plan; that all loyal Democrats willingly accept the notion that their leaders know what's best for them, and thus wouldn't dream of publicly protesting against it.

This is yet another sure indication of the arrogance of certain members of the Democratic leadership that they so strongly and vehemently object to citizens openly and publicly opposing their agendas.

They apparently can't grasp the idea that every day more people are becoming aware of the fact that government often creates more problems than it solves and being in Congress does not magically endow one with wisdom, foresight and truthfulness.

-- Lee Fowble, Edmonds

Shouting out opposition not the way to exercise freedom

Nobody will deny the value of encouraging people to attend town-hall meetings and meet with their representatives. But when people are encouraged to attend for the purpose of disrupting discussion of issues, then we have a different problem.

Organized efforts and e-mail campaigns by the Republican National Committee, encouraging recipients to attend and disrupt town-hall meetings of Democratic members, should not be tolerated.

Real debate over health care should be encouraged; however, shouting down questions of the audience and not allowing a member of Congress to respond does not do that. In fact, it is a tactic that many voters are tired of seeing, which was voiced in last fall's election.

What is more troubling is that it is not a just an extreme group that is encouraging disruption of official meetings but the national committee itself, which claims to represent mainstream America.

There are many different feelings about health care in our country. All of those feelings should be voiced. However, when one side takes it upon themselves to shout out the opposition, it makes you wonder whose interest they really represent. It certainly is not the interest of freedom.

-- Richard Hildreth, Pacific

Can Republicans say yes?

Whether it's the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation or health-care reform or the Cash for Clunkers program or anything else that truly benefits the average American while threatening the profits of corporate America and the prescriptive moralizing of the religious right, the Republicans have proven they can say yes to only one thing: no.

-- John R. Scannell, Sammamish

Deceit has frightened people protesting at forums

The people who are confronting elected officials at health-care forums are angry and frightened at the thought of reform.

Of course they are. Very clever liars have told them that if health-care reform passes, they will no longer be able to visit their doctor and that illegal immigrants will be given free access to any doctor in the country.

Very clever liars have told them that if health reform passes, pregnant women who are carrying babies with Down syndrome will be forced to have abortions.

Very clever liars have told them that if health-care reform passes, their parents and grandparents will be put to death by the government.

The troubling thing is there are people who resort to using very clever lies because they have nothing else to offer.

The frightening thing is that very clever liars can fool so many otherwise intelligent, good people.

-- Catherine Alexander, Seattle

Protests born to keep government from taking over lives

Once again, The Seattle Times takes a liberal stand. The sub headline of the article about health-care protests reads, "Democrats say campaign orchestrated by GOP" [page one, August 6]. Are you serious? Can you not accept that the majority of the American people do not want the government to take over health care?

I am a member of the GOP, and I have not received one e-mail, letter or phone call encouraging me to go to a town-hall meeting. Organizers don't need to contact us. We are smart enough to figure this out ourselves, and there is a massive wave of support against more government in our lives.

Are you going to print that President Obama has contacted millions of Americans via e-mail, encouraging them to go to these town-hall meetings to show support for his plan? How orchestrated is that?

If The Times were truly unbiased and professional, it would run a follow-up article stating that this is a grass-roots movement -- because that's all it is.

Many of us are simply fed up by this administration's dishonesty and attempt to take over virtually every aspect of our lives.

-- Kathy Connors, Medina

Town-hall protests only taking cues from our organizer-in-chief

There is a saying attributed to Vladimir Lenin that goes, "Accuse others of what you are doing."

That slogan came to mind the other day as the White House and Democrats began a concerted campaign to portray critics of the President Obama health plan as a mob, as Nazis, brownshirts and agents of corporate special interests. Even more sinister, the people attending town-hall meetings in order to protest the Obama plan are accused of being organized.

Meanwhile, the White House has sent out an e-mail urging its supporters to attend those same meetings and has taken the unprecedented, Nixonian step of asking supporters to forward to the White House any e-mails or other documents that are critical of the Obama health plan.

We should remember that Obama began his career as a community organizer. His role was to identify grievances and mobilize organized dissent. Under the Constitution, that was his right.

But now, the Democrats are trying to demonize dissent and squelch public debate. Locally, Reps. Brian Baird and Jay Inslee are hiding from their constituents, apparently wanting to avoid inconvenient questions.

The plan seems to be, "Pass the bill, and read it later." This is neither transparency or democracy.

-- Stephen Triesch, Shoreline

Disruptive behavior adds nothing to health-care conversation

It is one thing to disagree with the health-care proposals backed by the Obama administration. It is quite another to interrupt the discourse with disruptive, rude and offensive emotional outbursts.

I support the health-care proposals, especially the government option, and I have good reasons for doing so. It is obvious that those who use screaming and the chanting of slogans to obstruct civil discussion on the issue are doing so because they lack a rational and coherent basis for their opposition.

And Rush Limbaugh has the effrontery to brand Democrats as Nazis!

-- Josiah M Erickson Jr., Seattle

Little legitimacy in protests at town-hall meetings

There are a lot of differences between the current town-hall protesters and Bush-era anti-war protesters.

Anti-war protesters were protesting an illegal war that we were lied to about. They only wanted a voice in their own democracy.

For that they were tear gassed, Maced, beaten with billy clubs and herded into free-speech zones, built well away from Bush political events where they wouldn't be seen or heard by the press.

Town-hall protesters are trying to disrupt legitimate democratic, public discourse. Many of them are being paid off or tricked into these protests by big insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry-shills. For that they are getting media attention as legitimate protesters. None are being Maced or tear gassed, or thrown into free-speech zones.

After all, we only do that to people who believe in freedom and democracy, not to corporate bigwigs who lie, cheat and disrupt civil discourse for nothing more than their own wealth and power.

Obviously money rules in this country. Democracy is secondary.

-- Rob Moitoza, Seattle

Lessons to learn from California's Prop. 8

It appears California's Proposition 8 of last year has spawned a Northwest imitator in our own Referendum 71, which now seems likely to appear on the November ballot here in Washington.

Proponents of gay rights should frame their response to this measure after considering the precedent of California, where a well-funded campaign against gay marriage mobilized religious people and won at the ballot box. We must avoid making the same mistakes as Prop. 8's opponents if we are to preserve the civil rights of gay couples in Washington.

Washington gay-rights groups plan to combat this measure by publicly exposing the signers of the Ref. 71 petition, but this petty tactic did more harm than good in the fight to save gay marriage in California. Rather than resorting to name-calling and negative campaigning, Washington activists should seize this opportunity to advance the case for equal rights and address the religious objections to their views.

We might as well take advantage of our position in the shadow of the Golden State. The greatest tragedy would be if Ref. 71 should pass despite the obvious advantage of knowing how the same debate played out in California.

-- Walter Martin Smith, Seattle

Agenda-driven citizens forget others disagree

Here's the answer to how Referendum 71 gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot ["137,689 names later, gay community asks: How did they do it?" page one, August 3]. Look no further than the first sentence of the article, "The odds seemed almost insurmountable."

There seems to be a disconnect with agenda-driven citizens, our governor included, in the belief that everyone agrees with them. In this case it led to a surprise for the gay-rights activists.

There are a great many of us who desire to keep the definition of marriage as a legal and/or spiritual union between a man and a woman. Not because we hate gays, not because we fear gays, not for religious reasons or fear of change -- but simply because marriage is between a man and a woman. Please accept this as a difference of opinion. I respect your right to your opinion, now please respect mine.

Regarding the recent University of Washington poll suggesting 77 percent of voters believe gay and lesbian couples should have at least some of the same benefits as married couples. This can be accomplished with a civil union. I am not opposed to the recognition of gay and lesbian families as Josh Friedes of Washington Families Standing Together also states, but I am just opposed to same-sex marriage.

It has been very frustrating to be confronted with vitriolic rhetoric concerning my intelligence and character when opposing these issues. I agree voters need to look ahead in their consideration of Ref. 71 because it is critical stepping stone to same-sex marriage, not a step everyone wants to take.

-- Deanna Sundvick, Woodinville

Gregoire's delay tactic only hurt cause, process

What people should be angry about as Bill Dubay, a longtime gay activist, puts it, is Gov. Chris Gregoire's delaying tactic by signing the legislation as late as she could to interfere with the referendum process and the attempted extortion by other activists regarding the signers' names being published online.

Dubay should redirect his concerns to explaining his position clearly and with the thought of what this legislation can or cannot accomplish for the general public. Many signers of the petition may have signed because of the tampering with the referendum process by the governor and gay activists.

I know I would have.

-- Brad Olschefski, Bellevue

An invasion of property rights in new tree-cutting rules

I do not like the tone of the new tree-cutting rules ["Tree-cutting rules to get more strict in Seattle," NWTuesday, August 4]. City Council President Richard Conlin is quoted as saying something about "our urban trees." That may be true for trees in parks and parking strips, but the trees on my property aren't "our" trees, they are "my" trees.

I have close to 50 trees on my property in West Seattle. I selected them, I paid for them, I dug the planting holes, I pay for the water at third-tier summer rates, I fertilize, I pay my gardener to prune, transplant or remove as I choose.

Some of my trees have been in the ground since the late ' 80s and are pushing 20 years old. If I decide I don't like their appearance or growth habits or there is another type of tree I want to grow instead, it is my choice what to do with them.

My garden is my art project -- it doesn't belong to the city. If I sell my property, it is the right of the new owners to decide if they want to continue our style of gardening. This is a private decision, and the city has no say in it. Some people don't like shade or trees hiding their houses.

The city of Seattle should put its own house in order and take care of its own trees. City Light crews still butcher trees to accommodate power lines; recycle trucks and garbage trucks routinely snag and tear branches of parking-strip trees in our neighborhood; trees in public spaces are frequently underwatered and ungroomed; the madronas in Lincoln Park are diseased and need thinning and removal of dead limbs; the Kwanzan cherry trees in the median on Admiral Way have been removed and replanted at least four times in the past two decades by street crews.

These sins against city trees are just the ones in my own neighborhood. Multiply that many times and city crews could be busy for years taking care of what they already have.

-- Kathy Schwartz, Seattle

Saving trees or letting government go unchecked?

Your headline regarding saving trees in Seattle is misleading and downright bad journalism. The new resolution, not yet a law, will allow the following, if passed into law: "... the Department of Planning and Development] may permit exceptions to this prohibition when evidence is presented that development of the site would be substantially precluded or prohibited or when documentation is provided by a licensed or accredited professional that the health of the tree would be ignorantly undermined as a result of construction."

This is a loophole that not only makes certain trees will lose out in any development case, it also creates a situation of government powers that are unchecked. If the DPD decides so, then any tree may be removed for development at any time, based on this clause.

You should do some investigative writing, not just promote what those in power want us to believe.

-- Thomas Erdmann, Seattle

Convert clunker program to make natural gas cars

Instead of giving car buyers $4,500 to buy a gasoline-powered, fuel-efficient car, spend the money on converting existing new cars to natural gas.

That way we put more cars on the road that burn a fuel -- natural gas -- made in the U.S.A. instead of oil from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iraq, or someplace where there is an oil war.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

A call for compassion in 'cash for clunkers'

While the "cash for clunkers" has been a huge success for the automobile industry, I think it's important to point out not everyone got an opportunity to trade in their old car for a nice new one. Specifically, someone who is recently widowed.

My best friend died in April, and his wife dutifully had the registration on his 1999 Cadillac transferred to her name. She recently made the trek to a dealership in Kirkland to trade it in on a new Chevy Aveo only to find out she hadn't "owned the car for a year."

She pointed out that while the car's title had been in her husband's name, the insurance was in both of their names, and she had his death certificate and all of the other supporting documentation showing the car belonged to the family for more than four years.

She called the government's hotline, which confirmed she indeed did not qualify because she had not owned the car for the required 12 months.

It seems a shame that in the rush to put money into the car companies' bank accounts, those who drafted this bit of pork couldn't have found it in their hearts to include those who have recently been dealt a tough blow in life and who could probably use a break now more than most.

-- Randy Carl, Kent

Clunkers rebates too high for small mileage improvement

The "cash for clunkers" program is obviously popular and an unequivocal boon to automobile dealers and Americans who want to unload their low-value gas guzzlers.
But the program is not nearly as effective as it could be -- as it should be -- in producing environmental gains with this generous subsidy.

Before we pour billions of more tax dollars into this program, the U.S. Senate should seize the opportunity to elevate the fuel-efficiency standards for clunker trades to qualify for a subsidy. Buyers have been getting $3,500 rebates for buying new vehicles that get as few as four miles per gallon more than their clunkers. And buyers have been getting a maximum $4,500 rebate for new cars and trucks that get an extra 10 miles per gallon.

This program needs to be recalibrated to provide a better return on benefits to energy security and the environment.

-- Andrew Prieditis, Seattle

Nickels' tenure not all about mistakes

Editor, The Times:

Mayor Greg Nickels' challengers should be careful of exploiting his frank admissions ["Will vote signal a call for change?" page one, August 2] of having made "some mistakes" in his almost eight years in office, conveniently forgetting the many remarkable positive programs he spearheaded.

Community leaders must make a lot of tough decisions, often under great pressure. No matter how thoughtful and dedicated, even the best leaders are bound to make some mistakes. More important than making mistakes is whether we learned from them.

Nickels surely has done a lot of learning. Those aspiring to become our next mayor are well advised not to harp on the few mistakes made by him. It is easy for challengers to criticize the incumbent. Let them show us how they will do a better job.

-- Wolfgang Mack, Seattle

Nickels disregards safety, pushes personal initiatives

Is Seattle safer now than in 2002? Absolutely not. Since April, I am aware of at least eight break-ins in my Seward Park neighborhood -- two of them at my home and another at my son's home while my granddaughter occupied a bedroom.

Before 2002, I was not aware of any break-ins in Seward Park. The tragedy of the South Seattle woman killed by an intruder ["South Park anxious after fatal home break-in," NWThursday, July 23] underlines that Mayor Greg Nickels is not working to protect the citizens of Seattle.

I think the citizens of Seattle have had enough of Nickels' style of city management. Instead of supporting an adequate police force, he advocates projects to make Seattle green with more trees.

Instead of supporting increased police protection, he maintains an inept transportation manager on his staff. Instead of working for a safer Seattle, "his Honor" spends his time tying up traffic with his numerous bicycle trails for the use of bicyclists who disobey traffic laws and who gather illegally in mass to obstruct traffic with no legal consequences.

Nickels works only for his self-serving initiatives at the expense of initiatives to support the safety and well-being of Seattle citizens. Personally, I'm tired of paying millions for nickel management.

-- Ruben F. Owen, Seattle

McGinn's tunnel opposition is right on the money

Candidate Mike McGinn's opposition to the Seattle waterfront tunnel ["McGinn: 'He's the guy who's against the tunnel,'." page one, July 22] is right on the money and right on time. Let's not be taken in by another trendy marketing campaign.

We are all being railroaded into a plan that might well be the biggest marketing sham in recent Seattle history. First, the $4.2 billion price tag cannot be taken seriously; real costs will work out to be vastly greater, likely double or possibly even more.

Highly unstable subterranean soils are right in the tunnel's pathway, which is moreover immediately adjacent to tidal zones. Potential seismic activity like what damaged the existing viaduct -- raises risks even higher.

Second, that the tunnel idea is even on the table -- at the very time we are in unprecedented state budget and economic crisis -- speaks volumes about the utter indifference of 13 proponents to the real suffering many Seattle families are now enduring. And let's not forget the totality of state budgetary shortfall is not yet even known.

A vastly more sensible and less expensive approach is a replacement of the existing viaduct with a kinder, gentler greener design that nonetheless utilizes the existing footprint, as proposed by the Balanced Needs Concept.

McGinn is right as rain to put the Alaskan Way Viaduct issue as the central focus of his mayoral campaign.

-- Ross R. Atkinson, Mountlake Terrace

Carr has record of success, deserved endorsement

As a former Seattle police officer and detective, former chair of the city's Ethics and Elections Commission, current City Council member and chair of the Council's Public Safety Committee, I've had many firsthand experiences with Seattle city attorneys.

Tom Carr does an outstanding job as city attorney, ethically representing citizens and working diligently to protect taxpayers while finding humane and safe alternatives to incarceration. His innovative and highly effective approach to criminal justice slashed auto-theft rates by 60 percent, reduced jail bookings by 38 percent and made our neighborhoods safer.

Yet he knows we must do even more because he understands the critical importance of public safety. Carr's track record has earned him the highest rating from the Municipal League.

The Seattle Times overlooked Carr's overall job performance and experience in its endorsement of his opponent ["Pete Holmes for Seattle attorney," Opinion, editorial, August 3].

Regrettably, The Times allowed one issue to cloud its judgment, failing to recognize the complex and sophisticated nature of this critical position in city government. Tom Carr is the best candidate, and that's why the majority of my City Council colleagues have endorsed his re-election.

-- Tim Burgess, Seattle City Council member, Seattle

The Times endorses a candidate with no prosecuting experience

We at the Seattle Police Officer's Guild are concerned and disappointed to see The Times' endorsement of Pete Holmes for city attorney. Whether the Times editorial board likes it or not, experience as a prosecutor is critical, since about half of the position's activities have to do with criminal prosecution.

This sort of experience has a direct impact on public safety and our ability to protect the public from potentially dangerous members of society. Holmes has no experience as a prosecutor.

Only one of the candidates for city attorney has that experience, and that is who we endorse: The man who has been successfully filling this critical role in city government for the past eight years.

We endorse Tom Carr as city attorney.

-- Sgt. Rich O'Neill, Seattle Police Officer's Guild president, Seattle

Ellington's protection of children is not a first

Your endorsement of Judge Anne Ellington ["Re-elect Ellington to state appeals court," Opinion, editorial, August 3] praising her opinion that children in initial truancy proceedings are entitled to an attorney mistakenly said, "No other state offers such a right."

In fact, the right to counsel for children in truancy proceedings is not a novel or unique idea. For example, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Alabama and Nevada address truancy in Child in Need of Services, or CHINS, proceedings in which children are entitled to counsel.

Minnesota handles truancy as a CHINS matter, and the court must appoint a public defender before any out-of-home placement can be ordered. Wisconsin has a similar rule.

Arizona addresses truancy in its incorrigibility statute, and children have a right to counsel.

Oregon does not lock up children for truancy, although a parent may be cited if a child does not attend school.

Washington is in the unusual position of incarcerating children for not going to school, allowing prosecution of a child for truancy followed by a contempt proceeding. What the Court of Appeals did, with two other judges joining the unanimous opinion written by Ellington, was to recognize the due process right to a lawyer to protect children in hearings that affect their constitutional rights to liberty, privacy and education.

-- Robert C. Boruchowitz, Seattle

Common sense needed in school closures

I am the candidate not mentioned in the endorsement article ["For Seattle School Board," Opinion, editorial, August 3] regarding the School Board race in District 5, and it is time I speak for myself.

Some dismiss me as just being against school closures, but the work of the group for reopening TT Minor Elementary School includes a vision for an International School Program supported by many in the area. The TT Minor reference area -- not large or gerrymandered -- has the highest birth rate of any reference area in the Central Area cluster, and the fastest-growing number of children under the age of 5 of any reference area in the entire Seattle School District.

Therefore, if we really want neighborhood schools that are embraced by parents, the community must be included in deciding what type of program in places like TT Minor would make sense.

Unless all communities are empowered to advocate for their schools and programs, wonderful neighborhood school choices will be realized for some neighborhoods and not for others. I believe all the candidates, especially the challengers, have ambitious ideas for our schools.

The difference is that I will insist on your help to hold all the elected officials responsible for ensuring the Central District and all neighborhoods are proud of their schools and programs.

I will insist that parents and communities are included in the process of designing the programs and schools that all neighborhoods deserve. School assignments must make sense. We have to come together for the sake of our children, our families and our communities.

My candidacy is about all communities being treated fairly and equitably. Common sense can be applied to data.

-- Joanna Cullen, Seattle

Green candidates sure send lots of campaign mail

With the primary election in full swing, we in Seattle once more are getting bombarded with candidates' green credentials -- written on mounds of literature mailed to us and placed on our doorsteps. See any contradiction?

Yes, campaign literature is integral to our electoral process, but can't we get a little smarter about it? Making the literature smaller -- I like postcard size -- and more recyclable come to mind as a start.

Or perhaps just put it all on a Kindle?

-- Beverly Marcus, Seattle

Blue dogs? I've got a better name for them

Thank you for publishing "Who's feeding the Blue Dogs" [CloseUp, July 31]. Now that it's been established these representatives and senators are all bought and paid for by the health-insurance industry, I believe the term "fiscally conservative" can no longer be used to describe them.

There's a more appropriate term for people who sell out principle and people for cash, but that word is probably not fit for a family newspaper.

-- Amy Hagopian, Seattle

Our poor choices are at fault for health-care failure

In response to a letter from Dr. Donald Sherrard ["Lower costs, lower mortality in Canada," Opinion, Northwest Voices, July 29]: I do not doubt the statistics he cites, but an important bit of information is missing.

As a nation, we continue to overeat and under exercise --60 percent of us are overweight and half of those are frankly obese This leads to an inordinate amount of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, gall stones and destruction of knee joints.

Do the other countries mentioned have that same profile? In addition, a good number continue to smoke, drink to excess, take drugs both legal and illegal and have unprotected sex. This leads to liver, lung disease, cancers, unwanted pregnancies and STDs, including AIDS.

Is there a health-care system alive that can continue to respond to all this? It seems much easier to blame insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, the American Medical Association and fast-food joints than looking in the mirror for the cause of the "system failure."

I'm concerned there is not enough money or any system that can deal with our health unless many personal changes occur. After all, the above items are all put into our bodies voluntarily. Pogo, the comic-strip character, said it quite eloquently many years ago, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."

-- Charles R. Strub, M.D., Monroe

No break for Congress

Congress should not be allowed to take a break before passing a health bill. It just gives the lobbyists and health-insurance industry more time to buy more members of Congress. It is not like they have to work that many days a year anyway.

This is probably the one issue that will affect every citizen. Well, except for possibly our representatives. They will see they are taken care of.

