Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Slade Gorton misses the point

Slade Gorton misses the point in his letter [“State AG McKenna has authority to challenge health-care mandate,” Opinion, March 27] endorsing state Attorney General Rob McKenna’s challenge of the health-care bill President Obama signed.

He may have the right to do so, but it’s the wrong action.

McKenna is abusing his authority, improperly representing people who elected him and supporting a movement that is dividing this country because his party opposes anything the “other side” does and because it generates attention to support a 2012 gubernatorial nomination.

The issue McKenna and others need to understand is that this country needs a better health-care solution. Obama’s plan may not be perfect, but it is a necessary improvement that could favorably evolve if politicians —regardless of party affiliation —work together for the benefit of those who put them in office. Sadly, that effort has been lost in a political game that has gotten out of hand and is a waste of time, money and energy that must be better directed.

Public servants such as McKenna need to politically “man up” and make the most of attempts to improve his constituencies’ quality of life, even though they’re not originated by his party.

— Mike Gugliotto, Sammamish

McKenna just wants to destroy Obama

Your Sunday editorial [“McKenna has a case,” Opinion, March 28] concluding Rob McKenna has the authority to challenge our new health-care law’s constitutionality misses the point. The real issue is that decision’s wisdom on a political and a moral level.

McKenna has calculated his political interests are best served by aligning himself with those whose single-minded mission is to defeat President Obama by any means necessary, including distortions and outright lies.

To do this, McKenna and his allies are prepared to deny adequate health care to millions of families in Washington and across this country. We can only hope the state’s historically moderate voters will remember the side McKenna chose next time he runs for office.

— Barbara Klein, Federal Way

Health-care bill is illegal; look at the Constitution

I my not be an expert on the U.S. Constitution, but I do know what is in it.

Some legal experts allude to the health-care reform bill as “essentially a taxing and spending program.” Yes, Congress can tax us. It can also “regulate commerce … among the several states.” That is regulating interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce. The Constitution limits congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. That means Congress cannot give advantage to one state over another when it come to interstate commerce. As the law exists, health-care insurance is intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce. In Washington state cannot purchase health-care insurance outside the borders of this state.

Insurance is a product. The Constitution gives federal government neither the power to force its citizens to purchase a product nor the power to fine its citizens for not purchasing a product. The recently passed health-care reform legislation “fines” people for not purchasing a product.

If the recently-passed legislation only “taxed” people (say a 2.8 percent tax on income, similar to the Social Security Tax), then state Attorney General Rob McKenna might not have a valid lawsuit.

The lawsuit McKenna is pursuing is not a “frivolous” lawsuit. It is very serious. If the federal government has overstepped its power, then we should thank McKenna for protecting us against the federal governments’ abuse of power.

McKenna’s lawsuit is not about the validity and necessity of health-care reform — it is about abuse of power. Let this lawsuit play out in the judicial courts and not the court of public opinion or the opinions of “experts” in the legal industry. I am sure if this lawsuit is successful, will quickly amend the law to change the fines (for not purchasing health-care insurance) to an outright tax on our income.

— Charlie Peters, Seattle

Mother to blame for damages

Thank you for printing the editorial that supported the Ballard Teen Health Center’s aiding of a 15-year-old girl to get an abortion. [“High-school clinic workers acted properly,” Opinion, March 28.]

This issue’s legal aspects were presented appropriately and brought out the key fact in this controversy —the Teen Health Center’s actions were completely legal. It is appalling that people would blame the Health Center for helping a young girl get reproductive services it provides. What they did was completely within the law.

The mother is to blame because she clearly did not read or fully understand the implications of the contract she signed.

Her case is unfair because the Health Center could not tell its side of the story without breaking the confidentiality agreement key to keeping the good reputation it deserves.

Besides that, this girl should not have to be judged for making a decision that was necessary and completely within the her rights. News stations should leave her alone, as well as the school. Let’s stop talking about this girl and her confidential decision —it is the business of herself and nobody else.

— Deanna Myers, Seattle

When it comes to sex, it takes two (if not more)

I appreciate The Time’s effort to spell out the issues surrounding the Ballard High School student’s actions and how parties involved addressed them. However, The Times made an egregious error in the last sentence of this otherwise fair piece of opinion.

The sentence begins, “Too bad a young girl’s mistake …” Really?

I was under the impression that sex generally requires at least two parties, especially for any female involved to become pregnant. What about the young man’s responsibility? What, exactly, was the young woman’s “mistake”?

Given her age, it is more likely human error, but that does not absolve The Times. “A young girl’s mistake” translates to “she had sex.” We must not condone or recognize that adolescents are sexual being — at least not young women.

— Michael Shook, Vashon

Illness will sneak up on you

Editor, The Times:

Carla Johnson’s story [“Young adults will see health premiums jump,” news, March 30] has an interesting perspective on insurance. She writes about a man, 24, who pays for health insurance, but, “he’s healthy and so far hasn’t needed it.”

This is like saying someone pays for fire insurance but hasn’t had a fire, so he hasn’t needed the insurance. It is a fundamentally flawed perspective on insurance. I can assure young people illness and injury come upon you fast—you will not get a warning.

— David L. South, Redmond

What about Palestine?

Ever since I learned how to talk, I would utter “next year in Jerusalem” when Passover concludes.

When I was 21 years old, those words came true as I celebrated a Seder in the city embedded in the heart and soul of every Jew.

Why is the Obama administration publicly humiliating and punishing our most reliable Middle Eastern ally while asking nothing from Palestinians? Does the president honestly believe the obstacles to peace are apartments in Jerusalem? What about the attacks —both physical and verbal —from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran? Why do these not receive his scathing treatment?