-- Harriet Benjamin, Seattle

Some selfish doctors not helping health woes

It was refreshing to find letters published in The Times July 28 getting to the heart of health-care issues ["Health care: What is the cost of Canadian system?"

seattletimes.com, Northwest Voices]. One was especially telling because it was submitted by a doctor, Donald J. Sherrard. If only there were more physicians with his take on the problem. His final two sentences were perfectly on target: "Citizens should question strongly the assertions, lies and evasions of the health industry. They're after the big bucks, not your health."

I would also suggest that one part of the problem is the attitude of some, not all, doctors. They think their lofty professional status entitles them to live a lifestyle of the ultra rich and famous, and some who can't lower themselves to care for Medicare or Medicaid patients because the payoff is too slight.

Both attitudes fail to live up to the Hippocratic oath, which all doctors are supposed to observe in their practice.

-- Rod Belcher, Des Moines

Isn't eliminating a middleman good business sense?

Most people are smart enough to know that eliminating the middleman from a purchase is a good idea. Middlemen, after all, add very little value -- but always add cost.

Why then are people hesitating over reforming our health-care system? Our current system is completely dominated by middlemen. We give these companies our hard-earned money so they can enjoy fat profits while blocking our access to good health care.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Physicians don't like it. Patients don't like it. The middlemen, however, are fat, dumb and very, very happy.

Health-care reform is not socialized medicine. It's about removing the middleman's obscene profits and allowing we, the people, to get the services we pay for.

-- Debbie Terwilliger, Bothell

In the way of reform, six bought senators

Our thanks to Dr. Donald J. Sherwood for his eloquent letter to the editor spelling out the advantages of the Canadian health system over our inefficient, bloated hodgepodge.

Already the majority of Americans want reform of the type proposed by President Obama. Unfortunately, the next obstacle is the six senators -- Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Kent Conrad, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley and Olympia J. Snowe -- who have sold their souls to the health insurance and pharmacology corporations for $3 million in campaign contributions.

They are blocking the public option without which, as President Obama has spelled out, it is impossible to have truly universal health coverage.

Somehow we must find a way past them.

-- Robert & Susan Stanton, Seattle

No price tag too high on health-care reform

Charles Krauthammer's "Obamacare vs. fiscal reality: the health-care nirvana fantasy" [Opinion, syndicated columnist July 26], concedes that medical costs are destroying our economy. True! His argument is that Obama's efforts to improve the health-care delivery system being worked on in Congress will be more expensive.

Obama's plan will provide medical coverage for millions of families who have none, for families whose wage-earner loses their job and for those with pre-existing illness.

Universal coverage is lifesaving for millions of victims of an inadequate system. Sure, Krauthammer, that may cost more. But don't we need more?

Let's support our Congress in its efforts to achieve a more efficient and inclusive medical system.

In the meantime, Krauthammer might offer a different solution than just more of the same.

-- Jack Ballard, Port Ludlow

No need to deal with Republicans

Regarding The Times' editorial ["Bipartisanship needed on health-care reform," Opinion, July 28], which says, "Health-care needs Republican votes to pass. Oh yes it does."

Oh no it doesn't actually. The American people soundly rejected the Republican Party in two elections, making clear they have no trust in the Republicans. Why compromise with a party that has no standing with the large part of the country?

More importantly, the Republican Party is opposed to any meaningful reform of the health-care system because that would harm the bottom line of its patrons in the insurance industry.

Republican attempts at "compromise" are stealth efforts to torpedo the whole thing. It takes two to compromise, and the Republicans are working to prevent a bill, not improve it.

The Democrats want bipartisanship for political cover, which is gutless. The Republicans want it to disguise of their attempts at preventing any meaningful bill from passing, an agenda they share with a large number of Democrats who the insurance companies have also got their hooks into.

Why do you want bipartisanship? To help your friends the Republicans in their attempts at preventing a bill? Or are you so enthralled in the conventional wisdom that bipartisanship is good government that you are blind to all these realities?

-- Brad Lowe, Edmonds

In health-care debate, don't forget the kids

We appreciate Lynne Varner's column ["Health-care reform: Push for kids," Opinion, July 29], which raised important issues of how to meet the needs of children in federal health-care reform. We in Washington state are justifiably proud of the health coverage we have created, Apple Health for Kids. We can be a model for the nation.

Reform should maintain the best of Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and expand coverage to all kids and adults. Kids are healthier when their parents are covered, and they are healthiest when their coverage meets their needs.

Varner mentioned kid-friendly legislation floating around. We are happy that one of these important bills was accepted in the House Energy and Commerce Committee Friday.

An amendment introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado would prevent children from being moved into the new health insurance, Exchange, until Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services certifies that coverage offered to children is at least comparable to the average CHIP plan.

We hope this important amendment will be included in the final bill the House considers and in reform passed by Congress. We are calling on the Washington delegation to pass health reform when they return from recess so that all of Washington's children and families can get the health coverage they need.

-- Paola Maranan, Children's Alliance executive director, Seattle

Running with Palin 2012 for shot at presidency

Editor, The Times:

If I were a Republican interested in becoming president, I'd hitch my star to Sarah Palin's wagon. She will run for president in 2012. I'd stay so close that after her nomination for president by the Republican Party, she'd have to choose me as her running mate.

With her charisma and conservative talking points, our ticket would be elected. Then, after two years of serving as president, when she tired of probing media, outside agitators, an uncooperative Congress and was convinced she could help the nation better being outside of government, she'd resign.

Then I'd be president!

-- Andrew Prieditis, Seattle

Palin done and gone, now for Alaska

After listening to Sarah Palin's hopefully sincere retirement speech, I came up with a great idea. Let's sell Alaska back to Russia, and kill two birds with one stone.

-- Rose M. Laffoon, Shoreline

Governor made right choice for Alaska

Though many pundits don't get Sarah Palin's decision, I do. Palin was not going to run for re-election. She was spending 80 percent of her time, $2 million plus of Alaskan taxpayer's money and $500,000 of her own dough responding to vicious and unfounded attacks.

Since Palin had already accomplished much of what she set out to do, rather than continue to waste valuable Alaskan resources responding to these distractions, Palin chose to resign. That was an excellent and wise choice.

Now Palin can pursue her desires for better and less costly government.

-- Fred Gucker, Edmonds

Palin always worth a laugh

I stumbled out of bed after another miserable night of fighting the heat. I walked outside to retrieve The Times, thinking to myself, "Please, give me just one good thing to read about -- one news item that can be seen as somehow pleasant."

But first I saw another piece on the senseless sickening South Park killing ["An empty place after slaying in South Park," page one, July 22]. Then a headline screamed, "787 May Not Fly This Year" [page one, July 22]. Even the sports page was no help, since the Mariners' comeback attempt in Detroit fell short ["M's suffer rough night," Sports, July 22].

Fortunately, I fought off my despair long enough to turn to page A9. There I found an article ["Palin's fund for fees questioned," News, July 22] telling me that Sarah Palin may have violated state ethics laws by accepting private donations. And why did she seek these donations? In order to defend herself against more than a dozen ethics complaints!

Ah Sarah, how can I thank you? Having you around makes life worth living.

-- Tom Likai, Shoreline

Washington senators vote foolishly on military spending

The vote by Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to spend $1.75 billion to buy seven more F-22 fighter jets ["Senate roll call: Washington state's senators vote no," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, July 21] was a disappointing reminder of how badly hooked they are on the drug of pork-barrel military spending.

Fortunately, the majority of their colleagues did not agree with them, and the Senate cut the proposed F-22 funding from the defense budget. While there were jobs at stake, there are ways to create jobs that do not involve wasteful spending.

Currently we are spending at a rate of around 25 percent of the gross domestic product while we raise less than 20 percent of it in taxes. This is unsustainable -- increases in taxes and spending cuts are inevitable.

The severity of the cuts and the tax increases will depend on whether or not responsible legislators take advantage of good opportunities to cut spending and cutting the F-22 was one of them. It is a shame Murray and Cantwell did not see that.

I hope in the future we can count on them to look out for the financial well-being of this country instead of defense contractors' interests.

-- Lee Daneker, Seattle

Murray and Cantwell giving in to pork-barrel politics

As a longtime Democrat and supporter of Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, it pains me to see them cave in to the lowest form of pork-barrel politics they have long claimed to be above.

By voting for nearly $2 billion in funding for just seven new F-22 fighters, planes the secretary of defense and the president have long claimed we don't need and can't use, they have fed directly into the opposition, who continue to charge -- this time justifiably -- that Democrats can't find a spending program they won't support.

We didn't elect our senators to bring home the bacon; we elected them to make smart decisions that increase our national security, and their votes did neither. The opportunity cost of continuing the F-22A program is enormous.

Undoubtedly, they or someone will claim they had to vote this way to support jobs at home. This is a lie.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a state that also directly benefits from the F-22 program, voted with his conscience to kill the useless and costly program. Why can't we expect the same from our senators?

I would like to see Cantwell and Murray re-elected but not if they continue making misguided votes like this one.

-- John Lederer, Seattle

Despite F-22 cut, still too much spent on military

Since I'm opposed to wasteful military spending, I'm happy the Senate voted to save $1.75 billion in the coming military authorization bill by stopping the F-22 fighter program ["Senate votes to kill fighter-jet program," News, July 22].

But looking at the bigger picture, I'm not happy with the $679.8 billion still left in the bill, more than double what it was when George W. Bush took office. And it doesn't count the roughly $50 billion in the intelligence budget, the $15 billion to protect and upgrade nuclear weapons or the billions spent by Homeland Security. Shouldn't all these be called defense programs, too?

It seems we're spending almost $1 trillion a year on defense and then wondering why we can't keep our schools open, have real health care and give our wounded veterans the care they deserve.

We can redirect our spending and not a single defense worker has to lose their job. We can shift from making jet engine turbines to wind turbines, from cruise missiles to solar panels.

I'd be glad to see my taxes go toward retooling and retraining for sustainable energy needs, for peace instead of war.

-- Bill Distler, Bellingham

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

Make the senators do their jobs

I was outraged when I read the quote ["Alliances collapse as health debate picks up steam," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, July 19] from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., "If we're to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Excuse me, but the object is health care, not party wins. The American public lost in 1993 when Congress was distracted by the change in party dominance and let all work on health care stop to prove Bill Clinton wrong. We, the working poor, lost.

No one picked up the points of disagreement and reworked them -- work just stopped. Because of that stoppage, health care is owned by insurance profiteers and pharmaceutical manipulators for CEO and stock gains.

If DeMint doesn't like what is being presented now, then he should work on what is wrong and make it better. He could ensure better health-care service for the cost, cut down on profits for the few, save lives and stop the ugly partisanship.

DeMint and others should restore the ethics in the job they were elected to do.
Members of the public and media should call out these politicians no matter the party and stop the political games. Make those elected get the job done.

-- Sue Karahalios, Oak Harbor

Demint is a disgrace to his office

I am outraged over the narrow objective of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." That a man elected to the Senate would ignore what is in the best interest of the United States and give no recommendations but just propose to defeat the president is repugnant and unprincipled.

President Obama has put forth a proposal to correct a lamentable dereliction of government. The Republicans sat on this issue for eight years and did nothing. This Republican has only the objective of stopping reform and crippling Obama.
He is a disgrace to his office.

-- David C. Hutchinson, Redmond

Representatives must keep an open mind on health care

Republican members of Congress accusing President Obama of staging a dangerous experiment with our health care should be ashamed of themselves.

How can anyone who has an ounce of morality advocate against the basic human right -- not luxury -- of quality, affordable health care for all?

This is not the time for partisan politics. This is the time for our elected representatives to pitch in and do what is right for this country. That includes keeping an open mind and taking part in appreciative discussions in order to cocreate the best possible solution.

-- Ellia Ryan, 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

My government health care is easy, and it's already in U.S.

I have been on a government-run health-care plan for 11 years. Not once have I ever been denied treatment. Not once have I ever been denied referral surgery recommended by my attending doctor.

When moving to another state, the only problem I experienced was finding a doctor that would see me within a month, only due to his scheduling problems.

I once recommend a drug to my doctor, one I had been on for high cholesterol for years. He said it was too expensive and switched me to a less-costly drug -- now my blood pressure is stabilized by a drug he recommended over one that a previous doctor recommended that cost me $300 a month. Now I pay $4 for a 60-day supply.

The plan I am on is run by the government, and it's called Medicare.

I do pay for it each month; the cost is now $97, up from $50 when I first started 11 years ago, and it has paid 100 percent of everything my doctor has requested over those years. I do carry coverage through AARP at $31 a month, simply because Medicare is only intended to cover 80 percent on part B -- physical exams, general visits and blood tests.

Bottom line: A government-run health-care plan is very efficient without many complications.

-- Michael R. Dean, Puyallup

Medical reform needs to include malpractice reform

The current proposed health-care legislation before Congress doesn't address one significant feature of medical costs. That feature is the enormous costs faced by doctors for medical-malpractice protection, averaging more than $100,000 per doctor every year. The lack of provision for this cost -- whether government or private health care -- is a significant loss to the consumer because it is passed on to the consumer by the doctor.

The lack of addressing this cost is not surprising since President Obama and many legislators are lawyers. To level the playing field of cost, there should be a cap on recoverable damages, if they're proven.

Otherwise, look for your co-pays to continue to increase to cover this nonmedical cost.

-- Bob Karns, Bellevue

Follow the steps of nonprofit insurers

The time has come to fix this nation's health-care system, and the path has already been blazed by nonprofit insurers like Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

This program would not be a money sink as many critics claim. It would instead reverse the trend of American health care toward high costs and low quality, in which the middle class pays large sums for support that never materializes when it is finally needed.

Americans pay more for their health care than the citizens of any other industrialized nation. This expense might be justified if Americans received a higher quality of care, but the World Health Organization ranks America 37th in quality of care received. Without an overhaul of the health-care industry, our costs will continue to skyrocket, and we will continue to be underserved.

A public plan would be a powerful alternative to the inefficient and expensive machine we currently count on to keep us healthy. Even Americans with insurance can quickly fall through the cracks of hefty co-pays and loophole-riddled insurance contracts. The self-sustaining, nonprofit organization of a public plan would encourage private insurers to provide the best possible coverage or lose their customers.

-- Jacob Boen Helmholz-DeLay, Seattle

Insurance companies fighting hard to keep ruined system

If anyone still has any doubts that the insurance companies are fighting tooth and nail to kill health-care reform, they need look no further than the interview given to Bill Moyers July 10 by a former vice president of Cigna Insurance. The fear these insurance companies have of a government-run program is palpable.

And now we have the proof that there was a concerted strategy to defeat the Clinton administration's plan and any subsequent ones that would cut into insurance-company profits. They couldn't even let a documentary about health care around the world -- "Sicko" by Michael Moore -- be seen by the American people without mounting a full-frontal attack using scare tactics about "socialized medicine" -- as if what we have is adequate, affordable and fair!

A government-run system seems to work in every other industrialized nation, but they pay for it with a progressive tax system. The rate for Americans in the upper tax bracket is at its lowest in history. We can have affordable, quality health care for all if the richest among us are willing to give up a sliver of their income. Is that really too much to ask?

-- Jessica Lisovsky, Vashon

Climate legislation doesn't have watchdogs' support

Recently, a bill called the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives. This piece of legislation promises, if it passes the Senate, to create a booming clean-energy economy, and a safer, healthier economy in the process.

Not so fast. Truth be told, the ACES bill has some things up its sleeve. According to Friends of the Earth, it goes easy on egregious emissions offenders, big oil and dirty coal. Another respected environmental watchdog, the Sierra Club, points out that the bill was written in part by uberpolluters Shell and Duke Energy. And lastly, Greenpeace refused to lend its support as well.

I hope folks send a clear message to their senators that this flawed document needs some serious overhauling before signing into law. The Earth is already exploited and exhausted enough resource-wise, and besides, what kind of legacy do we want to leave our children and grandchildren?

I just wish that those with fossil-fuel concerns see past the short-term and realize the huge profits they stand to reap if they go green.

-- Aaron Hunt Warner, Seattle

Looking for leadership from senators on energy bill

President Obama's call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year was answered recently by the U.S. House of Representatives passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The legislation will establish a new energy policy that reduces dependence on foreign oil and builds a domestic clean technology manufacturing base to supply wind, solar and other renewable energy. The bill also takes significant steps toward solving the global-warming crisis by limiting carbon pollution.

I applaud Congressmen Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen, Jim McDermott, Dave Reichert and Adam Smith for voting yes.

But the battle is far from over as the Senate now begins working on this bill. I look forward to Sen. Patty Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell providing real leadership to ensure passage. Strengthening this legislation as it moves through the Senate is essential to meeting its potential to jump-start the American economy. Specifically, the Senate should strengthen key provisions related to the Renewable Electricity Standard, investments in clean energy, energy efficiency and training and fair treatment for our workers.

Sens. Murray and Cantwell need to stand up to big oil and coal industries and set America on the path to a clean energy future.

-- Joelle Robinson, Seattle

Climate-change reports along with alien abductions

Mary L. Schapiro, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wants corporations to report climate-change impacts on their quarterly and annual reports. I think that is a great idea as long as the following similar items are also included in this new reporting requirement:

• Alien abductions: If any corporate officer has been abducted by aliens and brain scanned that should be reported in detail.

• Psychic brain storms by corporate management resulting in business and revenue losses.

• Haunting and evil spirit intervention in corporate profits.

• A complete report of all tarot card business-fortune forecasts in order to prevent insider trading.

-- Bob Clark, Monroe

What gets a city employee fired?

The Seattle Times article about incompetence in city government ["The street crews that couldn't pour straight," page one, July 17] reminds me of why we need daily newspapers to serve as professional watchdogs. It also brought to mind The Seattle Times article from some years ago about the city employee who was caught by Seattle Police stealing city computers, and yet was allowed to remain on the payroll.

Sure makes one wonder: What does it take for a city employee to actually get fired?

-- Grant Fjermedal, Seattle

Seattle streets look, function terribly

Last month, a visiting friend commented that Seattle streets were as bad as the streets of bankrupt New York during the '70s. Despite having many years of unprecedented prosperity, Seattle's cracked and potholed streets are the norm and the solution from the mayor is to just patch the hole until next time.

Taxpayer's millions wasted on repeatedly built crosswalks or crooked concrete curbs isn't the only concern with the Seattle Department of Transportation.

As in other parts of town, the curbs on Capitol Hill's Pine Street are being pushed in so that all traffic behind every bus will have to stop every time. Intersections around town are being rebuilt with curb bulbs in order to eliminate the right turn lane, which only causes more congestion and idling.

Antiquated traffic signals on major streets stop rush-hour traffic flow every few blocks, causing guaranteed gridlock. The rest of the world somehow survives with stop signs, but we pay to install concrete traffic islands and "traffic calming" concrete slaloms while hundreds of city intersections go with no signage at all. And then there are the bike lanes and symbols, which seem to create more confusion than anything else.

SDOT's boss, Mayor Greg Nickels, seemingly has no clear vision for the city's transportation system and is more intent with redecorating Mercer Street. This billionaire's new driveway will certainly look nice, but it will also increase congestion and cost a bundle. Maybe the mayor does have a vision for Seattle's transportation after all?

Safety will always be the excuse for these SDOT beauty projects that steal precious tax dollars while our streets are crumbling into gravel. Safety is a very relative term and holds little weight when a town is planning for several hundred thousand more residents.

Eliminating arterial traffic lanes and public parking spaces is no way to encourage density or an efficient business climate. Bad decisions made now will effect our local economy for decades to come.

Trucks and cars will eventually have to be clean and they will never go away. A single light-rail line means most people will still need to get around by car or bus. It makes no sense to increase congestion while encouraging higher density at the same time. It is well past time that Seattle's taxpayer dollars are spent for their own benefit and no one else's.

-- David G. Wright, Seattle

Don't let Congress write the obituary on better health care

There were two disturbing obituaries in The Seattle Times July 12. One was of a dear member of my extended family, a young man who might be alive and well today if we had decent universal health care in this country. The other was David Broder's syndicated column ["Fault lines threaten health reform," Opinion] predicting the death of meaningful health-care reform in Congress.

In spite of the costly, inefficient, dysfunctional, patchwork system we are burdened with -- that I believe contributed to the death of my relative -- and despite overwhelming public support for a robust public plan, Congress remains beholden to the health-insurance industry. So the obituary of universal health care is being written and we seem doomed to mourn its death or to endure a crippled insurance-friendly plan on life support.

This is so because the insurance companies can devote so much money to lobbying, misleading advertising and elections. They scare the public with stories about rationing of care, lack of choice, government red tape and socialism. Yet the purpose of private health insurance is to maximize profits.

These companies do that by denying care, not providing it. It is they who are limiting choice and burdening medical-care providers and patients with wasteful red tape. Their claim of government inefficiency is contradicted by statistics consistently showing a wide margin of lower administrative costs for public plans than private. Insurance bureaucracy is the worst kind.

An industry that claims to believe in competition argues a public plan would be unfair competition, but its claim really is that it would be too efficient. Insurers are fighting so hard because they can see that a public plan would eventually end lucrative executive compensation and shareholder profits.

Their real fear is that a public plan would be so successful and so popular that it would obliterate the private health-care industry. Now that would be an obituary none of us need mourn.

-- Jerry Cronk, Shoreline

HR 676 holds promise for a successful national health program

Three cheers for Congressmen Norm Dicks and Jim McDermott for co-sponsoring HR 676, John Conyers' single-payer health-insurance bill. A growing number of physicians support this initiative as the fairest, most comprehensive, most fiscally responsible option on the table; those who are wary of "socialized medicine," which HR 676 is not, should visit the Physicians for a National Health Program Web site and read the FAQ page.

I urge the other members of Washington's congressional delegation to carefully consider HR 676's many advantages. These include truly universal coverage, unrestricted choice of physicians, low administrative overhead and substantial monetary savings. Merely tinkering with the present system will not achieve these goals.

As a physician scientist who has lived and worked -- and received good medical care --in countries with successful national health systems, I am filled with shame that we are not meeting this basic human need for all of our citizens here at home. It's time to stop shoring up a failed system and set up one that works.

-- George M. Martin, M.D., Seattle

Three great reasons to support a government-option plan

I support a government-option health-care plan for these very solid reasons:

First, we already know from experience with Medicare and the Veterans Affairs that it would only cost about 3 percent of receipts to administer the program versus 14 percent to 20 percent for public or private health-care companies.

We also know that examples of it in other advanced economies produce much better health results than ours by far. If you think we can't afford it, and we are the premier economy in the world, then ask yourself why can every other leading country and many smaller ones afford it?

Second, there will always be a need for private health-insurance companies because no government-sponsored plan will ever be able to pay for all the things people might want covered -- and that is as it should be. The key word in the prior sentence is "private" and not "public" companies because absolutely no corporation whose primary concern is shareholder value should ever be allowed to sell health insurance. Every health-insurance company should place its highest priority on its customers' well-being, not on keeping rates high for shareholder profit.

Finally, our country should not be hobbling businesses by insisting that individual businesses be responsible for paying for health insurance. They must compete against companies around the world that do not have that constraint. It is completely illogical for our country to be so anti-business.

Health-insurance corporations are betting you are too lazy to make time right now to call or write an e-mail. They are spending about $1.5 million dollars per day on registered lobbyists to keep things about the way they are now. Remember, more than half the people forced into bankruptcy by medical issues had health insurance.

If you don't care, why should Congress?

-- Paul Davallou, Anacortes

Charleston 2, Seattle 0

Editor, The Times:

We gave you our superintendent of schools. You gave us the assembly of the 787 Dreamliner. It's a win-win for Charleston, S.C., on all counts.

-- Richard Lennon, Charleston

Boeing to Washington: leaving on a jet plane

I read your editorial ["Change the tone to keep aerospace jobs," Opinion, July 8], and it ranks right up there with listening to a crackhead talk about sobriety.

Watching Boeing do business in Washington has been like seeing an alternate episode of "The Sopranos." Apparently, Boeing decided it was done paying protection money. Does anyone really believe Boeing will be in business here in Washington five years from now? I think anyone with eyes could see the signal sent when headquarters moved to Chicago.

Can our local and state governments respond to this upcoming loss? I expect continued spending like drunken sailors. How long will it be before a bloody ear is sent to headquarters? It shouldn't really matter whose it was because nobody in Olympia or King County has been listening for years.

-- Bob Boren, Tacoma

S.C. move latest in series of Boeing blunders

Boeing senior management has embarked upon a series of disastrous decisions in recent years that are damaging its reputation beyond repair.

Management outsourced far too much 787 Dreamliner design and manufacturing to companies such as Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (which has a proven track record of ineptitude), resulting in years of delays on the aircraft's delivery. Boeing has admitted the same publicly.

Management mishandled negotiations on the 2008 contract with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), resulting in a 57-day strike that was ended by agreeing to terms that should have been offered during initial contract negotiations and would have avoided the strike in the first place. Boeing then blamed the more than two-year delay of the 787 program on the unnecessary 57-day strike. But 57 days does not equal two years.

Management extracted billions of dollars in concessions from Washington state in exchange for assurances that 787 final assembly would remain in Washington. It has changed these terms and now demands further concessions in the form of reduced labor and unemployment benefits as well as a no-strike agreement with the IAM for the same agreement. What guarantee is there that there will be no further demands upon the state of Washington and the unions?

Management is now considering a ruinously expensive investment to construct a duplicate final assembly facility in South Carolina in an area lacking the skilled pool of aerospace talent necessary to operate it.

Is Boeing management deliberately following the path of General Motors and Chrysler?

-- James Patrick, Lynnwood

This point guard doesn't have game

Editor, The Times:

Sarah Palin is a mixed metaphor: A self-advertised point guard, but in my mind a basket case closet-blonde who wouldn't know the difference between a spread sheet, a pressed sheet or a full-court press.

Yes, she looked good in the game with all that flash and bling, but here's the thing: She didn't make any baskets, and fans pay for baskets. So this quitting fits.

However, she should have had the decency to wait until Michael Jackson's funeral before burying her own career.

-- Noel Freedman, Stanwood

Palin's new 'higher calling'

In response to your article, "Palin links resignation to 'higher calling,'." [page one, July 5] -- who is Sarah Palin kidding? She just quit on the people of Alaska. I doubt now if she could even get a job as a Tina Fey impersonator!

-- Terry Cubbins, Cle Elum

Palin could be just protecting her family

I'm a Democrat and completely disagree with the policies and politics of Sarah Palin. However, I have no reason to doubt her humanity and agree with Joe Biden's comments ["Rove: Palin resignation part of a 'risky strategy,'." seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, July 5].

Why so much commentary about her motives? Would you want your daughters exposed to more garbage from would-be comedians? Wouldn't you avoid giving them more exposure (and blame) by saying this was the reason you were getting out?

-- Edward George, Renton

Palin's resignation selfish, ignores the people she represents

Sarah Palin has committed a very selfish act by resigning 18 months before her term is to expire. Her excuse that she didn't want to be a lame duck just doesn't hold water.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has declared that he will not run for another term, making him a lame duck, but he isn't resigning. He is sticking to his obligations as governor to his state and the people who voted for him.

Instead, Palin has decided to walk away, abandoning her state and supporters to either leave politics entirely or prepare for the upcoming 2012 presidential primaries. This is the equivalent of a child deciding to take their ball and go home because they didn't want to play anymore.

It should now be obvious to all that Palin is a selfish person interested only in her personal ambitions with no regard to the people she is supposed to represent. We just finished eight years of having a president not caring about the people he had been elected to represent and doing just what he wanted to do.

Is this the type of person you would want representing us and the U.S. as president again? Not me.

-- Robert Oberlander, Issaquah

Palin, Bush: Anyone see resemblance?

Let's see: An unqualified governor who doesn't know much about any important issue. Also not good with the English language, on the wrong side of most issues and is the butt of jokes for a good reason.

No, folks I'm not talking about George W. Bush-- it's Sarah Palin, who has just abdicated her throne in Alaska. Stay tuned to see this poster child (chuckle) for the Republican Party begin her run for the 2012 nomination.

-- David McKenzie, Federal Way

Flawed logic in Palin's cut-and-run

Sarah Palin is resigning as governor of Alaska, but people are skeptical of the reasons she has given. But at least Palin has the guts to cut and run, unlike Gov. Mark Sanford, who continued to take taxpayers' money while he went absent without leave to cheat on his wife.

If these two are the Republican front-runners, I don't think Obama will have any trouble with re-election. However, using Palin's logic, if Obama does win he should resign because he would be a lame duck and can't run again.

Wow, I'm really glad she's not our vice president.

-- Bert Schulz, Redmond

Columnist skews facts in crusade against conservatives

Once again, Leonard Pitts Jr. ["Pity the oppressed conservatives," Opinion, syndicated column, June 18] tries to lead us down the wrong path by changing the facts. He can have his opinion, but not his own facts.

In regard to the David Letterman and Sarah Palin issue ["Palin-Letterman still at odds over comedian's joke," seattletimes.com, Entertainment, June 12], the two points of contention -- by conservatives, as liberals will never stand up for a conservative woman for anything -- were that Letterman's comment had to reference Palin's 14-year-old daughter as she was the one who went to the ballgame.

Second, Letterman said it was OK to talk about teen sex with a much older man if he meant her 18-year-old daughter.

What he said was wrong no matter what age Palin's daughters are. The issue had nothing to do with conservatism but had to do with correct social mores, of which neither Letterman nor Pitts has any concept.

-- Rob Shafer, Port Orchard

Software is not infallible; Janet Way deserves to refile for election

King County Elections should put Janet Way on the ballot ["Candidate deadline missed; glitch cited," NWTuesday, June 9]. She attempted to file over the Web, but King County software refused to permit payment. Others familiar with the procedure tried unsuccessfully to help.

Way intended to file. She had a good credit card. However, the software did not work. She should be allowed to file now.

Elections officials said they couldn't find a problem and that the filing process worked for more than 400 candidates.

First, this position is naive. Having used and written software in my job for 30 years, I can point to several instances where good, well-tested software that had run for hundreds, even thousands, of cases failed when it should have run.

The filing software takes the inputs from the calling computer, puts it in a database, matches against other databases and then writes a final report. An error in any step in this complex process would cause rejection.

Honest software developers will admit there is no such thing as demonstrably bug-free software. Successful use of the filing software on 400 cases doesn't show there are no bugs but that there are no frequently occurring bugs.

Second, any failure should be investigated -- not merely dismissed -- in order to identify the cause and fix it. Failure to investigate this software problem is irresponsible.

-- Chris Eggen, Shoreline

Give Drago and Hutchison credit

Joni Balter's claim that [Seattle City Councilmember] Jan Drago and [King County executive candidate] Susan Hutchison are exploiting gender in their campaigns is groundless and misinformed ["It's time to skirt the gender thing," editorial column, June 4].

Hutchison is not "riding on her gender by sitting out public forums," it's her huge name familiarity. Drago is not "counting on gender politics for a win," but on a different leadership style.

When it comes to our state's table, we're not as progressive as we would like to think. A woman governor and two women U.S. senators hide the real story. Women comprise just less than 33 percent of our state Legislature, the lowest figure in nearly 20 years. Washington held the top ranking for many years but we've been dropping consistently over the past 10 years.

Of 16 Seattle City Council candidates this year, only two are women. That our model city hasn't had a female mayor in more than 80 years (or has never had a female county executive) is cause for concern, not something to be dismissed as political trivia.

For women candidates, let the discussion of real issues come. Let's also give them credit for running and find ways to encourage more women to do so.

-- Linda Mitchell, president, National Women's Political Caucus of Washington, Seattle

Gender to be celebrated

"... I bristle at any assumption that female contenders somehow get a leg up," writes Joni Balter. "[Susan] Hutchison is all but saying she is woman, hear her roar, and more conservative than the other candidates ..."

So why don't we see the same editorial about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor? Instead, The Seattle Times runs stories that gush with admiration for Sotomayor's gender, heritage and life story ["Sonia Maria Sotomayor rose from the projects," May 27].

In fact, President Obama was heavily expected to select a female nominee. If Balter or The Seattle Times were consistent, gender should have been called into question as a prerequisite for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Alas, no such objection was raised. The double standard is glaring.

I think we should take a different approach. Let's celebrate a candidate's gender, heritage and life story -- Sotomayor, Hutchison and everyone else included. We don't have to agree with them 100 percent on policy. But let's not diminish their unique personal qualities for partisan political purposes either.

-- Adam Commander, Redmond

Hope values voters become different, not scarce

In regard to E.J. Dionne Jr.'s column on moral voters ["The moral non-majority," Opinion, June 2]: I, too, have a concern about the drop in moral values.

Richard Stearns, president of World Vision, puts it bluntly in "The Hole in Our Gospel" when he writes, "When our churches become spiritual spas in which we retreat from the world, our salt loses its saltiness, and we are no longer able to impact the culture."

Providing health care and education -- especially for the disadvantaged and underprivileged -- is a moral value!

Distributive justice raises more fundamental and profound moral issues than those mentioned in the 2004 exit poll. Hopefully moral-values voters will not become scarce, but different, and Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., can heave a sigh of relief.

-- Marsha Stueckle, Bothell

Morality's roots not necessarily in religion

It upsets me to read and hear many who preach morality assume it originates only from religious teachings.

Once again I must remind those who write about morality to read the true meaning of morals and morality. Moral: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or distinction between right and wrong; ethical," Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Where in the definition does it state there is a need to be religious or believe in a religious ideology?

In reality, a high majority of those voting in the United States are moral. Morality deals more with law, not religion.

-- Jim Morris, Renton

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

Disenfranchises voters in smaller states

I appreciated The Times' editorial "Electoral College bypass deserves voter scrutiny" [Opinion, May 4]. It is beyond my belief that the Legislature and the governor would consider passing such a bill without prior referral to the electorate.

At least the Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than our Legislature and present governor. I oppose having the electorate in California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas deciding who is to be president.

I appreciate that the Democrats would love such a change, since they would forever elect the president. Residents of smaller states would not need to vote.

-- Bob Holtzclaw, Kirkland

Large county could overrule the U.S.

Our esteemed governor and her Democrat schemers have conspired to change the way we elect our president. Let's hope they don't get what they wish for.

They propose that the national popular vote should rule, always followed by the observation that, after all, Al Gore won the popular vote back in 2000. We all remember the ubiquitous red and blue map of the states showing the result of the 2000 presidential election. Some may have seen the more detailed map showing the results by county, but always just red or blue.

When the votes were added up, Al Gore had received half a million more votes than George W. Bush, so the obvious conclusion was drawn by the pundits and shouted out by the Democrats: Gore won the popular vote and should be president.

For whatever reason, nobody took a closer look at the data to see where Gore won and by how much. On its Web site, CNN published the vote count down to the county level -- actual votes, not just who won. Tedious though it was, I copied the county vote count into a spread sheet on my home computer. When I examined the data, I found that, indeed, Gore received 540,000 more votes than did Bush. But when I added all the votes, excluding Los Angeles County, Bush received 290,000 more than Gore. In other words, Bush won the popular vote in the rest of the U.S., omitting only Los Angeles County.

How come the half million for Gore? Gore received 830,000 more votes in Los Angeles County than did Bush. One huge county in California accounts for all the claims that Gore won the U.S. popular vote. If the decision for president had been based on the popular vote, one county in California would have overruled the rest of the U.S. Switching to popular vote is a lousy idea.

-- James Axtell, Des Moines

Hypocrisy of 'following the rats'

I knew it was only a matter of time before I read a letter like Walter Spangenberg Jr.'s ["Sen. Specter leaves GOP: another Washington bailout," Opinion, Northwest Voices, May 1].

I find myself wondering how he feels about then-Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell's 1995 switch from the Democratic Party to the Republicans. Sen. Campbell had been elected as a Democrat.

Unless Spangenberg regards all elected officials in our two-party system as "rats," his position shows ignorance of history or hypocrisy.

-- Edward Wang, Bellingham

Dems' praise may be hollow

E.J. Dionne Jr., in his latest and (cough, cough) greatest, lauds Sen. Arlen Specter as a "maverick" ["Arlen Specter has come full circle," seattletimes.com, Opinion, April 28]. However, when you look back at Dionne's coverage of Sen. John McCain, the "maverick" label is used derisively.

During the election -- at least during the primaries --Dionne was tepid at best with McCain's "maverick" status, but by the time the die was cast in the race, right before the party conventions, he turned downright acerbic.

In March 2008, even while partisanly trashing the Republican candidate, Dionne was still able to write, "There is an independent side to McCain that has made him an authentic maverick" ["McCain fascinates, frustrates liberals," seattletimes.com, Opinion, March 11, 2008]. A short five months later, he wrote, "McCain is living off the old capital created by his maverick image" ["The problem of being 'The One,' " seattletimes.com, Opinion, August 12, 2008].

Notice the change? By August, Dionne's March assessment of McCain's "authentic maverick" status had changed to mere "image."

I hope Specter isn't expecting more than some laudatory praise from those who benefit from the switch. If Dionne is a bellwether of Democratic sentiment -- and I'm not saying he is -- then Specter's newfound "maverick" status could shortly turn into nothing more than vapor, and the love of Specter's new party may be as cold as the shoulder he's turned to his old.

-- Jacob Shepherd, Seattle

Another Washington bailout

The defection of Sen. Arlen Specter ["Specter: Why he bailed out of GOP," page one, April 29] brings to mind a remark attributed to Claude Swanson, FDR's early secretary of the Navy: Always stand by your party. But when the seas are rough and the ship is sinking, follow the rats.

-- Walter Spangenberg Jr., La Conner

Important projects are not tax burdens

Your opinion page on April 29 was very interesting.

Bruce Ramsey's column talked about the tea-party movement of frustrated taxpayers who think they are overburdened ["Tea-party frustration had real roots," Opinion]. The nearby editorials talked about:

• The progress we've made to prepare for public-health threats ["Ready for swine flu," editorial] --federal, state, county and perhaps local governments paid for that.
• Preservation of 7,000 acres of forestland in King County ["Nurturing a verdant vision," editorial] --paid for by state and county governments.
• Coming redevelopment of the Seattle waterfront for public use ["Harnessing the potential of Seattle's waterfront," Cary Bozeman guest commentary] --paid for by state, county and local governments.

Those are but a very few of the things we taxpayers are "burdened" to pay for -- but they're things that are important to our lives and that we as individuals need to band together to pay for. The banding together is what paying taxes is all about.

-- Linnea Hirst, Seattle

Point of tea parties shrouded by hypocrisy

What gets me about Bruce Ramsey's mock indignation (read: hypocrisy) about the Obama administration's spending is the fact that he wasn't expressing the same indignation about the deficit spending of the Bush administration that got us into this mess.

Where were the protests about the deficits created by decreasing taxes on the rich? Where were all the protests about the fraud and corruption and outright theft of taxpayer dollars from no-bid contracts for the Iraq war? Where were all the protests about the deregulation of the finance industry that now jeopardizes the flow of credit and devalues our currency?

The tea-party participants had several years to protest these things, and yet they only protest the actions of the president who's actually trying to fix the situation.

The irony of the tea parties is that they occurred after Obama approved far-reaching middle class tax cuts. This is why the majority of Americans don't view the tea-party participants' issues as valid --we know hypocrisy when we see it.

-- Laura R. Standley, Des Moines

Tea protesters are out-of-touch minority

The theme of the original Boston Tea Party was, "Taxation without representation is tyranny." What is not tyranny is taxation with representation, laws and policies enacted by a democratically elected legislature representing the will of the electorate.

The great majority of this state, and this country, support President Obama and the various Democratic legislative bodies. This is borne out by the overwhelming majorities we saw in the most recent election and the subsequent opinion polls.

Bruce Ramsey and his political allies certainly have the right to demonstrate their views, but not to complain about mistreatment when they are not shared by the majority, the way a 5-year-old defines "unfair" as "whatever opposes my interests." The 5,000 protesters in Olympia were not the vanguard of a great populist rebellion, but the dwindled-down core of true believers, representing no one but themselves.

The right enjoyed eight years of leadership under President Bush, the first six controlling all three branches of government. We all know how disastrous this has been for our country. Now, after only 100 days in a Democratic administration, we hear conservative commentators treasonously espousing armed rebellion, the governor of Texas treasonously endorsing secession, and pundits like Ramsey recalling the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps it's time to stop giving such fringe voices outlets like your editorial page for their increasingly out-of-touch rants.

-- Joel Schwartz, Seattle

Ironic call to action

In a recent column by Danny Westneat, negativity of the Republican Party is alleged in a negative manner ["It's not just politics, it's a crisis," NW Wednesday, April 22]. In the same column, name-calling is portrayed in a negative way --which it should be -- and a few paragraphs later, Westneat says that he accepts negativity.

The same column blasts Republicans for failing to articulate positive steps needed to solve the current economic crisis, but offers no positive policy prescriptions.

Does anyone fail to see irony jumping off the page?

-- Eric Tronsen, Seattle

Have we no shame?

The recent release of the torture memos by the Obama administration leaves no doubt that abdominal torture practices were perpetrated under the Bush administration with instigation at the very top. Obama would now like us to forget about this dark chapter in our history, declining to hold anyone criminally responsible ["Obama won't prosecute CIA interrogators," page one, April 17].

I suppose the Nazis would have been equally lenient with their own malefactors if they had been asked to judge themselves. The German successor state, however, had no qualms about hauling their own nationals into court for war crimes committed in its nation's name.

Can we do less? Is there no shame in America?

-- Douglas Schiebel, Port Ludlow

No one is above the law

The war-crimes tribunal at the end of the Second World War declared that obeying orders was no excuse for committing war crimes by individual Nazis, no matter how low their rank.

I believe that the current administration's failing to prosecute those who followed guidelines in administering torture is in violation of those principles and that decision greatly disappoints me. It just seems to show that whoever is in power gets to make the rules.

If we are to hold our heads high in the world, we must prosecute both those who gave the orders and those who carried them out. No one should be above the law.

-- Jerry Matchett, Edmonds

Real protests against inefficient, unresponsive government

Editor, The Times:

The tea parties are very real protests ["Tax rallies say: Enough already," page one, April 16]. Fry cooks to physicians from a broad range of political backgrounds are very sincere in their concern for the future freedom -- both physical and economic -- of this nation. These people, most of whom have never protested, say they feel our nation is in such peril that they are compelled to protest.

Harry Cabluck / The Associated Press

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, foreground, speaks to the crowd during a "Don't Mess With Texas" tea0party rally at Austin City Hall Wednesday

We are saying that the government is out of control. This isn't merely a response to President Obama. It is a response to a government that is decreasingly concerned about the people it represents. It is also a warning to our elected officials to either represent their constituents responsibly or be voted out of office.

Why are people upset? Here are a few examples: The tax cut was provided by borrowing money; our national debt is skyrocketing; the stimulus package passed before legislators had time to read it; inefficient local and state governments are trying to raise taxes rather than working effectively; our government is relinquishing U.S. sovereignty to the international community, one treaty at a time.

Suffice it to say that the recent changes are simply the straws that broke the camel's back.

-- Gail Dutton, Montesano

Protesters on the wrong side of history

It was almost amusing, if not so sad, watching conservatives and Fox News hold their 750 tea parties on April 15. In classic conservative fashion, they passionately protested issues that exist only in their own paranoid imaginations.

The real facts are that taxes are the lowest they've been in decades, and the majority of recently polled Americans felt that they're paying about the right amount. Furthermore, as he's repeatedly stated, President Obama has no plans whatsoever to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans (95 percent), but has already lowered them further. And yet incredulously -- but predictably -- here were thousands of pious Republicans following their leaders in protest against Obama and a slew of conjured pet issues that they love to hate.

Obama has been an excellent and unprecedented president in his short 90 days, collaborating with the best minds in the country, aggressively tackling a difficult economic crisis with wise and proactive long-term solutions, brokering deals and amending tattered global alliances, and doing everything with an emphasis on honesty, transparency and the greater interest of all Americans.

And how have Republicans responded to this? By characteristically attacking every bold, intelligent action with tired rhetoric and lies, saying that Obama has repealed the Declaration of Independence (how, exactly?), cut defense funding (he actually increased it 4 percent), and ushered in socialism (a favored sound bite to rile up the conservative masses). It's like watching a mob of drama queens lividly protesting the sky being green, when everyone else knows it's not.

These people are on the wrong side of history, and when my blood isn't boiling from their latest antics, I feel sorry for them.

-- Jarom Shewell, Puyallup

Protesting squandering of tax dollars

Three of the four letters you selected to print Friday on the nationwide tea-party protests sought to belittle and discredit those who participated or supported these efforts ["Tax day tea protests," Northwest Voices, Opinion, April 17]. Why the bias?