— Abigail Sloan, Seattle

Comparing cost of nuclear energy absurd

Editor, The Times:

President Obama’s decision to withdraw licensing of the Yucca Mountain waste dump is a reminder of how absurd it is to compare the cost of nuclear energy with other energy types [“Nuke waste has no place to go; new hunt begins,” page one, March 29].

We do not know the true cost of future production. Considering the unresolved disposal question, potential cost of a terrorist attack on a plant or its accidental meltdown, we don’t even know what use of nuclear energy already costs. We’re still spending billions to find and safeguard a final resting place for toxic byproducts of nuclear energy used decades ago.

— John Tuttle, Seattle

Yucca Mountain what it is because of politics

The story, on Yucca Mountain needs a bit of perspective.

On the siting of the nation’s nuclear waste storage facility, the process was riddled with politics. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a selection process that includes six candidate sites: three in the East (where 80 percent of the waste and most of the commercial reactors are) and three in the West.

While scientists were studying the sites, the political power of the Eastern congressional members got the three Eastern sites removed from consideration (even though the site in Maine seemed to be superior). This left three sites in the West: the Texas site, which lies above a huge aquifer that irrigated thousands of farms; Hanford in Washington, next to the Columbia River and Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which lies above an aquifer and is in an earthquake zone.

The Texas and Washington congressional delegations got them removed from selection, leaving only Nevada. Since the state’s population was small and had little power in Congress, the nuke dump was rammed down Nevada’s throat.

It was raw politics that led to the selection of Yucca Mountain. Do not be too critical of Obama’s closing of Yucca Mountain. It is really Congress’ failure to do its job fairly. It should start over with a new site selection process without the politics.

— Phil Quigley, Olympia

Violence behind starry-eyed look at Middle East

I wonder if readers who read [“Hope and a telescope enthrall Gaza stargazers,” NWSunday, March 28] were struck as I was by this revealing line: “A few adults wanted to know whether space science was compatible with Islam.” It is a reminder of Galileo’s inquisition in 1610 for his telescopic discoveries.

The AP reporter portrays the people’s innocence gazing at stars, “no borders, no fences, no wall.” Such compassion. How could readers not be disgusted and seethe against the oppressors — Israel?

Not so fast. Is strapping shrapnel-laden explosives on your children to murder other people’s children compatible with Islam? Is launching 6,000 rockets against innocent civilians compatible with Islam? Any reporter in 1945 could write sympathetic articles about the Germans or the Japanese. They would be heartfelt and even more heart rending. But they would mask the real truth, just as this article has done.

— Nancy Tipton, Bellevue

Undertone to tea-party leaders’ health-care message

I concur with columnist Jerry Large that fulminating opponents of the recently passed health-care overhaul are about something more than disgruntlement. [“Sickly response to health care,” NWMonday, March 29.]

There is a nasty and dangerous undertone to what is going on here. Though so-called tea-party leaders have gone to great pains to distance themselves from those who shouted racist words at some black members of Congress, there can be no denying overt and covert racism are at play in the generalized virulence expressed.

Many individuals in this overwhelmingly white reactionary movement simply cannot stand that we have our first black president. Other citizens who are angry and confused about real problems such as unemployment and underemployment have been co-opted by the hate mongers of the Rabid Right.

Large mentions the malicious hate blogger Mike Vanderboegh, who urged on the vandalism that occurred in the wake of the health-care vote. Ironically, Vanderboegh is living off a government program and receives a monthly Social Security disability check. There are many others screaming about health-care reform who are beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare. At one time, these programs were castigated as experiments in “socialism” that would destroy the country.

One can only hope that if ever a critical mass of tea-party members takes a moment to honestly look at history and reality, maybe they will start critiquing that area of government where waste and profligacy is thoroughly ingrained: the Pentagon.

— Joe Martin, Seattle

A look at the good side of insurance for everyone

I don’t understand the opposition to health-care reform. I have been firmly behind it since it was first discussed, but like to consider myself at least somewhat open-minded and would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what is worthy of so much anger and distaste.

My 25-year-old, college graduate sister has a pre-existing liver condition. She is a social worker and cannot afford regular screenings (even with insurance). Now she can be free to seek a better-paying job without fearing the insurance from her new job will deny her coverage due to her pre-existing condition.

My mother owns a small business with fewer than 10 employees. She provides health insurance. Under new regulations, she could receive tax credits for doing so or could stop providing coverage for her employees. They now have the opportunity to buy affordable, good health coverage from an insurance agency.

My brother’s second son underwent open-heart surgery when he was 2 months old for a congenital heart defect. Doctors said he will likely need another open-heart surgery. He can rest assured that should he lose or change his job, he will not lose health coverage for his son.

I doubt that this bill will do much initially to stem the soaring costs of health care. However, step one in controlling those costs is making everybody care about them, including young, healthy, currently uninsured individuals and insurance companies that can no longer weed out the costly sick people.

— Dan Pierce, Seattle

What if Reichert didn’t have insurance?

It was nice to read Rep. Dave Reichert is recovering in a Washington, D.C., hospital after a head bump caused a slow leak of blood on his brain [“Rep. Reichert in D.C. hospital for treatment,” NWThursday, March 25]. Hopefully he will spend a few minutes during recovery pondering what would have happened if he didn’t have health insurance.

Brain surgery isn’t cheap. Would he have gone into extreme debt to pay for his medical treatment? Would the hospital have treated his injury if he couldn’t pay? If so, who would be footing the bill? Maybe he wouldn’t have gotten medical treatment.

A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.

Perhaps when Rep. Reichert’s fellow Republicans are talking about “Armageddon” and “Communism” because the United States is finally passing a comprehensive health-care bill, he will have a different perspective.