One of the anti-tea party letters states that we all pay "a small amount of the money we earn ..." for services/facilities such as fire, parks and schools. Over the past 15 years, I have consistently paid 35 to 55 percent of my income in taxes --federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare, state sales tax, property tax, gas tax, cellphone tax, electric bill tax, park fees, etc. Not only is this beyond "a small amount," it has become very upsetting considering how our public servants squander our money.

Putting aside national issues for a moment, consider our state, county and city administrations, which I believe clearly empathize with the voices that belittle and discredit the tea parties. These administrations have all failed in their fiduciary duties -- they are broke.

In the state's case, while tax revenues are lower than projected, the amount of tax revenue Washington will collect this coming biennium is higher than the past biennium, yet the state is overdrawn by $9-10 billion -- and now the state seeks, guess what, more taxes.

King County is $40-50 million behind, yet continues to give its employees generous raises and does not require that those civil servants share in the cost of their health benefits ["King County's riches," editorial, April 7].

The city of Seattle likewise is overdrawn and cannot even manage to plow its streets when it snows -- except in the mayor's neighborhood.

More and more government services, more and more taxes, more and more feathering of their own nests. This pattern is what the people at the tea parties are protesting.

-- Erick Cody, Sammamish

Solution: pinch pennies from stock trades

While people have been protesting the possibility that future taxes will be raised to pay for federal bailouts and stimulus, an enticing idea has been floated by some economists as a means to cover these future costs. The idea is simple and straightforward: Place a small transaction tax of one penny on every stock-market trade.

In this way you tap speculation (moneymaking) and use it to invest in ventures that create real, long-term wealth (like solar technology or next-generation car batteries). At a very small cost to speculators, the nation could give itself the means to launch a real program for building the industries of tomorrow that it desperately needs. And it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.

Getting that penny out of the speculators will undoubtedly be a fight. But if the tea-partiers are any indication, working people won't be ponying up the investment money anytime soon. And they shouldn't have to. They've been surrendering their pennies for long enough while they work at companies that create America's wealth.

-- Thomas Sullivan, Seattle

Al Grillo / The Associated Press

Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin, shown here speaking to Army personnel during a deployment ceremony in February, recently acknowledged the threat posed by global warming.

Editor, The Times:

I was pleased to see the article "Palin acknowledges global-warming threat" [Times, News, April 15]. However, I believe her assertion that "relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow the discharge of greenhouse gasses" is a little misleading.

Natural gas is primarily methane -- CH4 (one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms). Like all hydrocarbon fuels, when natural gas burns, it releases CO2 that was sequestered in the Earth millions of years ago when the CO2 level and the temperature were much higher than today. The fine-print word in Gov. Palin's statement is "slow," which is true because natural gas has more energy per unit than coal or gasoline.

Another difference to the environment is that other hydrocarbons, such as gasoline and coal (even clean coal), produce significant amounts of other gases and particulates that make the air less healthy for plants and animals.

While natural gas has an edge over other fuels in the amount of CO2 it pulls from the ground, the benefits are small compared to geothermal, solar and wind, which produce no CO2 and do produce biofuels that return CO2 that was recently taken from the atmosphere when the plant was grown.

Finally, from the article it appears that Gov. Palin's trip to Washington, D.C., was not to talk about global warming. But she was using global warming to lobby for more drilling in her state for traditional hydrocarbons, which could include natural gas. It is also interesting to consider the CO2 impact of transporting and housing the "more than 1,000 Alaskans" who attended the Department of the Interior hearings on additional drilling in Alaska.

-- Carl Slater, Seattle

Distorting facts to promote natural-gas leasing

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's statement in a recent article that global warming is harming her state contrasts strongly with the 2009 report from the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska, which says that there has been little warming in Alaska since 1977 and that Alaska's temperatures have actually been trending downward for the last seven years.

Gov. Palin's statement that global warming is harming Alaska was made at a hearing before Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, considering renewed oil and natural-gas leasing on the outer continental shelf. The article indicated that Gov. Palin made the point at the hearing that "relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow
the discharge of greenhouse gases."

Gov. Palin appears to have chosen to distort climate-change trends in Alaska in order to promote renewed oil and natural-gas leasing on the outer continental shelf.

-- Ken Schlichte, Tumwater

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

Several thousand rallied on the steps of the state Capitol in Olympia to protest proposals to increase taxes.

Editor, The Times:

I am appalled by these manufactured tea-party protests ["Tax rallies say: Enough already," page one, April 16]. That there are Americans who are so self-centered that they have no sense of responsibility to America is repulsive.

We live in a country that asks very little of us in the way of sacrifice. There is no draft for national military service to protect this country. There is no requirement that we offer a certain amount of volunteering to make this country a better place.

All that is asked of our citizens is that we provide a small amount of the money we earn to share the cost of basic necessities that would be exorbitantly expensive for each of us alone.

I cannot afford a private firefighting force, but by paying my taxes, I can share in the cost of a fire department that protects my family and me.

I cannot afford a single private acre of recreational land, but by paying my taxes, I can share in the cost of a national-park system that includes such glories as Mount Rainier, Crater Lake and Yellowstone.

I cannot afford private tutors for my children, but by paying my taxes, I can share in the cost of a public-education system that makes a promise to all, not just a few.

Perhaps these elite tea-bag protesters can afford all these things out of their dividend earnings and their offshore bank accounts. But for us ordinary working Americans, we'll do things the old-fashioned way -- through hard work and shared sacrifice.

-- Andrew Hummel-Schluger, Briar

Protesting irresponsible government

At the heart of our American beliefs lies a foundation of independence defined by self-evident truths: that "we the people" are divinely endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that government's role is to be a servant of "we the people" to secure our God-given rights.

The tax day tea parties, held in protest of the massive stimulus spending, reflect a different reality both for government and "we the people."

Our independence comes at a price, paid with the lives of courageous Americans. We pay that ongoing price because our independence allows us to be individuals who stand united as one nation, indivisible, for a cause we all believe in: freedom. Yet our freedom and its underlying independence reveals one distinguishing fact: It does not come without responsibility.

Responsibility is what makes America great. Yet responsibility is precisely what is missing. None of us can spend our way, with borrowed money, to prosperity. What happened to responsibility?

I stand in protest of the massive stimulus spending approved without our consent. This course of irresponsible government action will inevitably force increased taxes on future generations, restricting liberty and the pursuit of happiness that makes life worth living.

-- Justin Kawabori, Redmond

Taxes are down, dropping

Thanks for your article "Despite 'tea party' tempest, tax burden down, dropping" [News, April 16]. It is critical to publicize the facts.

It is ironic and somewhat tragic that well-meaning citizens can be protesting taxes when their taxes are down and dropping. It shows how people who don't pay close attention can be manipulated like puppets for agendas that benefit others.

If we are to have a country with a future, we need to invest in it as a society. The government needs to invest in our future and we need taxes for that.

The Obama administration is amazing in having managed to initiate so much while reducing our tax burden. That is what we ought to celebrate, not some misguided, stale anti-tax slogan.

-- Leonard Goodisman, Bothell

Tsunami of inflation to come

Are you misled, myopic or repeating the drivel of The New York Times? The inflation/devaluation tsunami is coming on the near horizon as a result of out-of-control spending.

The near-term lower federal tax burden for most is nothing but a sham to lull us to sleep before the "big one." The wave will wash over liberals and conservatives alike. These tea parties were the early warning any thinking American should heed.

Americans, arise! You only have oppressive government (at all levels) to lose.

-- Jack Lay, Kingston

Where was outrage for Iraq spending?

This tea-bag party nonsense does nothing more than further discredit the participants by being more of a blatant display of ignorance and hypocrisy than a demonstration for greater fiscal responsibility.

How quickly these people forget their support of dumping trillions of taxpayer dollars into Iraq, none of which has or ever will benefit any of the average taxpayers here in the U.S. Where was your outrage then?

That money could have been spent to build our own country's infrastructure and prevent this crisis before it happened, but it was squandered on a needless war where the end was never even defined, let alone justified by the means. At least the stimulus is an attempt to help spur our economy back into growth, a potential solution at one of the most pressing problems facing our country, to help all of us get back on our feet someday. When are you going to get it?

You complained over the course of the past eight years when people would not unite behind the president for his war; now you complain because the majority of us are uniting behind the guy who was fairly elected on the platform to fix the mess yours left behind.

-- Patrick Maunder, Seattle

Spending money to rebuild the economy

I am sure that Republicans have a right to complain about the stimulus package in rebuilding our economy. For the past eight years, they have turned a surplus into a deficit. It is just like they have trashed a house and now complain we are spending too much money to rebuild it.

Calling for an anti-government-revolution tea party and not paying taxes doesn't sound patriotic to me.

-- David Chan, Seattle

An ironic proposal

How ironic! Sen. Patty Murray, one of the supporters of irresponsible spending, bailouts and earmarks is proposing a financial-literacy program for our high schools ["Murray banks on financial literacy," Opinion, editorial, April 11].

With the federal budget deficit now measured in trillions of dollars and the purchasing power of the dollar declining, our elected officials have thrown responsible financial management to the winds. Sen. Murray is a candidate for an economic and financial management course.

The country needs capital formation and savings, not more borrowing accompanied by a flood of inflation-causing dollars created by the Federal Reserve.

-- Walter A. Appel, Lynnwood

Al Franken must take rightful seat

After an exhaustive, exacting electoral process in Minnesota, it is clearly time to seat Al Franken as Minnesota's junior senator ["Coleman attorney: Appeal next week in Senate fight," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, April 14].

The recounts could not have been more painstakingly accurate, governed by a tri-partisan panel that unanimously rejected the consistently erroneous falsehoods and inaccuracies from the Norm Coleman camp, which includes physically marking on voter ballots.

For more than five months, Coleman and his joint PR and legal team -- the same folks who ran Bush's 2000 Florida campaign -- have utterly failed in any legal, factual manner to provide any evidence whatsoever that the election was stolen, unfair or biased toward Franken.

Their desperate calls for a revote -- talk about the pot calling the kettle black -- are disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst. Make no mistake: Coleman & Co. have no concern about counting every vote.

Most disturbing are calls from senior leaders of the GOP, like Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and media blowhards, like Bill O'Reilly, who have publicly stated that Coleman should continue prolonging this important election to force Franken to raise funds to fight and delay votes on serious issues. Have they no shame, the Republicans?

The lies need to end here. Coleman lost, period. It is time for the Democrats to toughen up and demand that Minnesota's newest senator take his rightful place during this critical time in our nation's history. Go ahead, let them filibuster!

-- Paul West, Seattle

Republican didn't sneak onto ballot

Regarding The Times' April 9 article ["Ex-TV anchor seeks Sims' job," NW Thursday], I laughed out loud at the statement made by state Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz: "This is why the Republicans ran the initiative to make it a nonpartisan office -- to sneak a right-winger like Susan Hutchison past the voters of King County."

Sneak? How, exactly, is Hutchison "sneaking" onto the ballot? Does Pelz believe Republicans across the state gathered in darkened rooms to work on the November initiative while rubbing their hands together in anticipation of Hutchison's announcement? Is it not OK for a Republican to run?

His belief that Hutchison is being "sneaked past the voters" is also an insult to every voter in King County, the implication being that we are too stupid to know who and what we are voting for. Apparently in Pelz's world, it's admirable and upfront for Democrats to run for office, but a Republican announces her candidacy and is being sneaked in under the radar by those conservative n'ere do wells.

Pelz's outrageous and typically liberal pronouncement is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Democrat. Pay attention, voters.

-- Tracy Rohwer, Bellevue

Nothing new but the name

Your article about liberals trying to re-brand themselves progressives ["With 'liberal' out, what's left? Progressive," News, March 29] reminds me of something said in the last presidential election: You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still just a pig.

-- Gene Davis, Lake Forest Park

Protecting millions of acres and dollars

Congress is on the verge of passing the largest expansion of the wilderness system in 15 years.

The bill, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, passed in Senate with a large majority and goes to the House for a vote early next week. As a Sierra Club member, I care deeply about this bill and what it means for our country.

The Omnibus bill will protect more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states, including American treasures like the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, Oregon's Mount Hood and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado.

Other key provisions would add permanence to the 26-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System, preserve over a million acres of Wyoming for hunting and fishing and protect hundreds of miles of free-flowing rivers in six states.

These wilderness areas and other protected lands provide great benefits to rural economies by increasing property values, providing new economic opportunities in recreation and tourism and creating desirable places for people to live, exercise and work.

I urge you to support this bill and the House of Representatives to vote yes on S. 22.

-- Fuoad Shashani, Kent

Where was the GOP?
Standing on the sidelines

Regarding the overall Republican nonparticipation in the stimulus bill, the Republicans have been caught in a trap of their own making -- hoisted with their own petard, as it were.

For years, Republicans have attacked Democrats as "big-time spenders" every time they proposed some budgetary legislation. Republicans further riled up their base with incessant calls for bigger tax cuts.

Well, the Republican base has learned its lesson well, and any time now that a Republican member of Congress even dares to think to vote for a Democratic spending proposal, that member knows that someone back home who is more to the political right will challenge that member at the next election and will most likely win the primary challenge because, with the low turnout at primaries, the fervent base generally can dominate it.

As a result, the Republican party is standing on the sidelines precisely at the moment that the country in the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression most needs their support.

Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom Delay and all you other purveyors of divisive politics: Behold the fruit of your work!

Those who live by the flyblown political slogan will die by the flyblown political slogan.

President Obama would seem to be correct: The country desperately needs a fresh political dynamic, one that is free of mudslinging and hackneyed political jargon.

-- J. Frederic Foster, Seattle

Tiresome criticism

Republicans, give it a rest.

It took President George W. Bush eight years to screw up the economy. Your wailing and gnashing of teeth about Obama not getting it fixed in one month is thin and tiresome.

-- Harold R. Pettus, Everett

Squealing like pigs

For a group opposed to "pork", the Republican letter writers are sure doing a lot of "squealing."

Some of them think President Obama and the Democrats can't bring home the "bacon" and are just "hamming" it up and feeding at the public "trough."

They probably got to much right wing "spam" in their e-mail and it got to be a "boar."

Perhaps they should just "hoof" it down to the radio station and cry with Rush Limbaugh if they can't take a little "ribbing."

Republicans just hate having a Democrat elected to be the new "head cheese."

Oh well, they are just a bit . . . "disgruntled."

-- Dennis Doucette, Auburn

Transparent intentions

Charles Krauthammer, yet again, blatantly demonstrates a primary function of the Republican agenda ["A so-called 'fiasco' embraces democracy," Syndicated column, Feb. 15].

To be sure, there were positive successes for democracy resulting from the Iraq elections.

Descriptions, however, like "smashing victory," "devastated," "losing badly" and"wiped out" illustrate his attempt to exaggerate a meager turnout, which was largely manipulated by U.S. choreographers.

He embarrasses himself with false sincerity when he bleeds his concern and speaks for the Iraqi people and their attempts at tribal representation.

With the tenacity of a loyal pit bull, Krauthammer steadfastly attempts to rewrite history and justify an illegal, misrepresented and corrupt invasion of a country with which our interests were (and are) oil control.

Krauthammer proclaims the "sinews of civil society" and "the plethora of parties" resulting from the nurturing hand of the Bush administration. He then pins the problematic Iraqi future squarely on the Obama administration -- "the custodian of that miracle" -- to be held responsible when (if?) the U.S. leaves Iraq and the actual strength of the democracy is tested.

All progress in Iraq is supported and welcome, but do not forget the insidious motivation for our occupation, nor the costs in massive lost lives and dollars.

Krauthammer's intentions are as deceptively transparent as the folly of Bush's Iraq.

-- Jeffrey A. Burke, Edmonds

Buying inexpensive ropes

Vladimir Lenin is reported to have once said, "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Eighty-some years later it looks like Comrade Lenin was nearly correct.

But, instead of selling the rope with which to hang ourselves, it appears we have bought so many inexpensive ropes on credit that we are strangling ourselves with debt.

Unfortunately for the communists though, since so many of their rope factories are having to close down now, they're not quite sure what to do either.

-- Dean Riskedahl, Issaquah

Still on the hook

We often hear people qualifying their comments on the current fiscal fiasco by admitting they are "no economist, but. ..."

OK, well, I am an educated, professional economic analyst so I will try to put this in terms people can understand. This applies specifically to the ongoing banking bailout, but can be attached to the grand stimulus plan that has, apparently, passed.

Let's say you send your kid off to college with a credit card to cover expenses. It has a healthy credit line and should do the job for the semester and then some. But, two weeks into the term, your kid calls you saying he needs yet another card because all the credit line has already been used up and he can't even account for where most of it has been spent.

Now, do you blindly send him another credit card with another line of credit, while you're the one still on the hook for the first go-round and have no idea where it was spent. Or, do you insist on some reasonable level of accountability?

When you make it personal, it becomes easier to understand what insanity taxpayers are being expected to sign off on here.

It's quite indicative when people compare what's happening now with the disastrous Jimmy Carter years, especially when Carter comes out ahead by comparison.

Stand by for continued erosion of the dollar's value and incredible levels of inflation. Oh well, Obama's right-hand man, PaulVolker, was in charge back in the Carter years too, so I'm sure he's figured it all out by now.

-- Mark Williams, Lynnwood

Arbitrary and capricious banks

I have read recently that some credit-card lenders are arbitrarily closing the credit-card accounts of customers in good standing simply because those customers have not used their credit cards frequently enough.

According to SmartMoney.com, "Most major issuers, including Chase, Bank of America (BOA), American Express (AXP) and Citibank, have been slashing credit lines and closing the accounts of those who don't spend on their card regularly."

The banks will claim, of course, accounts with zero-or-low balances and high limits are at risk for fraud -- a totally bogus assertion. The real reason is when consumers are responsible and selective with their credit-card spending, banks do not make as much money from their usurious interest rates and fees.

Closing accounts in good standing can have significant, adverse effects on consumers' credit scores because their debt-to-credit limit ratio is now higher than it was before the bank's arbitrary and capricious actions. As a result, consumers will find it harder to obtain credit and, if they do, will pay higher interest rates.

Now, I realize banks are motivated by sheer greed and nothing else and will do anything they can to gouge consumers, but this is plain ridiculous.

These are the same greedy banks that have caused the worst economic crisis in 75 years. Now they're not only perpetuating the crisis by refusing to lend money, but making it harder for consumers to borrow at a favorable interest rate.

Yet, the heads of these same banks sit in congressional hearings, where they brazenly state they are doing their best to help consumers and businesses borrow money and revive the economy.

In this situation, it seems almost criminal to penalize good customers for frugal spending by closing accounts with low activity, yet that is exactly what the banking industry is doing.

Please contact your congressmen and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and demand they initiate, sponsor or support a serious congressional investigation into this practice.

Banks have done enough damage to consumers and the economy. It's time to stop them!

-- Winston Rockwell, Kirkland

Slow cook bipartisanship, don't zap it

Here's a novel concept: Trust takes time and bipartisanship grows from a seed.

In our microwave, get-it-done-in-less-than-a-minute society, of course the media would assume bipartisanship failed ["Bye-bye for now, bipartisanship," News, Feb. 10]. After all, President Obama made major overtures to Republican legislators and only three senators out of all the Republicans in Congress voted for the economic-stimulus bill.

Spurred by ill wishes and jeers from right-wing commentators, the mainstream media declared bipartisanship DOA.

However, Obama understands that relationships and trust take time. It is incredibly refreshing that our president lived up to his commitment to listen unconditionally and then included feedback from all parties in the stimulus package -- no strings attached.

He is proving that he is the president of the United States, not just those who voted for him.

May Obama's overtures, openness and good-faith efforts be the dirt, water and sunlight to help nurture a new era of bipartisanship in which Republicans and Democrats alike proudly work together to hash out bold and effective solutions to the opportunities and challenges we face as a nation and world. May he reverse the toxic strategies of former Speaker of the House Newton Gingrich and former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

It's all hands, regardless of label, on deck.

-- Suzan LeVine, Queen Anne

Misdirected questions

During the [recent] press Q&A with President Obama, one reporter asked if he would let the press take pictures of our fallen hero's flag-draped coffins returning home. He said it was under review.

Now I hear on the news that two senators have asked the same.

How about asking the military families if they want the press to use their fallen heroes for ratings? Yes, I know how The Times feels. I bet you didn't ask the families if they wanted those pictures printed.

-- Robert Travaille, Prosser

Entrenched, isolated and sour

Charles Krauthammer's Sunday column, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" [Feb. 8], demonstrates a risk of predictability.

I find myself no longer finishing his columns for insight on conservative views. His pattern of trying to show us how misplaced our faith is gives his work a feeling of being entrenched, isolated and sour.

In the spirit of exploring fresh ideas and bringing to light undiscovered solutions, I challenge Krauthammer to get out of his office and private-club circles to chat with
people at the grocery store, library, park and bank. He will find that many are hopeful and thrilled with President Obama's actions and words since he took office.

Krauthammer, you have the smarts to introduce solutions into the global conversations of our times.

-- Susan Lamont, Redmond

Manuel Balce Ceneta / The Associated Press

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, President Obama's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, speaks to the media after a closed session meeting with the Senate Finance Committee on Capitol Hill, Monday. Daschle withrew his nomination.

Sending a tax message

Editor, The Times:

You would think with the withdrawal of two Obama nominees ["Obama: 'I screwed up' on nominees," Times, page one, Feb. 4], it would send a message: The tax code is too complicated.

Want more tax dollars? Simplify how you collect it.

-- Earl Gipson, SeaTac

No skeletons attached

I'd just like to say to Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer: What part of "If you have skeletons in your closet, don't bother to apply" did you not understand? You were not helping President Obama. You were helping yourselves.

Is there no honest person in Washington, D.C., nowadays?

-- Ellen Blackstone, Seattle

Treacherous "trickle down"

The financial shortfall we're experiencing here in the state of Washington is the surest example of the "trickle down" theory ever presented. The disaster spawned at the federal level, following eight years of increasing deficits under the previous administration, has finally trickled down to the state level.

As the deregulations of the Bush administration led to banking excesses that have now imploded, leading to the worst depression since the 1930s, it is taking all the sates down with it. California is at the verge of bankruptcy. Virtually all other states are in serious deficit along with California. It's all "trickle down."

We can thank the financial missteps of the Bush administration for this.

What are Republican legislators in our state doing to help pull us out of this, other than repeat the same misguided philosophy of the Republicans in Washington, D.C.?

I'm looking to both Washingtons for new thinking. But as we saw when 100 percent of Republicans in "the other Washington" (the House of Representatives) stuck to the misguided policies of the past that brought us to our knees, I see Republicans here doing the very same thing.

In my opinion, it's unbelievably dumb.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Even torture is justifiable

I read the Opinion piece on Tuesday, Feb. 3, of Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders ["Bush team must be held accountable for crimes," guest column].

I find this article extremely elitist. While he points out that the "Bush team" brought us tyranny, I say, as far as the security of our country and our people is concerned, internment, phone taping and, yes, even torture is justifiable.

Do not forget we were attacked and thousands died. Does Justice Sanders rate this as trifle?

Also, remember that we have not been attacked since 9/11. Would Justice Sanders prefer an atomic bomb be smuggled into the country and detonated?

I am sure, as long as the rule of law were followed, it would be OK.

Justice Sanders might have noticed we were at war. Every president has taken away some of our rights during war. President Lincoln did during the Civil War and, as Sanders pointed out, President Roosevelt did the same.

While it is regrettable, it can sometimes be justified.

Suppose Justice Sanders were president and there were the possibility of a major attack, in which many people would be killed. He had in his hands a man who knew the details of this attack. Would he deny this terrorist his rights and avoid destruction of our country, or would he shrug his shoulders saying, "We couldn't stop this carnage because of the rule of law."

I think Justice Sanders should walk in the shoes of a president whose job it is to protect people, not the rights of terrorists.

Sorry, Mr. Justice. I believe you live in a far different land then most of us, "the people," do.

-- Rockey Roth, Lake Forest Park

No one above the law, indeed

Justice Richard B. Sanders' comments regarding the alleged crimes of the Bush administration and the need to prosecute its members are most interesting.

He states the Bush administration has damaged the Constitution. Certainly the actions of the Bush presidency were and are no more injurious of the Constitution than those of Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, in their times of national emergency. And yet, the Constitution survived, as well as the republic.

That aside, I find Sanders' comments about "no one being above the law" most curious. I do not recall him protesting from his pulpit the actions of a previous president who knowingly perjured himself. No one above the law, indeed!

I hear no outcry about the new administration's chosen appointees, who can't quite seem to remember to pay their taxes. No one above the law, indeed.

Or, how about one of his own, who committed a DUI and a felony hit and run, sitting on the bench. No one above the law, indeed.

If I were a cynic I might attribute it to political preference. Sanders might think about the old saying, "Those who live in glass houses. . . ."

-- Robert Kipper, Bothell

Issue direct-to-taxpayer gift cards

Here's an idea for the economic-stimulus package: Issue gift cards.

Consumer spending is 70 percent of the U.S. economy. Economists agree that no stimulus will be effective if it does not reignite consumer spending. Last year's direct-to-taxpayer stimulus didn't work because, instead of spending it, most people put it into savings or used it to pay off debt (that's what our family did).

Why not take a corresponding 70 percent of the stimulus package ($578 billion) and issue direct-to-taxpayer gift cards? In rough terms, that would mean a $2,000 gift card for every man, woman and child in the U.S. You could use the cards at a long list of U.S. retailers but, as with all gift cards, you could not deposit the money or use it to pay off debt. You would have 90 days to spend your stimulus.

That would still leave 30 percent of the stimulus for needed infrastructure improvements, which is more than what is budgeted for infrastructure now. And, it would provide an immediate jolt to the economy right where we need it most -- in consumer spending.

-- Paul Naumann, Tacoma

Cut taxes and we'll buy shovels

Congressional Republicans have made it a big deal that the only stimulus they support is a tax cut. For most of us, cutting taxes would be just enough to pay for shovels, picks and other implements of manual labor, so we could each go out and build our own road, school, university, hospital, airport or other mode of public transportation.

These are the same Republicans who complain about the deficit they have run up, while fighting wars on credit cards.

Does anyone even take these scoundrels seriously anymore?

-- Murdoch Hughes, Marysville

Low interest rate is low-bar solution

Republicans opposing President Obama's stimulus package have complained that the economic crisis was instigated by the housing crisis, and that we should solve it with low-interest loans, etc.

I heartily disagree. We are facing hard times now because our wages have not kept up with the pace of inflation, and a major number of jobs have gone overseas for cheap labor.

Who is responsible for this? Our big-business Republicans -- who told us if it is good for business, it is good for the citizens -- are responsible.

Why have our jobs not been protected? Because the people in power have been the ones raking in the dough from our profits.

I work in assembly and am currently attending college online to go into a career that will sustain me in the future. But, it is difficult to work all day and come home to course work for two classes.

I am getting financial aid, which I will have to pay back.I expect paying back the loan will very likely keep my free money locked up, leaving little to invest in my retirement. So, I will probably not retire until I absolutely have to.

I ask the president, do you have an answer for this? Because the government is selling our jobs, should not the government help those who are affected by this loss?

We need to create good jobs for Americans again. Then we will have the money to pay for purchases like a mortgage.

Low interest rates alone will not solve the housing crisis. With homes in our area starting at around $200,000, a $12-an-hour job will not keep the builders busy. Making loans to people who can really afford such houses has led us to where we are now.

Education and family-wage jobs will put us back on the road to recovery.

-- Sharon Andrews, Marysville

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez MonsivaisPablo Martinez Monsivais / The Associated Press

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, center, is congratulated by supporters after the announcement that he was elected the first black Republican National Committee chairman by the RNC during their winter meetings last Friday.

Editor, The Times:

The new head of the Republican Party, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, was on CNN's "The Situation Room" with commentator Wolf Blitzer the other night, showing off his intellectual firepower. "Not in the history of mankind," he told Blitzer, "has the government ever created a job."

Wow.

So, Steele believes the all-volunteer military is made up of unpaid volunteers. He apparently believes the civil service Republicans like to demonize as "the bureaucracy" is made up of actual conjured-up demons, instead of citizens receiving paychecks.

Steele must believe that all of those government buildings just appeared overnight, instead of being built by construction workers who receive paychecks.

Roads and bridges? Natural features of this great land of ours.

And all that mumbo-jumbo his party churned out over the past eight years, about former President Bush's tax cuts creating jobs, was nothing more than a lie.

With this kind of an incisive mind leading the renewal of the Hoover Party, we Democrats need to be very afraid.

-- John McKay, Seattle

Desperately hanging onto their story

Don't you just love it when the Republican strategists come on TV and talk about how their plans are better than those of the new president? Did they forget why their party lost the election in a landslide?

Where were these great plans during the past eight years when the Bush administration was starting a war, running up the national debt and thumbing its nose at the Constitution?

I especially love the contradiction between the Republicans who claim they're going to bring the party back to where it used to be and those who desperately hang onto the story that there's nothing wrong with the Republican Party. Now we're forced to hear them try to undermine a president who can only try to clean up the mess left him.

It's amazing that former President Bill Clinton did the job he did, given that so many wanted to undermine him. Now the media continues to keep the likes of Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in front of us, wasting our time with the same old propaganda.

It's actually the Democrats who must decide whether they want to continue on the high ground or fight fire with fire. Rove knew well how the Democrats lacked the inclination to fight back.

Well, President Obama has been taking the high ground -- in the extreme. Unlike his predecessor, the grand divider, Obama knows that we can only pull ourselves out of the hole dug over the past eight years if we do it as a people with common goals. He's reaching across the aisle.

Let's see how many true Americans there are who will place the American people ahead of their own self-interests.

-- David McKenzie, Federal Way

Call it what you will,
politics will play a role

You can take the party out of the title, but not the politics out of the position.

We recently spent a lot of the taxpayers' money to administer an election to decide whether to make Metropolitan King County Council positions nonpartisan, in order to remove politics from the positions. Though the electorate's decision was to make all of the positions nonpartisan, it will never happen except on paper, maybe.

In a recent article, "Who'll get Sims' job? Jostling begins" [News, Feb. 3], the party designation of every contender is included after every name. So much for nonpartisan positions.

Politics will never be removed from these types of elected positions.

-- Robert Oberlander, Issaquah

Mind-boggling proposals

Before she passed away, I was confident there could never be an American newspaper columnist to the left of Molly Ivins. Unless someone is just using David Sirota's name to print excerpts from Chairman Mao, I couldn't have been more wrong! He gets more bizarre every column.

In his advice to President Obama this week ["Congressional progressives must push Obama to the left," syndicated column, Feb. 2], he refers to George W. Bush as an extreme conservative!

Even in a city that leans so far to the left it could topple into Puget Sound any day, I can't imagine there are more than a handful of basket cases that can relate to Sirota. Most have to wonder why any newspaper would print this stuff.

As he begins his campaign for re-election, President Obama has made a few appointments to "expand his base." But, he is still making further mind-boggling proposals designed to turn the "land of the free" into "the land of the freebies." One has to wonder if the country will even exist as a nation in four years.

If he starts taking Sirota's advice, God help us all!

-- Gary McGavran, Bellevue

Pause the pontification, please

Thank you for the Leonard Pitts Jr. column criticizing Rush Limbaugh ["That's why they're called dittoheads," syndicated columnist, Feb. 1]. Too many journalists are guilty of the "journalistic malpractice" mentioned by Pitts because of their failure to criticize Limbaugh.

I hope Pitts and others will continue to challenge Limbaugh and expose him for the fraud that he is.

Limbaugh's resume is void of accomplishment. He gave no quarter to lawbreaking drug addicts until he became one. His racist remarks cost him a broadcasting job (he resigned before he was fired). He has failed at marriage three times. He has never served in the military. He has never raised children. He has no credentials to be pontificating to the rest of us.

If The Times and other media will publish more articles that expose Limbaugh and inform the Limbaugh "dittoheads," perhaps we can avoid electing the type of leadership that got us into our current mess.

-- David Storm, Everett

A wagon on the edge of a cliff

When we vote for our elected officials, many of us vote bipartisan -- we vote for the person best suited for the job. We vote for the person we feel will best represent to the government our needs, ideals and interests.

The majority of the country has now elected a Democratic president. Many crossed party lines because they felt the Democratic candidate would best represent what they needed from their country.

Our country is in crisis. It is a station wagon loaded with families hanging over the edge of a cliff. This is not a partisan problem.

We need a team of leaders to join forces and navigate this wagon back to safety. We, in the wagon, don't care who saves us; we desperately need help and we need it now.

When I see that every single Republican in Congress voted against the stimulus package that the President has blessed, I see a game going on. It is hard to imagine that every single Republican lawmaker truly felt this package was so bad that they could not vote for it.

Are their loyalties really to the people who elected them and whom they serve? Or, are they to the Republican Party?

Are our Republican lawmakers going to spend the next four years plotting for a Republican victory, or are they going to serve the people who need them now?

I encourage you all to write to your Republican leaders and insist that they put down their partisan swords and, instead, roll up their sleeves and work on the task at hand.

Ask them to join the governmental team that will pull our families back to solid ground. Ask them now.

-- Lynne Robinson, Bellevue

Calls for saving, not just spending

As the economy worsens, individuals see the wisdom of curtailing spending to the essentials and boosting payments to existing credit card debt and then to savings.

At the same time, our federal government continues to ratchet up spending trillions to "jump-start the economy." These trillions, however, are creating more debt for individuals in our collective society. How can we, as taxpayers, logically justify both courses?

We should be in support of activities that lead to long-term solutions for our economy. The most obvious of these is to create climates where personal savings are rewarded. If we, as Americans, built up substantial savings, we would be able to responsibly purchase products to drive the economy. We would be able to do so largely without the availability of credit, which has become so scarce.

If we had these savings, we would be able to withstand problems, such as a temporary job loss, without defaulting our mortgage.

To the extent that the money the feds are doling out is addressing national infrastructure, these activities are acceptable. But more importantly, lets not spend any money that does not directly lead to jobs or which does not encourage personal savings.

-- Mark Hamp, Lynnwood

Hypocrisy endorsing oppression

A perverse agenda?

In a letter to the editor in Sunday's paper, Brian Travis of Lynnwood finds "same-sex marriage not only repulsive, but also a naked usurpation of the rights of Washington state voters" ["A perverse agenda," Northwest Voices, Feb. 1].

He then goes on to advise supporters of homosexual marriage to place it on the ballot and let those same voters decide.

Talk about repulsive.

In his blatant bigotry and homophobia, Travis in one breath decries "usurpation" of voters' rights and in the next advocates that those same voters should determine (usurp) the rights of an entire group of fellow citizens.

This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. It's hypocrisy that endorses oppression. Across this country, people's rights are being put to a vote. Think about that. Law-abiding, taxpaying citizens' rights are on the ballot.

Now that is a perverse agenda.

-- Rod Barbee, Port Ludlow

Judging the man by the cover he reads

What I really thought was interesting about the photo of Rod Blagojevich ["Ill. governor opts for TV, not trial," News, Jan. 26] was the book he was carrying: "Warlord" by Carlo de Este.

I recognized it right away. It's the story of Winston Churchill's military leadership throughout his life. He was a great man indeed; it is a great story.

But I wonder whether the photograph was just another setup in Blagojevich's life -- an attempt to illicit some response favorable to his defense -- as if we could tell something about his demeanor by the books he reads.

-- Rick Pinney, Black Diamond

Not so clever

It's a tragedy to see the blatant corruption of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich ["Blagojevich's emotions do the talking, but Illinois Senate has the final say," page one, Jan. 30] and then to witness his summary impeachment, conviction and removal from office when it was so openly revealed.

Blagojevich was too blindly ambitious and foolish to realize that he couldn't hide his corruption behind the impenetrable cloak of national security as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did so successfully for eight years.

Let's all tip our hats to our former vice president for being far more clever than the former governor.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Outright abuse of power

There is a truism in President Abraham Lincoln's prophetic remark that "one way to know a man's true character is by giving him power."

Lincoln was right. Rod Blagojevich's real character, as a man and public official, was revealed after he was deposed as governor, on the grounds of graft and corruption, by majority of Illinois state legislators through formal impeachment proceedings.

He was thrown out of office not because the lawmakers didn't like him as a person, but because of his debauched character and abuse of the power granted him by the U.S. Constitution to appoint a senator to the seat vacated by President Obama.

He tried to put the Senate office up for public auction in exchange for money. To me, that's an outright abuse of power. He deserved the verdict.

-- Warlie Villasencio, Kent

Looking beyond the surface

It's all over the headlines: stimulus packages. But, what is so "stimulating" about these plans? They might move money around a little bit but, in reality, they will do more harm than help.

The government has announced this $800 billion-plus plan to pull the economy out of its current recession. Economics 101 teaches a very important question that many Americans have failed to ask: Where is the government finding $800 billion?

The short answer: us. All the Federal Reserve Board is doing is taking money from taxpayers, which could be spent in a much more productive way by those earning the money, and redistributing it to serve their own agendas.

Granted, the public also shares some of these agendas, but to a small degree. What right does the government have to spend another person's money wisely? Besides reputation, none.

By supporting the stimulus package, you must believe that the government makes wiser choices about how to spend your money than you do. Do you really believe this?

If not, I encourage you to look not only at the surface amount of these stimulus plans, but deeper into the issue to realize the potential cost to you, your family, your job and your country.

-- Shannon McCleary, Edmonds

Rejecting the fig leaf

Congressional Republicans are amazing creatures, truly remarkable. They control the House for 12 years, doing things their way with almost zero minority input, and the country ends up in a massive financial crisis. Their policy of more tax cuts in any and all circumstances, while always logically unfounded, has now solidly been proven a massive failure.

Now we have a Democratic president who has made a large point of reaching out to Republicans in the minority. We know the Republican way doesn't work, so you might think Republicans would welcome a fig leaf extended toward them in the form of concessions -- concessions they didn't extend when they were in power. Well, you would be wrong.

They have voted against the stimulus package on a party-line vote. Why? Because there are not enough tax cuts. The very same tax cuts that have hurt the overall economy and only served to make the rich richer.

The unapologetic way Republicans are behaving in the face of public sentiment and the reality of the failure of their policies is simply astounding. They claim we need swift action, but are willing to delay action simply because they aren't getting more of what they know won't work.

-- Michael Blake, Seattle

New attitude demands new military policy

President Obama is in the White House and the possibility of real change is gripping America. From coast to coast and throughout the patchwork quilt of diversity, all across our country, people are hopeful and optimistic.

This is true for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community as well. Last week, Seattle Times editorial page Editor James Vesely wrote advocating the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the U.S. Military ["Straights and gays, all in formation," column, Jan. 18]. On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign, I would like to commend Vesely and The Times for this action.

This policy is the only law in the country that asks people to be dishonest about their personal lives or risk being fired or prosecuted. It is responsible for the dismissal of 800 badly needed specialists such as Arabic translators, thus hindering our military.

Since its inception 15 years ago, support for open service from the American public has grown 31 points and now stands at 75 percent [Washington Post/ABC, July 2008]. But, even more remarkable is that 73 percent of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan say they are comfortable in the presence of gays [Zogby, Dec. 2006]. And support for open service among all veterans stands at 50 percent.

It's a new day in America with a new attitude from Americans. The time is now to repeal this antiquated and failed military policy.

-- Steve Gibbs, co-chair of the Seattle HRC Steering Committee, Seattle

To be black is to be "American"

Maybe it's because I am a "young American" at 25, but I found the front-page, reprinted article from the Chicago Tribune, "Cool to some, but strange to others," completely ridiculous [Jan. 27].

First, this is not news.

Second, the article portrays "black culture" as some kind of wacky, foreign and exotic stepchild to "traditional" American culture. That there is a news story on this subject at all, intimates that black culture is not American culture.

Pundits and journalists need to get over the fact that we weren't all dropped out of the same mold in this country and get on with reporting real news.

-- Marina Hench, Seattle

Bitter irony behind bearing arms

Will the U.S. gun craze, our romance with firearms, ever end ["Gunman in Portland shooting spree dies," Local News, Jan. 28]?

How many more of our young people will we sacrifice in the name of a misdirected policy, the right to bear arms?"

We Rotarians host outstanding foreign students in a program of peace and international understanding. So much for peace! They are shot down on the sidewalks of Portland. What bitter irony that American parents fret about their children's safety while abroad. The real dangers are right here under our American noses.

The details of these murders -- random shooting of unknown victims in a relatively peaceful American city -- highlight the insanity of our gun policies. Handguns exist only to shoot people; disturbed people will use them if they are readily at hand.

When will Americans be hurt and incensed enough to demand a change?

-- Robert Hauck, Shoreline

Tail-wagging corporations

When will our politicians get a backbone?

This recent string of bailouts is due to big corporations -- American International Group (AIG), Chrysler, General Motors (GM), etc. -- sending their CEOs and lobbyists to D.C. to tell Congress that America can't afford their company to fold.

And whether it is because of pocket lining or lack of judgment, Capitol Hill keeps granting bailouts.

This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

If I were in Congress and a CEO came before my committee hearing telling me how America can't afford to live without their company, I would stand up, look this corporate exec in the eye and firmly say:

"Apparently you are confused, mister CEO. It's not that we can't afford for you to close, but rather due to your miss management, you cannot afford to stay open. Now it seems that you may have got lost because the bankruptcy department is down the hall on the left."

-- Chad Pelesky, Lakewood

Tax cuts cut corners

Republicans should know people who are losing their jobs and homes don't need a tax cut. They need jobs and homes.

-- Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom

Greed furthered by secularization

Greed on Wall Street and Main Street are repeatedly being cited as the reason for our financial-system meltdown and resultant recession. Greed is not the problem, but only a symptom of the overall breakdown of morality in much of our society.

This breakdown has coincided with the assault on Christianity by secularists and activist judges, resulting in the diminishment of religion in the public arena.

George Washington, the father of our country, said in his farewell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

John Adams, another Founding Father and our second president, stated that "morality and religion are essential for a democratic government to endure."

Greed is not the only symptom manifested by the loss of our moral compass. The three-fastest-growing industries in America are gambling, prostitution and illegal drugs.

Ann Graham, Billy Graham's daughter, was asked why God had turned his back on us. Her answer: "He didn't turn his back on us; we walked away from him."

The secular progressives have succeeded in taking prayer out of our schools. They are determined to see "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, "so help me God" removed from our oaths of office and "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. They would also like to see the "Ten Commandments" chiseled off the walls of our public institutions.

The Christians founders who formed this nation and built tolerance into our Bill of Rights ironically are not being extended the same consideration from those who came later into our society. If we want to reverse further breakdown of morality we must get back to our religious roots, speak out and stand firm against the assault by the liberal progressives and their activist judges.

-- Robert Johnston, Camano Island

Painting a hypocritical picture

As a member of the Seattle gay community, I find the hypocrisy in dealing with a straight politician's sex scandal, such as Former President Clinton, versus that of a gay politician, such as Portland Mayor Sam Adams ["Despite scandal, Portland mayor says he'll stay," page one, Jan. 26], outrageous and shocking.

For decades, the American gay community fought to overturn the sodomy laws of this nation. In 2003, we received the Lawrence decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared all sodomy laws unconstitutional, and established the right to private, noncommercial, consensual sexual activities between adults.

President Clinton and Mayor Adams engaged in one form of sodomy or another in their respective affairs. Clinton committed adultery, Adams did not. To quote Just Out Publisher Marty Davis, both Clinton and Adams engaged in "... first-degree lying." Moreover, the respective age differences between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was 27 years and between Adams and Beau Breedlove, 25 years.

Both Adams and Breedlove swear their relationship started after Breedlove turned 18. Until I hear clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, I will take them for their word.

Please don't tell me the Portland gay and straight communities don't hold their mayor to a higher standard than their president. America forgave President Clinton; Portland should forgive Mayor Adams.

-- Steven L. Kendall, Seattle

No room for an "honest mistake"

Tim F. Geithner is a tax cheat ["Economic hot seat," Business, Jan. 18].

With his knowledge and use of professional tax accountants to prepare and file his taxes, there is absolutely no way that what he did to evade paying taxes is an "honest mistake." Why should Americans stand for a guy like this running the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service?

Further, why do we need him? There are plenty of people smart enough and experienced enough to do his job.