— Maggie Hart, Lake Forest Park

GOP needs to sip and sink

I am sick of Sarah Palin, this self-annointed leader of the tea-party movement. Ms. Alaska Disaster is so high on her sweet self, she apparently adds sacks of sugar to her teacup.

This electrified, short-circuit cattle prod has goosed her tea-party herd into a hydrophobic, foaming frenzy. Caught in her virus, they’re running roughshod over anything standing in the way, be it opponent, placard, picket, president and even old sage John McCain as they stampede up Heartbreak Hill and on up to Lover’s Leap, where in the rush and the crush they’ll carry out and over Palin’s presidential delusion and drop to the rocks.

— Noel Freedman, Stanwood

Responsible users still unprotected by the law

Kudos to Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells and The Times for accurately insisting Washington’s medical-marijuana law falls short of fulfilling the voters’ intentions when they approved the measure in 1998

The law does not protect legal patients from home invasion and arrest by police. Flaws in the law make medical-marijuana producers criminals. If the grower reports theft to police, that grower often gets treated as a criminal.

A California initiative to legalize marijuana was funded by a medical-marijuana millionaire who personally picked up the tab to the tune of more than a million dollars. There are no Washington state medical-marijuana millionaires; our medical-marijuana community is neither high profile nor focused on huge profits.

Other than a few recent newsworthy incidents of violence, there has been little controversy surrounding our state’s medical marijuana during all these years of operation.

Patients and providers have already shown we are evenhanded and responsible; now all we want is to be protected by law. That’s what Washington voters wanted in 1998, and 12 years later, it just isn’t so.

— Vivian McPeak, Seattle

Attorney general doesn’t have a case

Editor, The Times:

The Times editorializes that “McKenna has a case” [editorial, March 28] with regard to suing the federal government over the health-care bill. While I’d have preferred a more-progressive bill and one that included a strong public option, I disagree that state Attorney General Rob McKenna has a case.

Health care is unique. Every American is a consumer of health care. To date, not every American pays for health care, many due to impoverished households. This bill does not, as the Times says, “force people into the stream of commerce.” People are already in that stream regarding health care.

What is not in that stream is payment for care. This bill closes that loophole. Sure, people can opt out of insurance and pay a fine. That is simply requiring the same loophole be closed. The stream of commerce regarding health care today includes every one of us mere mortals as to expending health care. This bill balances the books on expenditure exceeding revenue.

— The Rev. Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Bellevue

Editorial on the mark

Your Sunday editorial on Attorney General Rob McKenna’s legal challenge to the health-care legislation is on the mark.

Those who have so vigorously protested might give some thought to the historic example of the National Recovery Act. When passed in 1933 it was hailed by President Roosevelt as “the most important and far-reaching [legislation] ever enacted by the American Congress.” The health-care legislation is equally far-reaching and equally open to challenge on a number of issues.

Two years after adoption, the Supreme Court, in what has been called the “Sick Chicken” case, declared the NRA unconstitutional on several counts. Everything that had been put into it — time, money and effort — was wasted.

Both proponents and opponents of the health-care act should agree that it would be prudent to make certain such a far-reaching and innovative program is on sound legal ground before the massive amounts of money involved are spent.

— Patrick C. Roe, Lopez Island

Editorial has it wrong

The newspaper has it all wrong. The federal government is not requiring anyone to buy health insurance. The law requires a fee paid to the IRS if a person does not have health insurance. This is in effect as the regulations covering all group health insurance or co-op plans: everyone eligible must subscribe, otherwise it will create adverse selection against the insurer.

Why should we, the taxpayers, pay for the use of emergency-room services for everyone who does not have insurance? The principle is the same, and any lawyer with any legal standing should know this especially the attorney general of Washington state.

Rob McKenna is joining this lawsuit for political reasons and his own drive to be the Republican nominee for governor.

This lawsuit is not in the best interest of the residents of the state of Washington. The attorney general has exceeded his authority and does not represent the majority of the people of the state of Washington. He should resign now, or face disgrace of being recalled by the same people who elected him.

— Aurnie Sutliffe, Marysville

Against the liberal tide

Bravo to the editorial board for going against the liberal tide of the governor and state legislators on the question of whether or not Attorney General Rob McKenna should join the many other states in suing the Obama administration over what many, myself included, believe is an unconstitutional power grab and massive overreach of federal powers with the new health-care bill.

Whether or not the suing states prevail or even have a case remains to be seen, but if not allowed to move forward we will never know and I for one want to know.

If this is constitutional, then we are so screwed because it would really open the door to further massive overreach. McKenna is an elected official and represents you and me and should be allowed to do so without any interference from our hapless governor.

— Scott Stoppelman, LaConer

Stigmatizing health-care reform

Being an intelligent person, Rob McKenna must know of the consensus among legal scholars that lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care program are weak and undoubtedly will fail in court.

In proceeding with his lawsuit, then, McKenna has chosen to join those Republicans who seek to garner voters’ support by scaring them with irrational claims. Whether fulminating about supposed “death panels” or smearing the reform as unconstitutional, they aim not to debate the issues squarely but to stigmatize moderate health-care reform as monstrously un-American and frightening.

Such tactics violate the spirit of civility necessary for a well-functioning democracy, in which issues must be judged based on reason rather than fear.

Growing up in the Deep South, I recall Southern leaders filing lawsuits to prevent federal attempts to racially desegregate public facilities. The plaintiffs knew they would lose in court but their actions endeared them to constituents primed by years of frightening predictions about desegregation’s consequences. These leaders’ actions further inflamed the fear and hatred, which inhibited positive responses to desegregation and spawned significant violence as well.

Sadly, I recognize the same pattern today. Mr. McKenna, shame on you. You know better.