What message is the new administration trying to send to the American people? Is the message that the "culture of corruption" is alive and well in Washington?

That's the way I take it, since there is no shortage of talent without this kind of baggage out there ready to serve.

-- Rick Johnson, Burien

Don't discriminate against energy sources

In response to Paul Rogat Loeb's article ["Stoking the furnace of a green economy," guest columnist, Jan. 22], I offer the following observations.

The high-efficiency Trane furnace, which Loeb says he purchased, does promote American jobs in New Jersey and Texas, but the bottom-line profits flow to Bermuda where the principal executive office of Ingersoll Rand, the parent company, is located. This points out the need for our country to look carefully at our corporate tax rates with respect to foreign neighbors to make sure that we are competitive in this regard.

This will insure that jobs and profits are kept here.

My former business, Dorse and Company, Inc., was and still is a manufacturers' representative and now wholesaler of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. Part of the company's product offering has been and still is heat-recovery equipment. We've furnished a significant amount of this equipment for the past 30 years.

The main reason the end user buys this equipment is the relatively short payback period and the continued reduction in the cost of fuel thereafter. The secondary benefits, the reduction in pollution and carbon-dioxide emission, are also important.

For the past 30 years, our home, located on the shore of Puget Sound, has enjoyed the benefits of a heat-recovery system that I designed for our centrally-located fireplace. The fuel is driftwood that we burn only when the weather is permitting. The system draws in 100 percent outside air and pressurizes our living space so as to minimize infiltration. The back wall, which is brick, acts as a heat sink and continues to emit heat for at least 12 hours after the fire is out. When this system is operating, we turn down the thermostat, as there is no need for the gas-fired base board heating that serves the main floor. Similarly, I do a lot of barbecuing and this is only done with driftwood, never charcoal briquettes.

Where I disagree with Loeb is in his advocacy of mandating energy-efficient furnaces and a solar- and wind-energy generation. Let the market determine what is to be used; don't let the government pick winners and losers regarding the energy generation.

While our government restricts and regulates oil exploration and production, Saudi Arabia continues to discover vast oil reserves with state-of-the-art lateral drilling and develops cleaner-burning gasoline in their laboratories. Our energy policy should be comprehensive and encourage all forms of domestically produced energy.

-- Bob Dorse, Seattle

Taxpayers are smart, tax breaks are smarter

It's a huge stretch, but let's assume I am rich and receive a $50,000 tax cut. What would I do with the money?

Perhaps, I'd add another extra bedroom to my mansion, buy new cars for my granddaughters or upgrade my yacht. If feeling generous, I might contribute to the local food bank or charities helping victims of recent-extreme weather. Otherwise, I'd invest in businesses (stocks, bonds, etc.) or just put the money in the bank and make it available for loans. In other words, I'd stimulate the economy.

The decisions of the not-rich may be of a different magnitude, but surely they've become better spenders over the past year or so.

How would the government spend the money if there was no tax cut? Losing it seems to be popular these days. Paying the salaries of the bureaucrats who lost money, rewarding businesses and home buyers for making bad decisions, giving benefits to illegal immigrants, doling it out to the states for projects the states don't want badly enough to pay for themselves, or beefing up the earmark for the sausage museum in Porkytown, Ill., are all possibilities.

God only knows what else the lobbyists, campaign contributors and unions soak us for. Perhaps, a small fraction might actually do some good.

Those who think government spends money more wisely than most taxpayers are likely the same folks who think taxes on businesses don't get passed on to consumers.

-- Gary McGavran, Bellevue

Jose Luis Magana/ The Associated Press

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama wave to the crowd as they walk down Pennsylvania Avenue after the inauguration ceremony in Washington, D.C., Tuesday.

Letting go of control

Editor, The Times:

I am a conservative and I have not changed my politics. I'm still a conservative and I wish my side had won. But, this is how our government works and I make it my policy to not worry about things I have no control over.

Therefore, I am proud of my country and I am proud of President Obama. I am excited about the coming months. Obama definitely won't make some of the decisions I would make if I were in his shoes, but if he truly listens to all sides in each situation and observes history, he could wind up being a great president. And I would be happy to help in any way I can.

To those who will yell and scream, thinking I've gone soft or have no core, I'm sorry, but I won't worry over things I have no control over. I will give our new president, my new president, the benefit of the doubt and wait to see how he will govern.

This is a great day in America. This is a great day for the breakdown of racism and the irrational hatred, or simply the dislike, of "people not like us."

As a Christian, I believe God is still on the throne. God bless you, Mr. President, and God bless America.

-- Dave Phillips, Puyallup

Red flags in Federal Way

The Times reported the Federal Way School District was requiring permission notes from parents before students could see or hear the 44th president of the United States deliver his inaugural address ["Students need OK to see Obama speech," Times, Around the Northwest, Local News, Jan. 17].

This was said to be because the inauguration was "not part of the regular course work." Such a policy raises many questions.

As a retired teacher, I am dismayed to read of such a restriction placed on teachers and students. It is difficult for me to believe teachers would put up with it and parents would condone it. I can only assume that most administrators are embarrassed by such a policy.

It would be interesting to learn how such an asininity came to be seen by some as essential to the education system in Federal Way.

-- Sy Schwartz, Bellingham

A one-sided controversy

The subhead, "2 controversial figures selected by Obama," of your article ["Division over inaugural prayer," Local News, Jan. 19] is indicative of the liberal bias in the mainstream media against religious conservatives.

Why is Pastor Rick Warren's inclusion controversial? He is a fairly mainstream pastor of a California megachurch and a very successful author. Sure, he opposes same-sex marriage, but so do most Americans and so do probably 99.9 percent of evangelical pastors.

Bishop Gene Robinson, on the other hand, left his wife and children to be with his male partner. His election to bishop caused a split and irreparable harm to the Episcopal denomination. This was not an unexpected result. He put his own interests ahead of the church.

So, I can only see one controversial figure here.

-- Dennis Russell, Edmonds

Better late than never

I became dismayed while listening to a local, public-radio station the day after President Obama's inauguration. People were asked to share their thoughts about the event.

Multiple people said that now, Jan. 21, 2009, they could get busy with creating change; now they could make a difference; now they could serve. One man said that before Jan. 21, he would have left that errant piece of paper in the trash can, but now he would make the effort to place it in the recycle bin.

While I consider the previous administration's legacy less than positive, I never imagined its "negative power" so virulent as to prevent individuals from recycling.

I, and others who have been working for change since the Clinton administration, have wondered why it's hard to recruit volunteers and motivate people toward the change they say they want.

I guess now I know what the problem was.

Come to think of it, I have been struggling to lose weight for the past eight years with little success.

Regardless of what's been stopping you, I say to those who now find themselves capable of helping, "Welcome! We're glad you're here! Let's get busy."

-- Dan Hazen, Marysville

Fictional perspective

Charles Krauthammer has found a silver lining, suggesting President Obama endorses former President Bush's policies ["Thanks to Obama, Bush's legacy is secure," syndicated columnist, Jan. 18]. It reminds me of an old joke I just made up:

Two men stand outside a pretty house rented by a murderous criminal.

The first man says, "Let's burn it to the ground. Heck, let's torch the entire neighborhood. Burn, baby, burn!"

The second man says, "No, he's trapped inside so we can keep an eye on him."

The first man, ignoring the second man, tosses a Molotov cocktail and the house is quickly engulfed in flames.

"Yeah, take that!" he taunts. Quickly, the fire spreads to other homes, and embers fly and begin to destroy adjacent neighborhoods, killing many innocent people.

The second man says, "You're crazy. We have to put out the fire."

The first man, happy at first, realizes his recklessness has gotten out of control and finally calls the fire department. Many firefighters die battling the blaze. Many more are wounded. Smoldering homes and occasional flare-ups continue.

The second laments, "What a tragedy. I'm so glad you finally called the fire department."

Krauthammer looks on, "See, they both agree after all."

-- David Wall, Kirkland

Covering his tracks

Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claims that history will judge his presidency, while his administration fights tooth and nail to prevent White House e-mails from being archived for future historians.

I wonder what data he expects history to judge him on unless it's the book he yearns to write.

-- Michael Konkol, Brier

Heads you lose

From George W. Bush's Farewell Address:

"You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."

The flip of a quarter could have made the tough decisions. At least that George W. would have made the right choice half the time.

Farewell, indeed.

-- Lewis I. Hutchison, Everett

A BIG legacy

The president of BIG -- Big government, Big spending, Big war, Big tax breaks and giveaways to Big business and the wealthy -- is gone at last! What a legacy he has left behind for us!

Will we be able to pick up the pieces and put a better America back together? Yes! Will we need the help of the government and the people? Yes! Will it be quick and easy? No!

Jan. 20 is the first day of the next four years of our lives. We must all pull together and work in big, little, out-of-the box and in-the-box ways for a better future for all Americans.

Let's build community, starting with our families and extending to our neighborhoods, states and beyond. An America going in new directions for the good of all the people is at the top of my list for 2009.

-- Sharon Sawhill, Enumclaw

Free indeed

It's difficult to believe that eight disastrous years of Bush/Cheney rule are finally at an end. My God, it's been a long hard slog.

I think I speak for many when I quote Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!"

-- Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island

An ironic farewell

I was hoping for a strong and memorable line in George W. Bush's farewell address and I wasn't disappointed. He said, "Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere."

I just hope that someday he realizes the irony of that statement when applied to Iraq.

-- Dave Richardson, Shoreline

Time to step in

Watching the TV-news reports on the plane landing in the Hudson River, I thought about the conservatives' push to cut taxes and minimize government.

All passengers were rescued. By whom? The air traffic controllers (FAA), the New York police and firefighters, the FBI, etc.

In order to find ways to avoid such accidents in the future, the National Transportation Safety Board will spend months studying the crash.

I say, more government "interference," please.

-- Anne Thureson, Renton

No different from a private investor

I agree with Danny Westneat's general premise; at first glance the bank's behavior seems quite objectionable ["Bailout trickles up, not down," column, Jan. 14]. However, I do have two main points to make.

The vendors who have agreed to delay payment are probably taking a "futures contract" on the aforementioned Pam Pentz' ability to pay eventually. But exactly how long will they wait? How much in late payment fees might they ultimately require? When will they sue if payment is not forthcoming after a certain extended period of time?

Eventually, if she cannot pay, each of them will have to make this decision. They may be willing to "forbear" immediate payment, but no doubt their patience will eventually be exhausted, each on their own schedule. "Good for it" for a month seems very appropriate, but I doubt six months would be.

Why should a bank be expected to act any differently than a private investor? I suspect that Westneat, despite the current state of the economy, has some money in investments, retirement accounts and college funds (if he has children). I ask him to answer then, please, what exact return, terms and conditions would he require to lend her the money himself? Six percent a year? 10 percent? 20 percent?

Suppose Pentz offered to pay 50 percent interest? 100 percent? Oops. The two of you can't make that contract — usury laws. So, I guess even if there were an informed borrower and lender, the government would help determine which businesses succeed and which fail based on regulation of loan interest.

One of the key issues in the current "crisis" is that many traditional risk models are suspect, but can't be properly adjusted due to the friction of regulation, tradition or indignation informed by emotion, not mathematics.

Why shouldn't Pentz or anyone else be able to offer a loan request on, say, eBay and let the market bid without limit or restriction?

-- Norman Mainer, Redmond

Strong action against global warming

As an avid outdoorsman in Washington state, global warming is a really important issue to me because the increasingly violent weather patterns related to climate change are directly affecting our way of life in the Puget Sound region. We have experienced this recently within the flooding throughout the Puget Sound region.

I'm excited that President-elect Obama has identified global warming and clean energy as top priorities. I hope Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, will let our new president know that the people of Seattle will support him in taking strong action when he takes office Tuesday.

Most importantl, I urge President-elect Obama to commit to cutting emissions by at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is, consistent with what the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says developed countries must achieve to prevent catastrophic warming.

We've got a historic opportunity in front of us. Now it's time to get to work.

-- Geoff Guillory, Seattle

Want more, pay more

I seems obvious to me: The more the citizens of this country ask the government to do for them, the more it is going to cost. That means more taxes, not a rebate of taxes.

No Virginia, there is no such thing as a money tree. This may come as a shock to many, especially those who bought homes they could not afford or those who ran their credit-card balance to a point they could make the payments.

Any service we ask for must be paid for.

-- Bob Ely, Bellevue

Diesel retrofits, a win-win

As we look for ways to jump-start, "green" our economy and grow jobs at the same time, Congress is considering investing up to $1.5 billion in upgrading and retrofitting existing diesel equipment in order to reduce its air-pollution emissions. This is a proven and cost-effective approach to cleaner air that is shovel-ready should it be included in a stimulus package that builds upon existing efforts in Washington state to retrofit and replace school buses, other public fleet vehicles and diesel engines used at our seaports.

Diesel engines are the workhorse of the economy, building roads and utility infrastructure, bringing folks to work and children to school, and delivering the goods we depend on via our highways, rail lines and local seaports. Thanks to new emissions-control technology, the tens of thousands of existing engines can now be upgraded to improve efficiency and reduce emissions up to 85 percent.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funds a portion of these retrofits and has already delivered proven benefits here through cleaner school buses and port equipment. The retrofit industry is also important to Washington-state workers employed at companies that service, manufacture or use emissions-reduction equipment for their diesel vehicles and equipment.

EPA estimates that DERA generates $13 of economic benefit for every $1 spent on diesel retrofits. The economic-stimulus package offers an opportunity to help scale up diesel retrofitting on a much larger basis, improve local air quality and secure Washington jobs, not just at the manufacturers, but at equipment service and repair facilities, which install and maintain this equipment.

Both industry and clean-air advocates agree: It's a win-win for the economy and air quality. We hope that U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, and the rest of our Congressional delegation will support this important initiative.

-- Dennis McLerran, Seattle

Special treatment for U.S. Treasury Secretary

So, the nominee for the position of U.S Treasury secretary has disclosed he failed to pay certain taxes from 2001 to 2004 ["Treasury pick explains errors on tax returns," Nation & World, Jan. 14]. The majority Senate Democrats brush this revelation aside as a "minor bump" in the process of confirming Timothy Geithner to a position in the Obama Cabinet.

All non-politicians, which I suppose are the great majority of us, know that if we fail to pay lawful, required taxes, the matter would simply not be dismissed as a slight oversight or inconvenience.

-- Thomas Frey, Kingston

No excuse for torture

I am still waiting for someone to address the fact that the torture of people like the 20th suspected hijacker in the 9/11 terrorist attacks has ruined the possibility for legitimate prosecution. Hundreds of possible, viable cases that could be tried in our courts are muddled and buried in the Bush administration's torture of suspects. It will take years to sort it out, if ever. Meanwhile, they are eligible for release under our rule of law.

I say, good going, Republican apologists and ostriches. The latest ruling on this came from a Republican judge who decides these matters for the political prisoners we are holding, illegally now it seems, and will have to release somewhere. Let's hope it is in the neighborhoods of vice president Dick Cheney and President Bush.

-- James Dunn, Marysville

Not a spectator sport

It is inconceivable to me that the representatives who promoted Republican ideology of lowering taxes, spending billions on pre-emptive wars and bailing out Wall Street and the banking system with no accountability, would still have the ability to get in the way of true economic recovery. These people are a joke, yet the majority in the U.S. House and Senate will allow them to railroad our recovery.

Nothing is going to "trickle down." It is a stupid argument couched in sophistry. Make no mistake, these people will use anything to promote their agendas. They will lie about the past and sell us snake oil. Their record can be seen all around us.

C'mon fellow citizens, it is time to speak up. Read your history, stop listening to the pundits (right and left), get a true understanding of what is happening now and do your duty as a citizen. Democracy is not a spectator sport. We need to make a stand.

The U.S. faces the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just how deep we go and how long the recession lasts depends upon how quickly we take steps to counter it. Contact your representatives. Speak up.

-- Mark Barabasz, Hansville

Buy time

As was announced in the past couple of days, Boeing is laying off 4,500 employees ["Boeing to cut 4,500 workers," page one, Jan. 10] and The Seattle P-I is up for sale ["Report: Stage set for P-I to close," page one, Jan. 9]. This is in addition to 2.6 million job losses in 2008, the most since 1945.

More than 300 leading economists agree with President-elect Obama that Congress needs to immediately pass a significant and broad-based economic-recovery package.

Already, conservatives who looted the Treasury for the past eight years are whining about the cost of saving this country's economy. Let them take their tax cuts and buy some time out.

Americans showed them the door Nov. 4, and unless we see a different approach to families in this country, it will be generations before that door is cracked open at the polls again.

-- Sandra Robbins, Seattle

Illogical spending

The media attempt to disguise the growing recession -- soon-to-be depression -- in euphemistic phrases that belie its deadly potential to abort the great American experiment. The underlying cause of the crisis can be expressed in two words: easy credit.

Universal, easy credit was the culprit that precipitated the disaster. When President-elect Obama declares, "We will spend our way out of this," I nearly die laughing. We will spend our way out of this? That has to be the oxymoron of the century. How does one spend one's way out of debt? Logic says the more a debtor spends, the more deeply he finds himself in hock.

The Marxists have struggled long and hard to bankrupt the American economy as the final step toward overthrowing the United States republic. Now that the conspirators' dream has finally come to fruition, the gullible suckers who fell for the robber barons' scam are living in denial.

However, it is only a matter of time until John and Jane Doe wake up and discover themselves in a two-class society of stinking-rich masters and their dirt-poor slaves. Consult Forbes' list of billionaires, and you will know the names of everyone whom you can thank for your loss of freedom and treasure.

The middle class is dead. It is all over -- except for the funeral and burial.

-- Warren Wilson, Kirkland

Guide for the flocks

I am writing in response to the article co-written by Terrence Carroll and Sam Sperry ["Churches and politics: conscience or dogma?" guest column, Jan. 8]. When I see or hear comments such as this by so-called "born and raised Catholics," I feel compelled to attempt to set the record straight.

The single most important issue for Roman Catholics in this recent election cycle is abortion. All other issues are secondary, make no mistake about it.

When we are talking about our government legalizing and supporting the monthly slaughter of more than 4,000 human beings in the womb, or worse, during birth, one either agrees with this pro-abortion, secularist position, or one adamantly disagrees with it. There is no in-between for a true-practicing Roman Catholic.

Abortion is a hideous evil and the church is charged with teaching this truth to believers.

Carroll and Sperry may have been "born and raised" Catholics, but they obviously were never educated as Roman Catholics. When they state there should be dialogue and not threats, they most likely mean that some way, some how the bishops were to acquiesce and agree with them. They called it "nothing more than raw attempts at bullying."

Since high-profile, so-called Catholics such as congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and many others refuse to abandon their position on abortion, and the Democratic Party is solidly pro-abortion, bishops had no choice but to be very clear and passionate about what is at stake. The bishops are charged with the moral guidance of their "flocks."

Moreover, through Apostolic Procession (Holy Orders) they have the authority to provide the only valid Eucharist for practicing Roman Catholics, and can set rules regarding the moral consequences of a grievous sin, such as abortion. There is no equivocation regarding abortion; it is a grievous sin and simply cannot be compromised.

To vote for people who are clearly pro-abortion, and to think there are no moral consequences, is simply the rationale of our culture. It has nothing to do with moral certitude.

Roman Catholicism is not a social experiment and the moral values taught by the church are not feel-good platitudes. They are sometimes difficult to accept, but they are nonetheless a requirement.

If the "secular" Catholics, as noted above, have the courage of their convictions, they should leave the church, rather than take the juvenile position of demanding that the church change to suit their wishes. I would rather they have a change of heart and stay. However, to continue to defy church teachings sends a seriously false message to the population: Never mind church authorities, just make your own rules. What do they know anyway?

-- Mike Spengler, Seattle

Religion divides, politics unite

Terry Carroll and Sam Sperry discuss the relationship of religion and politics, but fail to mention their fundamental incompatibility.

Religion is one of the most divisive forces in our society. Martin Luther King Jr. told us that America is never more segregated than at 11 a.m. on Sunday. That is, of course, the standard meeting time for most churches in America.

Each congregation believes that its one true faith binds the members together as a community. And it teaches on Sunday morning that all other religions are defective in some fashion and its members misguided. The social purpose of religions is to bind the community together as a unit and, at the same time, separate it from all other communities.

Politics in America, at least in the Democratic Party, does exactly the opposite. It brings together people from any and all communities to pursue common goals. Matters of religious doctrine are never part of our political discussions because doctrinal differences would divide, rather than unite, us.

Thus, within the Democratic Party one can find members of every denomination from every religion. The party is composed of people from every economic category, every level of education, every ethnicity and so on through our highly diverse society. Religions thrive by openly talking about their differences with others; within the Democratic Party we minimize our differences to avoid excluding anyone who considers himself or herself a Democrat.

The Democratic Party has long believed in a complete separation of church and state not because of some distaste for religious belief, but because it believes that politics based on religious belief cannot avoid discrimination, leading ultimately to disenfranchisement.

Better, we think, to leave all religion out of politics and keep all people in.

-- Jeff Smith, Bellevue

Not a popularity contest

The comments of these two "Catholic" gentlemen do not surprise me, considering their backgrounds.

They are products of the Vatican II generation and, more than likely, admirers of Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen. Their railing against the authority of Rome certainly brands them as staunch supporters of "Amchurch."

They seem to believe that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is not the only source of truth, but that truth can also be arrived at through consideration of a variety of opinions and dialogue. It is also clear they believe the laity should be involved in this process. They want a democratic process where the bishops bow to the will of the majority.

Well, the Catholic Church is not a democracy and truth is not negotiable. If one is a Catholic, one accepts the teachings of the church. If one cannot do that, then it is time to look for another religion. Don't expect Rome to stop teaching the truth just to be popular with the world.

-- John Leventis, Newcastle

"Elect" not necessary

It is clear that President-elect Obama is now, in fact, the president. The current White House occupant has virtually disappeared in the face of the overwhelming economic recession/depression largely created by his own irresponsible deregulation and (aided, of course, by Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan's previous deregulation policies). The plan appears to have only Obama show his face during the rapidly deteriorating economic crisis, while Bush and Cheney retreat silently and scot-free.

Obama may have to kill a few sacred cows along the way, including the Ponzi-like Social Security and Medicare schemes, which are clearly unsustainable as currently administered. Beyond that, there must be major re-regulation, wherein the regulators must be kept distant from those whom they regulate.

Today's (and yesterday's) regulatory environment allowed them to regularly sit down together, become good friends, and funnel regulators into high-paying jobs in the financial fields they once allegedly regulated. This palsy-walsy situation must be ended abruptly, starting with a complete removal of the regulatory agencies' top echelon. There's also the need to alter the American mindset now, to give people some hope once again.

Then, of course, there are other major problems awaiting the new president: global warming (which was ignored and, therefore, exacerbated by the Bush administration), Iraq (wholly created by the Bush administration), Israeli/Arab hatreds and wars (probably unsolvable by any mortal), Korea (bungled by Bush), Russia (completely bungled by Bush), environmental degradation (greatly expanded by Bush), and many others.

To Obama, I say: Good luck. You'll need it, especially after Bush.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Smart investments

Investing massive amounts of money on renewable-energy development, modernizing the energy grid, transportation infrastructure and education are all great ideas that will not only jump-start the economy by putting people to work, they are smart investments that will pay dividends for years.

Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal projects, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration, created real, long-term wealth that we are still enjoying 70 years later, these are the sorts of mega-capital-intensive projects that government can enact best.

However, a repeat of personal- tax-rebate checks is a gross waste of federal resources. It gave us a one month "growth" blip last spring and cost the federal treasury $150 billion. Our grandchildren shouldn't have to pay for this wasteful bloating of the national debt.

Let's invest our precious economic resources -- not fritter them away.

-- Jonathan Ryweck, Port Townsend

The role of revelation

Terrence Carroll and Sam Sperry ["Churches and politics: conscience or dogma?" guest column, Jan. 8] are respected individuals in the field of U.S. law and journalism. They are faithful sons of the Catholic Church, but also show themselves to be children of the Enlightenment era.

René Descartes ushered in our postmodern age. His axiom, "I think, therefore I am," attempted to dismiss external authority and objective truth. Carroll and Sperry seem to imply that moral principles should be determined by majority vote.

Christianity, however, is a religion based on revelation. In the Catholic faith, revelation is transmitted through scripture and tradition.

Bishops form the magisterium or teaching authority in the church. Reception of teaching by the laity does play an important role, but the teaching is not determined by majority vote of the laity in any given area, whether it be Washington state, the United States or any other world nation.

I agree with Carroll and Sperry that a few in the episcopacy have not been the best of teachers, resorting to the threat of excommunication and denial of the sacraments. On the other hand, some of the faithful have transformed Descartes' axiom into "I think, therefore I am right." They seem closed to any view but their own, even though they may have no background in studying the scriptures or moral theology.

I regret Carroll and Sperry feel that the laity does not have any meaningful role in the church. If they reviewed the documents of the Second Vatican Council, they would discover that the role of the laity is to transform the world.

Yes, the laity has a minor role in the formation of church teaching. But, they have a major role in bringing the joy, justice and peace of God's kingdom to every aspect of life and, yes, to transform the world.

-- William McKee, Federal Way

Proud to be Catholic, proud to support life

As a Catholic, I see the church take strong moral stances on social issues. As a Catholic, I know that our bishops will avoid moral relativism. And as a Catholic, I am disappointed to see Terrence Carroll and Sam Sperry call for church leaders to dialogue with the laity about watering down the Catholic stance on abortion, assisted suicide and human-life issues.

Dialogue is not the problem. The Catholic Church has spent the past few decades in dialogue. This election season produced a great deal of dialogue. Theologian George Weigel and a group of well-respected Catholic professors published an intense dialogue in Newsweek this fall over whether a vote for President-elect Obama could be considered "pro-life."

These issues are not new, but Americans have warmed up to them with the advent of embryonic stem-cell research and scientific advances. As a consequence, people wrongly accuse the Catholic Church of being stubborn and naive. Get with the times, Catholics critics proclaim.

As a Catholic, I am proud that the church stood against I-1000. Such extreme adherence to our long-held social beliefs can be lonely, but Catholics must be open to life from natural beginning to natural death. God's own incarnate flesh began in the womb and ended in obedience to the point of death. That is God's statement of support for life.

Abortion, assisted suicide, the death penalty and stem-cell research have been evaluated exhaustively. Look it up. I'm sure you can find a coherent Catholic stance.

As a Catholic, I cannot justify denying life in any circumstance, based on the church's well-documented and grounded teachings. As a Catholic, I am proud that my church does not compromise on issues of life. As Catholics, Carroll and Sperry should be, too.

-- Daniel Miller, Mill Creek

Submission is all or nothing

Terrence Carroll and Sam Sperry contended that Catholic bishops wrongly refuse to follow the lead of their parishioners regarding gay marriage and abortion. I am not a Catholic, not even close, but I don't think someone would have to oppose abortion or gay marriage to see how weak their reasoning is.

If you belong to a church, you agree with its dogma. Dogma is a matter of faith, not opinion. A person is not born a Catholic, like being born Irish or African. Being a Catholic requires emotional and intellectual assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church. People who don't agree with the Catholic Church regarding its most fundamental teachings, may disagree out of good conscience. But, they are not Catholic. This is not pejorative. It is simply true.

Carroll and Sperry wrote: "We understand the church has been administered like a monarchy for centuries. But, if the American bishops expect their fellow Catholics to accept their leadership on matters of public policy, then they must respect those among the faithful who, in good conscience, have formed their own views."

It is true that the church has been administered like a monarchy. That is because it is a monarchy. Catholics believe that the monarchy is ruled by the monarch: Christ the King.

The king, in his absence, has left vicars to administer the kingdom. They are the pope, cardinals, bishops and priests. Since they are the vicars, standing in place of the king, they are not free to change the laws of the kingdom just because the majority has changed its mind.

Vatican II states: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. They are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith."

Vatican II also says, "The pope's definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit."

To say you are a Catholic, but don't believe the mandates of the pope or bishops, is kind of like saying you are an atheist, but you believe in God. It makes no sense. They flunk the debate.

The columnists wrote protesting the authority of the Catholic Church. They join a long and venerable line. But, they should at least have the courage and honesty to call themselves by the name most other protesters use: Protestants.

-- Mark McLemore, Mill Creek

It's up to you

David Sirota's column ["New Deal gets a raw deal when conservatives rap FDR," syndicated columnist, Jan. 5] noted that conservatives incorrectly believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt's massive government spending, intended to end the Depression, actually lengthened it.

Sirota also noted that economist Paul Krugman believes FDR's attempt to balance the budget from 1937-38 further impacted the economy. It did a lot more than that. It is true that the '37-'38 recession was caused by an attempt to balance the budget, but what is left out of the column is, while FDR cut spending, he raised taxes.

Conservatives assert that, between 1934 and 1940, unemployment averaged 17.2 percent with the lowest unemployment in the 1930s being 14 percent. Liberals, noting that the unemployment figures used by conservatives do not count people working in government-relief programs, measure the unemployment rates as low as 9 percent and as high as 16 percent. Should these people be counted? You decide.

Unemployment declined when America began selling war materials to nations engaged in war, and went away completely when America joined WWII. Hopefully, President-elect Obama's team will keep the lessons of history in mind when they develop policies to resolve the current economic crisis.

-- Bill Armstrong, Port Orchard

The deep pocket-less

How ironic that the chance to witness history up close should come down to money. In "Big donations: That's the ticket" [local news, Jan. 8], the implicit argument is that if you're wealthy enough, you, too, can purchase a ticket to the inauguration of Barack Obama through a $50,000 donation. Yet again, the myth of equal opportunity is shattered.

I do not resent the individuals whose wealth affords them this opportunity, nor do I resent President-elect Obama because I know that his team must raise private money to make the inauguration possible. But, have we forgotten about the ordinary Americans -- those without $50,000 to spare -- who helped elect Obama?

I was an organizer for the Obama campaign in Boston. I worked 20 hours a week, without pay, while simultaneously attending graduate school and working part-time. In the week before Election Day, I campaigned 16 hours a day. Many others volunteered even more time. We made sacrifices because we believed -- and still believe -- in Obama's vision of change.

I am traveling to Washington, D.C., for the inauguration because I want to be part of this historic event. But, I will consider myself lucky to stand outside and watch Obama on a JumboTron with the huddled masses.

-- Jessie Babcock, Renton

Cause and effect

Yes, there are important things that need to be fixed. But I hope they don't eliminate the need to hold lawbreakers accountable.

When former President Richard Nixon illegally tried to cover up the Watergate break-in, he wasn't held accountable.

This set the stage for former President Ronald Reagan, who traded weapons for the release of U.S. hostages. He wasn't held accountable, which in turn set the stage for President George W. Bush to knowingly violate the law by wiretapping citizens without first getting a warrant.

If Bush isn't held accountable, will that set the stage for someone in the future?

-- Don Franks, Burien

Overlook nothing

In 2006, Gov. Christine Gregoire requested $50 million from taxpayers to pay for incarcerated illegal aliens in Washington state's federal prison system ["Gregoire favors deportations as way to cut state's jail costs," Politics, Dec. 31].

What is Gregoire doing to secure our border with Canada? We know at least two Islamic Terrorists were caught. What about the ones that succeeded in breaching our border? What about the huge drain on our social services including Social Security?

Washington state is approaching 8 percent unemployment. What about the jobs illegal aliens are taking from U.S. citizens in Washington state? All businesses should be required to use the E-Verify system on hiring new employees, to make sure they are U.S. citizens.

-- Chuck Miller, Camas

Fix ourselves before we let others in

As an immigrant who used to prepare immigration applications, I wish to commend Gov. Christine Gregoire for advocating the deportation of jailed illegal aliens, to save our scarce fiscal resources.

The U.S. is borrowing from China and other countries to finance our current needs. Presently, more than 10 million Americans, including legal immigrants of diverse backgrounds, are unemployed.

Furthermore, 47 million people in this country are without health insurance, with immigrants and their U.S.-born children under 18 accounting for more than 70 percent of the growth of the uninsured population in the U.S.

Our schools and other infrastructure are also overburdened. Adding 3 million people a year to the U.S., mostly due to immigrants and their U.S.-born children will only exacerbate problems this nation is trying to solve.

Although some immigrants are great assets to the U.S., Gregoire should also advocate some sort of immigration moratorium so that we have a chance to affectively address many problems affecting all legal residents.

-- Yeh Ling-Ling, Oakland, Calif.

Let them make their case

Just this past October, when endorsing Dino Rossi for governor, The Times questioned whether Gov. Christine Gregoire would "lean against the public-employee unions" supporting her.

By proposing a balanced budget that lives within the state's constricted means, Gregoire responsibly kept her campaign promises -- and did exactly what The Times had accused her of being incapable of. ["State union wrong to sue over raises," editorial, Dec. 29].

Now, The Times editorially condemns a union for wanting Gregoire to simply forward negotiated, ratified collective-bargaining agreements to the Legislature for consideration. What an editorial difference two months makes.

Portentously, The Times lectures, "It is implied as a matter of good faith that employees are paid well when times are good and have to sacrifice when times are tough."

This implication has not been the reality for state employees. Assuming they're denied cost-of-living increases for the next two years, they'll have gone without them for six out of 10 years.

No one, including unions, fails to recognize our national economic plight. Yet state employees deserve the opportunity -- alongside everyone else, to make their case before the 2009 Legislature.

-- Brendan Williams, Olympia

If you say so

As the RNC [Republican National Committee] and Rush Limbaugh point out, we Americans know political satire when we see or hear it ["Obama parody stirs up GOP rivals," Politics, Dec. 27]. They have a song about President-elect Barack Obama that is purely satire, I am told.

I know that the RNC and Limbaugh will see that my song is also purely satire. The title is, "Bush, the Moronic Honkie" -- sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon; sorry I am not original.

-- Leo Shillong, Bellingham

Going once,
going twice

Isn't Gov. Rod Blagojevich rather a tragic hero for doing so transparently what every other politician in America does under veils of hypocrisy: selling their public office to the highest bidder?

-- Alfred LaMotte, Steilacoom

Let her run

As a conservative, my opinions have always been right of center, until now. I don't understand the uproar from Fox News to The Seattle Times condemning the potential candidacy of Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate ["A Kennedy Sans Resume," editorial, Dec. 18]. She has the bloodline without the scandals and DUI's in her wake. She has the look and the name with perhaps her mother's class -- a good combination.

What did Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have going for her that qualified her for the Senate? How about our own Sen. Patty Murray, who campaigned as a, "Mom in tennis shoes." Murray was a former schoolteacher -- not necessarily the stuff good senators are made of, as has been proven by her performance.

One would think that Kennedy was trying to run for president the way she's being pilloried. If she stands on precedent she will have to wait until she's been in office at least 143 days. In the meantime, I say let her run, and good luck to her.

-- Denny Andrews, Bellevue

A response from the Freedom From Religion Foundation: You don't own it

The response from Christians to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's winter solstice sign in Olympia has been over-the-top negative and intolerant ["Atheists put up sign in Capitol building," News, Dec. 1].

In addition to recognizing the winter solstice, our sign says, "There are no gods, no devils, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Although a small minority of educated believers, while disagreeing with our message, does support our freedom to express our views, the overwhelming majority considers our message to be an inappropriate affront to their celebration of the holidays and want to see it removed.

Based on the e-mails and phone calls I receive from nonbelievers, the support for our sign is about 95 percent positive. Many FFRF members have asked for a replica of the sign that they can frame or display in their own yards. The Foundation has been signing up hundreds of new members as a result of this one controversy alone.

A small minority of atheists and agnostics think the wording on our sign should be changed; some think it is too strong, while others think it is not strong enough.

The sign was written by FFRF founder and president emerita Anne Gaylor, which offers a nice balance of celebration and criticism. Any one of the 13,000 members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation might have come up with different wording, but Anne's lovely version has stood the test of time. For the 13th year in a row, those exact thoughts have appeared in the Wisconsin Capitol building, and although there was some early theft and vandalism, it has stood virtually unmolested for most of that time. We have heard that it has become a tourist attraction.

Our sign is an "equal time" protest. It would not be there if there were not religious signs and symbols in those buildings in the first place. If believers are going to use state property to promote their views, then we insist on a place at the table. We are not destroying their symbols or interfering with their private freedom to worship or express their views.

We are reminding the country that there are millions of good Americans who do not believe in a god or celebrate Christmas. Christians do not own the month of December. This season of the year is a natural occurrence -- the winter solstice being the shortest day of sunlight in the Northern hemisphere.

Long before Christianity, humans have celebrated this time of year with festivals of light, feasts, evergreens, songs and family gatherings. Christians don't own the franchise; we are happy to share it with them.

Some people think our sign is an insult, and that we should avoid hurting feelings this time of the year. But if our measured criticism of religion is inappropriate, than certainly the Nativity scene, which suggests that we are so evil that we need a savior in order to avoid the tortures of hell, is a much deeper insult to human nature.

If they insist on attacking us, we will defend ourselves. If they will remove their creches and religious messages from state property, we will be happy to remove our sign.

Ultimately, what we all want is a world with less violence and more understanding. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking advantage of our wonderful American freedoms to educate the public about how we can achieve that, by resisting religious divisiveness and advising, "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail."

-- Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president, Shelton

ALI AL-SAADI/AFP / Getty Images

An Iraqi woman walks past the closed offices of the Sadr movement, loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, in the impoverished eastern Sadr City district of Baghdad on Nov. 29. Al-Sadr declared three days of mourning across Iraq in the wake of the Iraqi Parliament's approval of a security pact with the United States. I

Get out, already

Editor, The Times:

Notice how the right wing is busy setting President-elect Barack Obama up to be the fall guy for any future meltdown in Iraq? Take Charles Krauthammer's "A pro-American Iraq is within our reach" [syndicated column, Dec. 7]. In this neocon fantasy, Iraq is transitioning to a flourishing, pro-American democracy that will stand as a beacon of freedom in the cesspool of the Middle-East thanks to President George W. Bush and the "surge."

It's a veritable New Year's gift to the incoming president. It's a no-win for Obama.

If Iraq survives as something approximating a democracy after the U.S. withdrawal, Obama will receive little credit for firmly pushing a timetable and then managing the drawdown. If Obama has been handed a poisoned chalice and Iraq eventually falls apart when we leave, the right will lose no time in blaming Obama for a hasty or ill-managed withdrawal.

Let's not be fooled. Invading Iraq was a bad idea on multiple levels and leaving is a good idea, no matter what happens. It's up to Iraqis to decide their own future.

-- Norman Barnes, Seattle

Enough is enough

That the richest, most powerful nation on Earth can intervene pointlessly in Iraq and seemingly stand by powerlessly as the blatant, irrefutable, undeniable abuses of human and civil rights take place in Zimbabwe and Sudan is an abomination.

We thump our chests over patriotism, human rights and democracy. But we stand by and hope that others will be able to act effectively to end this evident blight on humanity.

We cannot and should not be the world's policeman.

Neither, as a matter of conscience and principle, should we profess to care about basic human and civil rights and allow such atrocities without being a proactive, persistent, insistent and vocal voice of opposition and an intrusive and interventive force of prevention and intercession.

We are forever at the beck and call in the fight for the availability of oil and conspicuously absent, silent and of token protest in the fight for human rights and dignity. How much money is enough? How much oil is enough? Is there not enough oil or money to be had in Africa -- the "mother" land?

Would we stand so idly by, were the circumstances of Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere around the world self-evident and incontrovertible here on our doorstep instead of halfway around the world -- a news segment for which we can conveniently change the channel because there are no American lives at risk.

And nearly no one demands to know either why or why not. Those who do have only the tin ear of our current president and his minions who mumble pointlessly about his legacy.

-- Mike Moore, Kent

Better find a new target

What will the Bushwhackers do for fun after President George W. Bush leaves office?

-- Wilbur Mann, Kirkland

The only way
is to go clean

Editor, The Times:

Last week's Times headlines paint a bleak picture. Monday, the recession became official ["It's official: U.S. has been in a recession all year," Times, Business, Dec. 1]; Tuesday, Gov. Christine Gregoire told the president-elect that Washington needed $600 million to kick-start its economy ["Gregoire says state needs $600 million economic stimulus," News, Dec. 2]; Wednesday, Seattle realtors reported tumbling house prices in King County ["Real-estate rebound? We haven't hit bottom," page one, Dec. 3].

Across the state and the country, people are hurting.

Meanwhile, Congress has spent billions in a bank bailout and may yet spend billions more to shore up failing auto companies. It's time for our governments to start bailing out ordinary citizens. But to do this, we need to take bold action and move beyond business as usual.

We need a new solution.

President-elect Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and won on the promise of creating new jobs in a clean-energy economy. Washington state already has the skilled work force and intellectual capital to reap the benefits of this new economy; some big players in the solar-panel industry are headquartered here, and our state boasts entrepreneurs in clean-energy fields like battery technology and geothermal power.

To save our state's ailing economy, we need to create family-wage jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Clean energy is the best way out of our economic troubles, and it must be the cornerstone of any economic-stimulus package.

-- Kristin Anderson, Seattle

It's not a guarantee

I believe your front-page headline "America provides refuge, but not always prosperity" helps perpetuate the misguided belief that success is an entitlement of everyone who lives in America.

Of course it is wonderful that we provide refuge from oppression, but since when did America begin guaranteeing prosperity to everyone? Throughout our history, our nation's people have believed that prosperity is mainly derived from hard work. What an old-fashioned, out-of-date notion.

-- John Coffee, Bellingham

Welcome to opportunity

I was infuriated by the comments of Leon Donahue (Washingtonians for Immigration Reform) in "America provides refuge, not always prosperity." Donahue's argument that "We don't have jobs for our own people . . . Under these conditions, I can't imagine [refugees will] be any better off here" is myopic and ignorant.

I am disappointed The Times didn't quote the latter part of this statement in large type. This comment showcases the baseless, resentful and fearful essence of Donahue's organization's platform, and their Web site confirms it.

I was a Fulbright Scholar in Thailand from 2006 to 2007. I traveled throughout Southeast Asia and volunteered with a Cambodian organization that helps refugees, and I want to know: When was the last time Donahue tried surviving in a refugee camp with insecure food supplies and no sanitation, clean water, medical care, education or other social services?

As a woman, he would also face the constant risk of rape. Refugees come seeking refuge: By definition, they are fleeing from something. How dare Donahue assume that refugees are no better off here? America's global image is damaged enough; other countries offer asylum, and we need to as well.

For refugees, we can share.

-- Sarah Sieloff, Snohomish

We offer freedom
not prosperity

We are confusing prosperity with opportunity. The needy family featured in Tuesday's cover story pulled at my heartstrings because we are an empathetic people. What I know is that the harder I work the luckier I get.

My income is down from last year, not because I didn't work hard, but because the industry I work in is down. It is misleading to imply that arriving on the shores of this great nation ensures prosperity.

What we offer better than any nation is freedom. With freedom comes the opportunity for prosperity.

-- Pam Schmoll, Woodinville

Think before you speak

In "America provides refuge, but not always prosperity," Leon Donahue of an anti-immigrant group remarks that due to the poor economic conditions here, refugees are no better off in America than the refugee camps from which many arrived.

This may be a case where some direct personal experience could be enlightening.

I'd suggest a week each for Donahue in refugee camps in Nepal, Thailand and Darfur. I suspect that upon his return, his anti-immigrant organization would be looking for a new, less-informed staffer.

-- Mike Kelly, Bainbridge Island

We get what we vote for

What an excellent series. Too bad the American public doesn't care ["Earmark helps businesses, not troops," Nation & World, Dec. 7; "Iraq earmarks $3 billion for Baghdad subway," Nov. 17; "Despite reforms, Congress hides $3.5B in defense earmarks," Oct. 12].

If you want to understand the roots of the present financial, economic and moral breakdown, look no further than our "leaders." They are in it for themselves -- the citizenry be damned. Give earmarks in exchange for campaign support.

No wonder average Americans think it's OK to lie on mortgage applications, students to cheat on tests and so on.

Sens. Charles Schumer and Arlen Specter, not to mention the congressmen from Washington, D.C., whose hands are also all over the earmark piggy bank, get elected, re-elected and re-re-elected.

Well America, we get what we vote for and we've got it: the decline of our country.

-- Theodore Wight, Seattle

How sad

Are we becoming the "Armpit of America?"

Our politicians seem to be doing everything they can to give us that distinction. I received a call from a friend in Ohio saying, what is going on in your state?