— Daniel Burnstein, Seattle

Stay retired, Slade Gorton

Slade Gorton, who was last seen lobbing softball questions to Condeleeza Rice while on the “bipartisan” 9-11 Commission, now picks up the talking points for the Republican attorneys general, obstructionists in Congress, and the tea-bag protesters who want to kill the health-care bill and keep us on the same broken road that leaves millions of Americans without coverage and the taxpayers with their medical bills [“State AG McKenna has authority to challenge health-care mandate,” Opinion, March 27].

Sure, Slade, Rob McKenna has the right to challenge a federal law that impacts the states, just as Orvel Foubas did in Arkansas in 1956, but that doesn’t make it right to do so. Our current system is horribly costly and inefficient; we spend more than other industrialized country on health care and get far less in return.

The bill that President Obama signed into law is not much different from the plan offered by John McCain in 2008 and the one instituted by Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. The big difference of course is that Obama is not a Republican and shouldn’t be credited with an accomplishment that would bring sanity to our broken health-care system.

Slade, I remember you when you were a progressive Republican, when you viewed government as a viable tool for progress. Now that you’ve become a partisan hack, it’s best you keep retired and let a new generation of leaders lead.

— Bruce Johnson, Seattle

McKenna’s authority vs. McKenna’s discretion

I wish to thank former Sen. Slade Gorton for his opinion piece on whether or not Rob McKenna has the right to join in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of the new health-care law. There seems little doubt that McKenna does indeed have that right. But should he use it?

In our state, every adult not convicted of a felony has the right to openly carry loaded firearms in most public places. But would we be better off or worse off if all those adults decided to do so at all times? Having the right to do something and choosing whether or not to exercise that right is a matter of discretion.

McKenna’s job is to represent the interests of the state of Washington. So the question becomes is it in the interests of the state of Washington to overturn the mandates that every individual purchase health insurance or not?

The individual mandate is essential in order for the new law to work. It is disingenuous to claim no objection to the rest of the law knowing full well that without the individual mandate the rest of the law cannot stand.

This will mean that health care will continue to be denied to our most vulnerable citizens.

I submit that this outcome is not in the interests of our state and therefore ask that McKenna does not continue to pursue this case in our name.

— Marshall Dunlap, Kent

In health solidarity

I would have a lot more respect for elected officials opposing health-care reform if they would surrender their coverage paid for by taxpayers in order to stand in solidarity with those Americans who without reform would continue to have none.

— Gerald A. Peterson, Seattle

Bashed by a businessman

Bill Baldwin bashes public-employee unions as only a businessman can [“Time to rein in public-employee unions,” Opinion, March 26]. I have learned in 45 years of work that business people are absolutely galled that working people dare to approach middle-class incomes. And yet the country’s healthy postwar economy was built largely of middle-class spending power ensured by strong unions.

Baldwin resorts to all the standard anti-union clichés and no facts. He infers that private-sector union members make less and pay more for their benefits than public employees. The facts are to the contrary.

I teach at community colleges now, hence am a state employee. My benefits are adequate but are definitely inferior to those I received under a union contract in the private sector. As a part-time instructor, I have to work year-round at two schools to make a modest living. The system is wired against hiring many full-time instructors. A friend of mine works for the state highway department. He makes less than he would in the private sector and his benefits are inferior.

I resent Baldwin’s inference that state employees are dupes who are forced to pay union dues. If it weren’t for the unions, who knows what miserable wages and benefits people would have to acquiesce to?

And his blatant attempt to polarize working people is shameful and typical of conservative tactics. All my life I have seen wealthy people wanting to take theirs out of the hide of the working people. Baldwin is a broken record.

— Walter Marquardt, Seattle

We should support reforms

I applaud Bill Baldwin’s commentary. We are becoming a society of taxpayers and tax receivers and the [receivers] are winning.

Through their campaign contributions and political activism, the state employee unions control the Democrat Party. Thus, when the Democrats are in the governor’s mansion, the unions are, in a sense, negotiating with themselves for their pay and benefits. And who pays for this lopsided negotiating? We do, the taxpayers.

This issue is not just prevalent here in Washington, but throughout the country in hundreds of city halls and nearly all state capitals. We need to elect local leaders who support the reforms Baldwin describes. If we don’t do this soon, it may be too late and the state unions will have negotiated themselves a permanent throne on our state capital.

— Don Skillman, Medina

Apply solution to business

I totally agree with businessman Bill Baldwin’s solution to reducing the cost of public-employee contracts: He argues we should just reopen the contracts so we can pay working people less.

It is such a good idea that it should apply to business agreements as well as labor agreements. If I decide my mortgage payments are hurting my budget, I just dishonor the contract, mandate that it be renegotiated, and pay less. Excellent idea!

— Kevin Cole, Seattle

Why people need unions

I just read your Bill Baldwin’s op-ed column in the Friday Seattle Times. Balderdash! I’m being civil when I say that.

I am a school-bus driver in Western Washington. I am also a union member. Personally, I am insulted by Baldwin’s characterization of public employees and their unions as holding a gun to the heads of the state when it comes to being fairly compensated for what we do and the service we render to the taxpayers of this state.

Not so many years ago, our drivers’ hours were substantially cut in order to correct a condition brought about by a district policy that was at odds with Washington regulations. We were never fully compensated for the lost hours. What pay increases we have received over the past four years have not kept up with the cost of living and, as a result, many of our personnel have to work at two to three jobs just to get by. That hardly makes us overpaid.

Many years ago, while I was employed in the private sector, people I knew, who had worked faithfully for many years for [a local retailer], were called into the break room one Monday morning and told that their hours were being cut from 40 per week to 30 and that they were now part-time employees and would receive no benefits. No negotiations, no warning. Just like it or lump it. That is why working people need unions.

As for the budgetary difficulties of the state, I’m sure that much-needed relief could be gotten if corporations like Boeing, Microsoft and such just paid their fair share of taxes instead of holding a gun to the state’s head by threatening to leave the state or country because South Carolina or China will give them carte blanche, taxwise, and guarantee a “union-free environment.”

— Dennis R. Bertaud, Sequim

Join hands with labor

I labored through the Bill Baldwin op-ed piece and found nothing there that has not been said thousands of times, and better by at least half of the writers who preceded him.

Baldwin asks us to drag down the organized workers who are enterprising enough to amass some pricing power in the labor marketplace. You don’t see him criticizing Apple or Intel or Microsoft for doing the very same thing those workers have done.

Public-sector unions along with the Longshoremen and a few of the legendary trade unions are the entrepreneurial success stories of organized labor. They created the pricing power that forces boardroom bottom-dwellers like Baldwin to share their comfy upscale cul de sacs with at least a few people who actually earned the right to their wages.

I admire the guts, determination and solidarity of the members and organizers of all of our unions. They bought us our spot in the middle class, standing out there on the picket lines. They’ve stayed there defending the prosperity of all wage earners in the face of incredible assaults from guys like Baldwin, in good times and bad.

Join hands with labor to defy people like Baldwin and you, too, can have a greater share of the wealth created by your labor.

— George and Patricia Robertson, Seattle

The long history of musical censorship

Editor, The Times:

I read your account of the Everett School District and its decision to bar the playing of an instrumental version of “Ave Maria” at a graduation ceremony [“Top court rejects appeal of ‘Ave Maria’ ruling,” NWTuesday, March 23] and recalled my own school experience with musical censorship.

Way back in 1965, at the height of the Cold War when I was 11 years old and in fifth grade, our teacher told us we could bring a Christmas album into class and he would play it.

My father, a U.S. naval commander, was also an amateur opera singer with a love for big, baritone voices, and he used to play a record by the Soviet Army Men’s Chorus. One song in particular always struck me as sounding like winter and Christmas — without understanding a word of Russian, you could get the sense of horse-drawn carriages with sleigh bells jingling as they rushed through the snowy woods, and the swirling balalaika’s added a taste of something exotic and exciting.

So when I brought the record to class and presented it to my teacher, he took one look at the cover, gave me a withering look of disdain and refused to play it. He also put it away in a desk drawer and wouldn’t give it back until the end of the school day, presumably so I wouldn’t infect any other students with my communist sympathies or whatever it was he was afraid of.

Though it puzzled me at the time, that lesson stayed with me, this notion that musical notes in the air could be a threat of some kind and couldn’t be enjoyed even when separated from any lyrical content.

Musician Kathryn Nurre’s quote goes to the heart of the matter: “We liked the way it sounded.” This latest decision by our Supreme Court to let the ruling stand indicates that fear of music is apparently still alive and well. My fifth-grade teacher would be pleased.

— Ron Dickson, Seattle

Violent reaction unhealthy for our country

I am horrified by the behavior of those who disagree with the just-passed health-care bill [“Blogger stands by call to break Dems windows,” Times, news, March 26]. The unbridled anger of some has boiled over into actions I thought I would never see in this country.

Throwing bricks through windows, cutting gas lines and threatening to assassinate the children of any official who voted in favor of the health care bill!? This violent reaction is to a bill that seeks to provide health care to all Americans.

Why did we not see this type of reaction when George Bush got this country into two unnecessary wars? Thousands have died, those wars have bankrupted this country, both financially and morally, and yet not a peep is heard from these people who claim to know what fiscal responsibility looks like.

To make matters worse, these unbalanced people are encouraged by Republican lawmakers and fueled by the hate-mongers on Fox News (I use the term “news” loosely). These people need to be called what they are: terrorists. They need to be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

This type of hatred is unhealthy for our country. This is not what a working democracy looks like. Somewhere along the line, the partisan politics trumped working for the greater good of the people. We have deteriorated into a divided nation. A divided nation will soon fall.

— C.B. Samuel-Zulch, Clyde Hill

Health care like the congressman’s

I was pleased to hear that Congressman Dave Reichert is getting excellent medical attention and is expected to make a full recovery from a subdural hematoma [“Reichert recovering from blood on the brain,” news, March 26].

It’s too bad that he sought to deny health-care access to 32 million Americans, who, faced with the same medical condition, would want and deserve the same lifesaving care he enjoys.

— Jonathan Rosenblum, Seattle

The missing element: customer service

I worked in health care for 20 years. Reform is needed, but a big piece is missing. The health-care system is a service industry, yet lacks true customer service.

Most health-care organizations don’t treat patients as valued customers. Some say the real customers are employers and government, as they pay the bills. Patients’ preferences are ignored or dismissed.

Consider typical communication: medical jargon, acronyms and vague explanations. Once I got a bill for “surgical miscellaneous.” Often there’s no information (try asking “what will this cost?”). Evening or weekend appointments are rare. “Waiting rooms” tell us to expect to wait.

Would we tolerate that in other industries? Rental-car companies try harder. Grocers ask, “Can I help you find something?” Even banks, once known for short hours and stodgy culture, understand customer service.

Most health-care organizations don’t use computers well. Banks securely share private information worldwide. Clinics and hospitals that don’t share test results and X-rays have no excuse. Ripe for errors and duplication, paper records are a hassle and downright dangerous for patients.

Good customer service knows no politics, yet respecting patients as customers is not a priority. It’s time to speak up, push back, and demand better.

— Diane Stollenwerk, Seattle

Is this really news?

Teenagers are prone to having premarital sex without parental consent — is that really news? [“Abortion referral puts spotlight on school-based health centers, page one, March 26.]

Millions of teenagers get pregnant in the U.S. every year and abortion is legal in every state — is that really news?