First, it was the inflammatory poster from the Wisconsin-based, anti-religion group in our Capitol building. Next it was the horrible Christmas ornament that was commissioned for the White House Christmas tree.

The poster in the Capitol building did not express the sponsor's beliefs but instead took a swipe at religious believers by saying "Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds."

I don't mind hearing beliefs that are different from mine but I am offended when I am told that I have a "hardened heart" and an "enslaved mind."

The Christmas-tree ornament could have been a reflection of the beauty of our state and the spirit of Christmas. Instead it was an inflammatory "impeach Bush" statement that had nothing to do with Christmas. Since it was known that first lady Laura Bush would be hanging the ornaments, it was a very insensitive thing to do.

How sad that we paint that tainted picture or our beautiful state.

-- Byron Reynolds, Bellevue

I'll show you poor taste

I found "In really poor taste," most interesting [editorial, Dec. 4].

Isn't art wonderful?

Each person sees something different in any particular work of art. But this isn't really about art; it's all about taste and particularly what The Times calls "poor taste" regarding Deborah Lawrence's Christmas ornament.

I wonder what else besides Lawrence's ornament might qualify as "in poor taste?" What about snatching people off the street and popping sacks over their heads, torture, pre-emptive wars, illegally monitoring Aunt Mabel's telephone conversations (not to mention her Web surfing), refusing to sign conventions on cluster bombs (and countless others), pulling out of the antiballistic missile treaty, gutting regulations protecting consumers, workers and our environment?

All that leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouths of many patriots who wonder what happened to our current leaders' moral compass. Is this the America our Founding Fathers had in mind?

How we long for an America with good taste.

The clock is ticking for the Grinch. Perhaps with the help and prodding of the people, our new leadership will bring good taste back to America.

-- Leonard Eiger, North Bend

A few cards shy

How ironic. The same mayor who sold out the city of Seattle and the Supersonics now wants tax dollars to renovate KeyArena to attract an NBA team. Let me provide the mayor with a full deck of cards.

-- Bill Kyle, Seattle

Commendations are due

I wanted to commend you for your editorial titled "Truce in the war on Christmas" [Dec. 4].

I am a longtime subscriber and often disagree with your generally conservative opinions, but I like other features in your newspaper.

I was pleasantly surprised to read of a call for tolerance regarding the differing religious views that exist in our community.

-- Regina Spoor, Bainbridge Island

David Zalubowski / The Associated Press

Unsold 2009 Ranger pickup trucks sit at a Ford dealership in Frederick, Dacono, Colo.

The answer is:
taxpayers

Editor, The Times:

Congress lends $15 billion to the auto industry, which must repay the loans plus interest. This is to "protect taxpayers."

But who will repay that $15 billion plus interest? Car buyers. And who are the car buyers? Taxpayers.

Money paid to the government reduces net income, new product investment, salaries and the price of auto stock. And who are the workers and stockholders? Taxpayers.

Because politicians have little business sense, they think companies are like the government, which creates dollars from thin air.

Companies must pay from margins.

Taxpayers won't pay for the loan. No extra taxes are levied. In fact, taxes will be cut. But taxpayers will pay for the higher price of cars and the lower profits when the auto companies are forced to repay the government.

What should the government do to protect taxpayers? Give the money to the auto companies, and don't ask for interest.

-- Rodger Mitchell, Wilmette, Ill.

Stop being cheap

For 20 years, American consumers told the auto industry they wanted gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs -- the bigger the better ["GM to lay off 2,000 more workers at 3 factories," Business, Dec. 5].

Recently Former Vice President Al Gore started to cry that the sky is falling and the oil industry raised the price of its product to $140 a barrel. Driving a Hummer or Escalade now is an economical and environmentally unforgivable sin.

Walk out to the middle of any freeway overpass and witness the river of Hyundais and Kias.

Americans now want little cars but are too cheap to pay the extra few grand it costs for American-built vehicles. The U.S. auto industry is failing because we choose to let it.

We cry about the economy but refuse to buy American products. It is up to each and every one of us to make an effort to put down the cheap imported knock-off and invest our money in products made by our own country.

-- Gene Davis, Lake Forest Park

No more media gotchas

So the Big Three auto executives are reduced to driving from Detroit, Mich., to Washington, D.C. What a frivolous and wasteful pander to a showboating Congress, pathetic media pundits and a clueless public.

If auto executives can't say no to stupid media gotchas, how are they going to say no to thousands of redundant white-collar and union workers?

If Congress won't acknowledge their terrible transportation-policy mistakes over the past few decades, how can we have confidence in anything it does?

Congress has thrown almost $2 trillion at financial paper shufflers without interviewing a single banker.

Why grill auto executives for a much smaller amount and not the bankers?

And if the various media outlets won't investigate serious questions, how can the public be expected to know anything?

The Big Three could have added a private car to the Amtrak Capital Limited. With a relaxed overnight and conference time in the morning, they could then walk to the nearby hearings.

Now that would be a transportation alternative.

-- Wilson Geegh, Bellevue

You don't even know

Recently, Sens. Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barney Frank and others seem to be taking delight in ripping the CEOs from GM, Ford and Chrysler for incompetence, mismanagement and high salaries.

The CEOs have made mistakes, but no more than the politicians who govern our country. These same politicians have wasted hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars with lard in legislative bills.

But they don't have the responsibilities of the CEOs.

These CEOs try to keep hundreds of thousands of workers employed, bring innovative products to market and also try to sell American products abroad to bring revenue into the U.S. Their total responsibilities are huge.

Dodd should heed his own words to move on, as he has suggested for the CEOs. And as for Schumer's remarks that he doesn't trust the CEOs, I can say I don't trust him, let alone 99 percent of politicians.

I have yet to hear a word from the politicians about the high salaries of pro sports athletes or entertainers, who make millions and don't contribute at all. Nor do they bring innovative products to the market.

If the politicians want to let the auto companies sink, let them declare bankruptcy and let's see what happens. I don't think any of the politicians could even hold a supervisory position with the auto companies.

-- Karl Wahl, Bellevue

Who's going
to watch over Congress?

Just as Congress wants oversight of the Big Three automakers, it seems time for American taxpayers to have more direct oversight of Congress for similar reasons. This thought comes after reading yet another story about "earmarks," which help specific states and companies at the expense of the country ["Earmark helps businesses, not troops," Nation & World, Dec. 7].

Some results of lobbying of members of Congress by special interests has been lack of oversight with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, "earmarks" that benefit specific companies/states, and/or personal or party benefits (campaign funding, etc.).

It's time for some changes.

Here are some suggestions for members of Congress: Serve terms no longer than a president; receive a livable wage with any raise tied to the fiscal well-being of the country; receive the same health-care choices as the working class; receive reduced retirement pay, as the working class does; and be a part of the Social Security system.

The option to continue "as is" seems unreasonable. Nothing will change unless you contact your elected folks in "the other Washington" and let them know you are dissatisfied with the status quo.

-- Jim Davison, Waitsburg

Paul Sakuma / The Associated Press

Gas prices have dipped to their lowest point in nearly three years.

Adapt to the times

Editor, The Times:

How sad it is that humans seem destined to run in circles, forever tripping over the mistakes of the past ["SUVs: They're baaack," Motoring, Dec. 5].

Are the $4-per-gallon gas prices of just a few months ago merely a distant memory? Fossil fuels are finite resources; today's prices are artificially low considering the costs (social, political and environmental) involved in procuring and using such resources.

Gas prices will spike again as the depletion of petroleum deposits continues. The state of the U.S. auto market, with its thousands of unsold SUVs, provides a glaring example of the consequences of failing to adapt to the times.

America's oil addiction will be cured only through changing our entire paradigm concerning the use of fossil fuels and opening our minds to alternative sources of energy. "Bringing baaack" the SUV is a step in the wrong direction.

-- Sarah Washburn, Seattle

We make the economy go 'round

During this past election, rescuing Main Street became the cause celebre for both Republicans and Democrats, each candidate striven to prove to American voters that they best understood the pain of people living on Main Street.

In a recent speech, President-elect Barack Obama again used the Main Street metaphor to reference distressed mortgage holders. But there's a problem: The metaphor isn't actually accurate.

Main Street in America isn't lined with three-bedroom bungalows and two-car garages. Main Street is home to hardware stores and hair salons, bakeries and bistros, pharmacies, flower shops, yoga studios and a dwindling number of independent bookstores. The tenants of Main Street are small businesses -- one constituency being ignored in the rush to tackle the current economic crisis racking this country.

For 30 years I've owned small businesses -- general stores and garden centers in Seattle's inner-city neighborhoods. My partners and I opened stores in areas undergoing transitions where our presence provided the retail anchor needed to attract other small businesses. We brought new prosperity to our communities and our stores prospered, too. For most of the past three decades, except for the few months following Sept. 11, 2001, we've enjoyed positive sales growth.

But with the markets in turmoil, unemployment claims reaching a new high and consumer confidence a new low, we're watching sales shrink and profits dry up. Like the middle class, we're struggling, squeezed by the high cost of health insurance, property and business taxes, rent, utilities and freight. Sales and profitability, especially in the past few months, are not keeping pace with the rising costs of doing business.

Between our two stores and a landscape company, my partners and I employ 82 people. Our business will never be deemed too large to fail by the Treasury.

Yet, along with the 26.8 million other small businesses in America, we're the ones who created a net increase in jobs over the past five years, while big business axed jobs or sent them overseas.

When our new president and Congress take office in January, we need them to implement a stimulus package that takes us into consideration. We need a tax code that works for small businesses, not just large ones. We need affordable health care for our employees and ourselves. We need assurance that credit will be available to us when we need it, not when the banks feel secure in extending it. We need people in Washington, D.C., who care.

Small businesses are the backbone of America. We produce and sell goods, provide services, entertainment, lodging and information. We support local charities, volunteer time and money to keep our neighborhoods clean and safe, and serve on boards of community organizations.

It's small business owners, like us, who keep the lights of Main Street turned on, display windows filled with cheer, and create well-being in our neighborhoods. If our businesses suffer and fail, if lights are turned off and storefronts boarded up, Main Street in America will be a darker, sadder place.

-- Judith Gille, City People's Mercantile and City People's Garden Store, Seattle

Worship the Spaghetti Monster in your own home

A statue of Jesus, an anti-religious solstice sign and now there is a display for Festivus, a joke holiday, at the Capitol building ["Capitol holiday-display controversy turning into 'circus,' " Times, News, Dec. 6].

It's a joke all right.

Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Department of General Administration have learned a very valuable lesson about the separation of church and state, courtesy of the gutsy Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The state had the option of either keeping our government property free of religious displays or allowing every display under the sun. Our state government has now learned that it made the wrong choice.

I can only hope that other state and local governments around the country, having witnessed this embarrassment on national TV, will vicariously learn the same lesson.

Here is the moral of the story: If you want to look at a plastic baby Jesus, read about the winter solstice, dance around a Festivus Pole or raise a noodle to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can do so in the comfort of your home and/or your local house of worship.

You can celebrate your holiday as you wish, and no one has to look at nonsense in the state Capitol, which belongs to all of us.

A win-win for all, and for all a goodnight.

-- Matthew J. Barry, Issaquah

Where's the line?

I can't help but be amused at the indignant responses by the religious community at any hint of opposition to the concept that there might not be a god. They choose to push the boundary of separation of church and state and react with horror that someone might call them on it.

Since the atheistic community has no outward symbols of their beliefs except words and logic, any appropriate response must be in those terms. Be that as it may, pulling their chain is almost too easy, so I suppose we should be ashamed -- not.

-- Brian Hogan, Kent

Practice your faith

As a Christian, I understand the turmoil caused with the display by atheists at the state Capitol, but for those who have stated they are offended, ask yourself how offended an atheist might be by a religious display.

As Americans, the right to free speech is cherished, and at times like these we must fight harder to protect the right. I thank Gov. Christine Gregoire for having the courage to protect the right for everyone, not just those with whom we agree.

We can be offended but we must not censor. If one group of citizens has access to display their beliefs then all groups should have access to do the same.

Is the Christian response one of anger and harsh words or is it hatred? How can a display that you can choose not to read challenge your faith? Should we not respond with kindness, caring, understanding and compassion, or does the anger in our response only strengthen the message being rallied against?

Thank you, governor, for being a true protector of freedom.

-- Dan Hally, Clarkston

Doesn't help the matter

I am appalled that you associate the artist Deborah Lawrence, who "is known for her antiwar, anti-torture and feminist views," as someone who does not feel the Christmas spirit ["Seattle artist's White House ornament in poor taste," Editorial, Dec. 3].

Does this mean that if you are pro-war, pro-torture and against equal rights for women, that you do have the Christmas spirit? Oh, be it not so.

I also disagree with the criticism directed at 4Culture. This government organization is staffed with responsive and dedicated individuals who ably support the arts in King County and do so with the highest ethical standards.

If Lawrence's ornament was in poor taste, The Times commentary about it was even worse.

-- Molly Reed, Vashon

Don't discriminate

The Yule decoration offered by Deborah Lawrence to the President George W. Bush White House represented exactly how this 7th District voter feels.

By the way, where was your dudgeon when the Bush White House sent luncheon invitations featuring a Christmas tree to members of the Jewish community?

And furthermore: Three cheers for Justice Richard Sanders.

-- Gustav Hellthaler, Seattle

Donkey-backwards

It's rare I read or even expect good low-income-housing advice from The Times. Your Monday editorial supports my expectations ["A Hazardous Way To Price Housing," editorial, Dec. 8].

Your true premise is to let the market decide, which you decline to say. You call incentives a "tax." Incentives are a tax break. You bully readers with that well-known saw, "Tax a thing and you tend to get less of it." What is true is that the market is not building affordable low-income housing. Incentives, optional or mandatory, are one way to deliver to cities some amount of housing affordable to lower-income households.

Developers will say housing for those making 60 percent or less of Area Median Income (AMI) does not pencil out, though few ask to see those accounting numbers to confirm this claim.

We see too many, including a group led by former Seattle Mayor Charley Royer, pushing for incentives at 80 percent AMI (and above) and saying that lower-income segments "don't pencil out."

During the past dozen years, it seems to some observers that those building housing must make significant, beyond reasonable profit for consideration of any project. Times have changed. I'd be surprised if at least a few developers are not beginning to realize that having projects at all, especially those that provide truly affordable housing and a modest developer profit, exceeds the stranglehold in which developers have held cities for tax breaks, i.e. incentives, to do what the market already provides.

By extension, those most in need of this affordable housing continue to suffer. Among the missing pieces in your editorial is whether we make building affordable housing optional or mandatory. I'd guess you'd say that anything mandatory is a "tax." For people who live by the word, you have surely gotten it donkey-backwards.

-- Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Lynnwood

We live in a material world

Somehow, our legislators seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid that suggests that our educational problems are directly related to more money.

President-elect Barack Obama stated it quite clearly while in Seattle: "No amount of money can buy achievement."

There just might be enough money already in the educational pot to educate those children who "want" an education. Our problems have much more to do with the "concept" that we can "entice" children to want to learn instead of having parents and other adults make this a mandate. Schools cannot compete with Disney and the iPod.

As a former school-board member, I can tell you that there isn't any clambering by the population for "better education." Better football coaches for sure, but not better education.

This new program looks much more like an enhancement of the juvenile social halls that we call high schools than it does of better education.

The current five-period day funded by the state will allow a serious student to meet the entrance requirements of the most competitive colleges.

Students and taxpayers should expect that high schools "graduate" either a vocationally competent, or academically qualified student. Leave entertainment and "exercise of the physically fit" up to others.

-- Charles Hoff, Kent

Fail if they must

Dear senator/representative,

Do not bail out the auto companies.

Let them fail if they must.

Auto companies should look at Boeing as a model of reinvention and recovery over the years.

Hard times? Yes. Layoffs? Yes. Bailouts? No.

Build a product the customer wants to buy.

-- John Derrig, Bellevue

This is no nuclear winter

The President-elect Barack Obama administration has a golden opportunity to reverse decades of denial and hubris in the U.S. auto industry, which has led to "nuclear winter" for auto sales [" 'Nuclear winter' for car dealers," Nation & World, Dec. 2].

U.S. automakers have been ignoring all of the road signs since the OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] crisis of 1973 and now scramble to the taxpayers for a fat loan. What caught my eye was the comparison of this self-inflicted wounding of the auto industry to the apocalyptic blacking out of the sun in a nuclear war. Both events are or would be man-made.

The discord is in scale. Comparing a predictable meltdown in auto sales to the blacking out of the sun for weeks to months is something like comparing the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy to the Nazi Holocaust. We are talking about hugely different scales of human deceit and depravity.

Hopefully, the Obama administration will help the auto industry become competitive again with truly environmentally friendly vehicles based on renewable, nonfood fuel sources and help the American and worldwide public realize the dream of eliminating the weaponry that would cause nuclear winter.

-- David Hall, Seattle

Put the money to good use

Instead of giving direct subsidies to auto manufacturers and financial institutions that have already proven that they don't know how to run their businesses, the government should give down payments to purchasers of autos and make the interest on auto loans tax deductible. The amount of the down payment provided should be larger for the more-fuel-efficient vehicles. The government could help financial institutions by underwriting auto loans. This approach would address a number of issues:

The economy would get a boost because consumers would buy more automobiles; manufacturers who didn't build the right vehicles would deservedly be allowed to fail; more energy-efficient autos would reduce dependence of foreign oil and reduce global warming, and financial institutions would benefit from the increase in auto loans.

While it may be simplistic, with some refinements this approach makes a lot more sense than handing over billions to people who have failed for years to make their business models successful and who give us no reason to believe those billions will create success.

-- David Storm, Everett

Pool our efforts

While I hear Congress asking industry and banking executives to take salary cuts or return bonuses in return for government help, and President-elect Barack Obama asking taxpayers to accept service cuts or pay higher taxes, I ask myself: What is the government doing except spending money it doesn't have?

Haven't our legislators and government executives contributed to the economic mess we are in? It seems to me that the least any of them could do would be to take a salary cut say of 10 percent, abstain from giving themselves raises and limit the salaries of political appointees in these times until the economy gets better.

I'm no economist, but it seems that such a move would free up at least hundreds of millions of dollars for needed expenses as well as send a signal to the rest of the world that this country is not composed entirely of "what's-in-it-for-me" greedy and power-hungry individuals.

I'm not smart enough to make this happen, but perhaps if all of us write our legislators, contact our newspapers and use the Internet, our government will realize that each of us must sacrifice to get through this recession.

-- Tom Hamilton, Shoreline

We're on a road to nowhere

This story puts a new spin on the economic-meltdown reporting ["Feds retreated from reining in lenders," Business & Technology, Dec. 2]. At first we were told the regulators were at fault for not doing their job to stop reckless lending practices. Now we learn regulators wanted the Bush administration and Congress to crack down on said lending practices, but failed to do so when they caved under the banking lobby.

This is another example of how broken our government is. Once again, business interest trumps citizen interest or even common sense.

President-elect Barack Obama has put a firewall between his transition team and lobbyists, which is a good start to wrestling control of our government away from corporate interests.

We also need a firewall between lobbyists and lawmakers, and lawmakers should vote on one bill at a time. No more lumping earmarks in with a new budget or bill. If a pork project can't stand on its own merit, then it deserves to fail.

We can't afford anymore "bridges to nowhere" or bailouts.

-- Cindy Butler, Edmonds

Not everyone's luxury

I agree with Marc Smason that overpopulation is a huge problem that will pretty much sabotage attempted solutions to a great many national and global problems ["Quit having babies, Northwest Voices, Dec. 2].

However, I am wondering how he plans to restrict every woman on the planet to "one child only for the next 20 or 25 years." Who exactly will do the restricting?

Are the same groups of religious fanatics that have treated women like brood mares for centuries, insisting on unlimited children and sometimes killing the women who don't comply, now going to reverse themselves and kill women for having too many children? Or are they just going to be good fellows and have a vasectomy after fathering one child?

Are clerics of several world religions suddenly going to stop insisting that the gods want women to breed themselves to death? Are warriors going to stop raping women as a weapon of terror against their enemies, knowing that the women will be blamed rather than the rapists?

Even our own president of the past eight years has exacerbated the population problem with his insistence on limiting access to birth control globally, for fear someone at a family-planning clinic somewhere would mention abortion.

There are plenty of women out there who would be happy to limit the size of their families if mentioning it would not bring destruction down upon their heads. If women everywhere had access to education about birth control and were truly free to make their own choices, perhaps no outside force would have to "restrict" them on the issue of family size.

-- Georgia Lockwood, Kirkland

Something to scare with everyone

As the Republican Party sinks ever further out of power, it is enlightening to listen to the explanations from the party faithful: the war, the economy, President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain, "President-elect Barack Obama's use of technology to organize and energize his base," yada yada.

What no one seems to want to talk about is the problematic coalition that makes up the GOP power base -- a coalition that conflates conservative social values, conservative fiscal values and conservative governance values. This three-headed monster has something about it to scare nearly everyone.

I'm fed up with being told I have to choose between a "tax-and-spend" socialist nanny state (Democrats) and a "fiscally-conservative" theocratic nanny state (Republicans.)

Republicans need to get "family values" out of their policy statements and back into the hands of families. They need to focus their policies on fiscal conservatism and limited government.

They are failing to accomplish these latter goals because they are losing too many voters on the "family-values" issues. Family values don't come from a political party; they come from family. A political party needs policy based on the instruments of democracy, not on the dogma of theocracy.

-- David Rogers, Bellevue

Clinton's a good choice

President-elect Barack Obama has been known to surprise people. He did so during the course of the Democratic primaries and again by winning the presidency of the U.S. However, if one announcement were to come without any surprise at all it was the one he made Dec. 1 announcing his national-security team ["Obama's picks embrace shift in foreign policy," page one, Dec. 1].

Obama stated, "I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel and as a campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next secretary of state."

This comes as no surprise as many expected Obama to choose Clinton for this position.

Though many spectators and analysts praised this choice others were quick to turn to doubt.

It's understandable for people to be wary about the possible conflict that could come between these two stalwarts for change. Would it have been better to have Clinton remain in the Senate, where she has said she loves to be? I think not. She has so much to offer that it would be a mistake not to nominate her.

Whether it came as a surprise or not, this was one hell of a good choice.

-- Chris del Pilar, Bellingham