Kudos to the local high-school teenager who responsibly sought reproductive health care in a clinic setting and consequently made a decision that was hers alone to make under Washington state law.

By discussing her protected health-care information on the front page of the newspaper, editors have decided to side with an irate parent who is unable to manage her family’s affairs privately.

Shame on The Seattle Times for publicly “outing” this female teenager by promoting a provocative public discussion of a controversial medical practice documented in her confidential medical record.

— Michelle Terry, Seattle

Congress needs to act

Your article on tuberculosis [“Washington saw rise in number of TB cases,” NWThursday, March 25] points out that the disease has increased in Washington state, and that we have the drug-resistant variety too.

In 2008, 150,000 people around the world died from drug-resistant TB. In 1999, a Washington man was cured of multidrug-resistant TB — at the cost of $500,000 and four years of treatment, including many hospitalizations.

Since then, some county health departments have nearly gone bankrupt treating patients with drug-resistant TB. While Congress has authorized money to make a difference with this disease, thus far they have failed to appropriate much. Hopefully, Congress will act now, while it is still possible to control TB.

— Bob Dickerson, Seattle

Shades of 1964

Editor, The Times:

In August of 1964, the GOP presidential nominee, Sen. Barry Goldwater, emerged from the national convention stating, “Extremism in pursuit of liberty is no vice!”

I had been a moderate Republican. I could not follow a party that offered a radical fringe pardon for whatever extreme acts it might take. Millions of Americans did what I did — I left the GOP.

This week, the GOP of 2010 has again departed from sanity [“Vandals target Democrats over health-bill vote,” page one, March 25]. The GOP’s so-called leaders are inflaming their radical fringe with exhortations to “keep the crosshairs on ,” “take aim at ,” and barely veiled threats. All of this seems to be because some “hated liberals” believe the concept of majority rule is the rule of the land.

This kind of misguided thinking by Republican leadership, if not immediately turned around, will undoubtedly lead the GOP even lower than the mistake Sen. Goldwater made.

— Richard Griswold, Sequim

Disturbing images, present and past

Your disturbing front-page picture of a shattered window and the article brought back images of the “Kristallnacht” riot when Nazis threw bricks with messages through Jewish windows; when Social Democratic Reichstag members (parliament) were verbally and physically abused; when Jewish members were called “Christ killers”; when minorities were spat on and called traitors; when the rest of the world wondered what happened to the country that used to be a formidable force in arts and sciences and a budding Weimar Democracy.

Didn’t the majority vote for President Obama and his promise of health reform?

Don’t we expect promises to be kept?

Has the minority party lost its moral compass over an issue that is standard policy with our friends in Europe, Asia and the Middle East?

— James Behrend, Bainbridge Island

Putting the shoe on the other foot

It’s the day after the invasion of Iraq. A mob of African-American protesters gathers outside of the entrance to the White House, screaming imprecations and waving American flags. Several hold signs accusing President George W. Bush of sending young black men to die for a family vendetta. A group of white Bush aides nervously makes its way through the crowd, hearing racial slurs and shouts of “killer” and “murderer.”

Democratic Party representatives and senators exhort the crowd into a greater frenzy.

Two Republican congressmen who support the war report that unknown people have hurled bricks through windows of their home offices. One receives death threats made against her and her family, including use of the word “assassinate.”

An anti-war leader releases the home address of a pro-war representative.

Someone cuts a propane line leading to the house, creating the danger of a massive explosion. Police reveal that the house is actually the family home of the brother of the representative. When contacted, the activist who supplied the address calls the episode “collateral damage.”

Does it take much to imagine the reaction of Republican politicians and the conservative media had any of this actually happened? Does it even require your imagination?

— Paul Goode, Redmond

I won’t make that mistake again

As a Democrat, I voted for Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna because I truly thought he would be the best AG and also in the interests of bipartisanship.

How dare he claim to represent my stand on the health care bill [“Washington joins lawsuit over mandate,” page one, March 23]? I didn’t elect him to declare it unconstitutional — I exercised my constitutional rights when I elected my president and other members of the federal and state governments who did their jobs, evaluated it, and supported it. State representatives, don’t give him the money to sue!

What do I get out of the health-care bill? The gradual closing of the ridiculously named doughnut hole (as if it were a tasty piece of pastry), which will help pay for my medications. My adult disabled daughter will now be able to get health insurance, in spite of her pre-existing condition. My 18-year-old grandson won’t be kicked off his parents’ insurance policy until he’s 26.

Because of this bill, I don’t have to pay for the wildly expensive emergency rooms, which will gradually begin to empty out! And I gain an easing conscience with the knowledge that the deserving poor and the homeless will have insurance. Do I want McKenna to join other Republicans in getting rid of my new benefits?

Will I ever vote Republican again? Not likely. Can’t trust’em. They want to make it look as though people who receive all these benefits are mad, while actually it’s just a small group of the “financially gifted” who will have to give more.

— Patricia Weenolsen, Seattle

Politics and hypocrisy

Thanks for reminding us again of the hypocrisy in our political parties [“Health-care-overhaul bill included big GOP idea: individual mandate,” news, March 25].

This time it’s the GOP. It wasn’t too long ago the GOP was advocating requiring each American to have health insurance and in fact created the idea.

Ummmm. It seems the good ol’ GOP has some explainin’ to do.

— Ed Wilson, Seattle

An intelligent legal scholar

Attorney General Rob McKenna has always been considered an attorney with the highest ethical standards; an intelligent legal scholar. That is why he was elected.

If he believes that the recent health-care legislation violates the Constitution, he is compelled as attorney general to pursue that violation. Anyone — Democrat, Republican or independent — would want that to happen.

If those who voted for the health-care legislation knew the legislation is constitutionally flawed, shame on them! The rest of us, whether for or against the legislation, certainly want to know it does not violate the Constitution.

Anyone who would vote to withhold funding to determine if the legislation is in violation of the Constitution must be afraid of the truth. What is happening to this great nation of ours?

— John Swanson, Bellevue

Stop the hemorrhaging

Primary to controlling our national debt is containing the daily cost of failed health care. Our new health-care bill does this by putting a tourniquet on a financial hemorrhage. Bounding this hemorrhage may very well save the lives of “45,000 people who die every year because they don’t have access to health care” (as reported by Sister Simone Campbell in an interview).

Danny Westneat [“Free to have health care for all,” column, March 21] suggests that meeting the costs to implement full health care now is necessary. These costs are often misrepresented: Increased taxes will only affect the rich and budget deficits are projected to decrease. The full cost will not be realized until 2014 — after a rebounding economy is enhanced by wage-earning, taxpaying, medically insured Americans.

I’m appalled at deterrence to this bill on “constitutional” grounds, objecting that everyone must buy health insurance from a “private” company. This requirement came about to appease the same ideologues who put a stop to the single-payer government plan successful in other nations.

Hopefully, bipartisan wisdom will replace polarized bigotry to build a bridge spanning conflicts and creating opportunities to reclaim security for American workers

— Bob Olson, Bellevue

Acting on conscience

Throughout the health-care debate, President Obama reminded voters that his job is to do what is right, not just what is popular. Indeed, amid a public backlash, many Democratic lawmakers in Congress were forced to make the difficult choice between voting their conscience or the will of their constituents.

Now Attorney General Rob McKenna is faced with a similar situation — to oppose the interests of the Democratic majority in Washington state or act on his conscience of what is right.

Those who criticize his lawsuit based merely on its unpopularity should recall how the health-care bill passed in the first place.

— Tom Goldman, Issaquah

Challenge could backfire

While cynically appealing to his Republican base, Attorney General Rob McKenna’s legal challenge to health-care-insurance reform may prove a Trojan horse. Though its legal prospects are dim in the extreme, the AG needs be careful what he asks for. He just might get it.

The process could take years and no little expense. Given its current activist streak, however, the Supreme Court just might reach for a result more consistent with the majority’s (and McKenna’s) politics.

If the court upholds the claims brought by the 12 Republican AG’s and one Democrat, the story will not end there. Assuming the current option is struck down, the public option may well suffer the same fate. In that time, however, the public will have discovered that it likes the protection the reform affords, as well as the savings that it promises. Its taste for reform will only be stronger.

That leaves only single payer as a vehicle for reform. Medicare has already met its constitutional challenges. Thus, Sen. Joe Lieberman’s hastily withdrawn proposal to extend that program could be readily expanded to embrace all Americans. The challenge could give birth to single payer.

The irony is delicious to contemplate.

— John T. McLean, Edmonds

A shortsighted decision to cut counselors

Seattle Public Schools recently announced a decision to cut all elementary counseling positions.

It is easy to shrug off the loss of counselors — counselors do the bulk of their work behind closed doors to protect confidentiality.

Counselors call Child Protective Services when students come to school bruised and broken. Counselors protect students who have been raped, abused, are hungry. Counselors help students move beyond survival mode. Such students are consumed with surviving each day. These students do not have the mental energy to spare for academics.

Counselors teach skills that many students are not taught at home. Successful interaction with people — social skills; problem-solving effectively — conflict resolution; respect for different cultures and lifestyles — diversity awareness; the pitfalls of alcohol and drugs — substance-abuse prevention.

Teachers make a world of difference but have hundreds of students per day, and are neither able nor trained to meet the psychological needs of all. A counselor can reach out to struggling students and be an anchor, help them focus on their education.

Seattle Public Schools has now narrowed its budget deficit. Yet, it has accepted a cost far greater than the dollar — a monumental disservice to its students.

— Julia Nicole Jump, Auburn

Congress should back American workers

Now that Congress has restored jobless benefits for the unemployed, the administration needs to focus on creating more good American jobs to put people back to work. It need look no further than how it spends our money with government contracts.

For example, the Air Force is in the market for $35 billion worth of new airborne refueling tankers. Boeing is ready to build these tankers, creating some 50,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs nationwide, around 9,000 here in Washington.

However, Airbus is waging a public-relations and lobbying campaign to force the Pentagon to delay the contract and change its rules. Airbus wants to strong-arm the Pentagon into purchasing its much larger, illegally subsidized tanker, which would be manufactured overseas, outsourcing American jobs.

Airbus is complaining that the rules are protectionist since the Air Force doesn’t want a larger tanker the size of its A330. This doesn’t pass the laugh test. In fact, France prevented U.S. companies from bidding on its own tanker contract in 2004, sole-sourcing it to Airbus.

If President Obama wants to keep us moving in the right direction, he’ll stand up to European pressure on the tanker contract and create 50,000 U.S. jobs by purchasing an American-made tanker. Illegally subsidized French companies have no right to tell the Air Force how to spend U.S. taxpayer money.

— Malcolm Amado Uno, executive director, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Washington, D.C.

Why we need him in office

Editor, The Times:

Am I the only citizen in Seattle who does not think that two of un-columnist Joni Balter’s examples [“Seattle’s stumbling ‘un-mayor’ needs to find firmer footing,” Times, Opinion, March 25] of Mayor Mike McGinn’s “stumbling” are actually examples of why we need him in office?

For years, I have been stunned by the self-delusion of our local leaders, who have professed Seattle to be the “greenest city on the planet,” “striving for carbon neutrality” (and all the other platitudes) at the same time they have planned for the replacement of two of the major highway segments into and through the city (the Highway 520 bridge and the Highway 99 viaduct) with new shiny projects designed to carry far more cars and buses and zero rail mass transit.

I don’t care if Balter and her big-business-and-politics-as-usual attitude calls McGinn the “un-mayor.” It just makes her look petty. When McGinn says these projects are sorely misguided, he is right on point and protocol be damned. If he can prevent us spending many billions of dollars on infrastructure that could have been dreamed up in the 1950s, more power to him.

Yes it has taken interminable amounts of time and money to come up with these two awful design solutions, but that does not make them right. They are both disastrously wrong for the environment and the urban quality of our city.

I have no regrets about the mayor I helped vote into office. Is he perfect? No, but it is human to err and I kind of like that we now have a mayor whose errors might lead to a better environment.

— Nic Rossouw, Seattle

My kind of mayor

I voted for Mike McGinn for many reasons, but I was attracted to his campaign because it was not slick, and much of the campaign financing was generated by local communities. His opponent touted having “the right contacts” and his campaign was financed by himself as well as the well-connected. I care less about how the mayor dresses, or that he has irritated the City Council.

Perhaps former Mayor Greg Nickels’ initial transition went smoother by patching potholes. So what? There has been the biggest implosion of the U.S. economy as the new mayor entered office. Budgets are more than tight. Many projects may need to be “trimmed.”

It is clear The Seattle Times is not enchanted with the new mayor; that is the privilege of the only large-circulation newspaper in town. [Joni Balter’s column] is nothing more than a long-winded chastising, and I know you can do better.

— Roselee Warren, Seattle

Tea-party crowd shows true colors

Before, I thought that the tea-party people were just some group of disgruntled citizens who were more upset about the Republicans losing the election than anything else. I don’t particularly believe in their causes, but I believed in the right to express oneself and didn’t pay too much attention to them.

But now with the racist/homophobic name-calling, spitting on senators and truly hateful speech, they have shown their true colors [“Hate speech isn’t debate,” editorial, March 23]. The tea party is nothing more than a very vocal hate group. I now believe they have formed because of their hatred toward a black president, who is a Democrat to boot. Nothing that President Obama says or does will be good enough because they hate him with a passion.

Now that President Obama is in office, it should be the time to focus on our country, get it back on its feet, create more jobs, fix the financial system, fix health care, address education imbalances, etc. — things that make our country great. Instead, they focus on hate, racist chants, and doctored photos to express their beliefs.

We as a country have an obligation and right to question our government. I truly believe in that. But I don’t agree with the tactics the tea-party people have chosen. I will always choose respectful discourse over outright hate and anger. People need to come together and forge a new future to bring this country back to it’s glory. Quite honestly, I see these people as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

— Kristina Falcone, Seattle

A game played by both sides

You are correct: “Hate speech isn’t debate.” This happens on both sides of the political spectrum and both sides should be condemned.

But we must keep in mind that most of these incidents are by a very small part of the political spectrum. You should not condemn all of those in the tea-party movement as racists and/or homophobes. As your editorial says, [House Minority Leader] John Boehner called the epithets “reprehensible.”

I expect an editorial soon about Ann Coulter’s canceled speech at a university in Canada because of threats to do her bodily harm. Officials were afraid that they could not protect her.

As Vice President Joseph Biden said “this (health care reform) is a big *** deal.” It affects more than 15 percent of the U.S. economy. Of course some people are going to lose control and say things they should not say.

My request of [The Times] is to condemn both the right and the left when these incidents occur. The vast majority on both sides of the political spectrum find these kind of remarks to be reprehensible.

— Dean Hobson, Bellevue

The ‘problem’ is still here

After reading The Seattle Times editorial, I remembered Look magazine’s cover (1960) “The Problem We All Live With” painted by Norman Rockwell. The painting depicts a young African-American girl, Ruby Bridges, flanked by white federal marshals — the first black student walking to an all-white elementary school past a wall defaced by a racial slur.

The comparison of Ruby Bridges to African-American Reps. Andre Carson and John Lewis, flanked by tea-party members yelling racial slurs, is evident. I am afraid that after watching and hearing this weekend the decline of civility by opponents of health-care reform, “The Problem We All Live With” is still here.

Ruby Bridges is now chair of the Ruby Bridges Foundation (www.rubybridges.com) which she formed in 1999 to promote “the values of tolerance, respect and appreciation of all differences.”

— Marsha Conn, Seattle

Take a walk in his shoes

Did all of you walk in the shoes of John Robert Lewis last Sunday night?

Did you see the newsreels of Selma, the sit-ins, the boycotts all over again?

Did you feel the spittle running down your cheek one more time?

Did you again smell the fear — not the fear of John Robert Lewis but the fear of the spitting and screaming crowd?

And did you see him, as he entered the chamber, smiling and talking quietly to Martin Luther King Jr.?

— R.V. Elam, Lake Forest Park

Someone’s orchestrating campaign

I would like to express my appreciation to The Times for the strongly worded editorial in Tuesday’s newspaper. It is certainly obvious that the health-care-reform bill is far from perfect, and that many people will have criticisms of one point or another. But who has convinced many ordinary citizens that the bill is so evil?

Clearly, someone has been orchestrating the campaign against health reform, using viral e-mails, talk shows, and many other methods. Who can possibly be so deeply concerned about it that they would go to all this trouble?

May I suggest that this is an important story the media have missed so far: Who is behind this massive hate campaign, and what are they hoping to gain by it?

I myself am a lifelong Republican, but I must say that I am embarrassed by the performance of our Republican members of Congress on this issue. it. Instead of the Republican voices for sanity we would like to see, one gets the impression some of them actually believe the wild accusations that are being thrown around to stir people up.

— Norm Mundhenk, Poulsbo