Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Lying about credentials

After reading “McGinn adviser resigns, admits he lied about Ph.D.” [page one, Feb. 5], I couldn’t believe how arrogant Mayor Mike McGinn is concerning honesty and integrity.

To accept and promote a position of influence in the mayor’s office for Chris Bushnell, a felon of bank fraud, it just goes to show how “Boss Tweed” methods of running public office will never cease to amaze me. McGinn knowingly hired this guy for a salary of $110,000 of [taxpayer’s] money. It makes me wonder how long the mayor will last.

Let me see now, how many other jobs does he want to eliminate? 200! Maybe he should eliminate his own for starters. How many people out there have to sign job applications stating that the facts are true and accurate or their positions can and will be eliminated? How many people applying for employment have to pass a background check?

It just goes to show its still a “good-ole-boys” world. It’s who you know and that’s all that matters — until you get caught, of course.

— Ted Weaver, Mill Creek

Should have seen it coming

So now after just a month with the McGinn administration in office, The Times’ editorialist columnist Joni Balter can justifiably write: “I told you so.”

The McGinn administration has stumbled down the City Hall staircase. They promised open government — except when it was an issue for themselves. Discovering McGinn’s closest adviser, Chris Bushnell, was not only a felon for serious bank fraud in the’90s, but also that he had the nerve to claim he was a Ph.D.-level economist, leaves me with the impression our new mayor is seriously flawed in his judgment.

McGinn, the champion of open government, never mentioned Bushnell and his past when he campaigned. This all portends poorly for the near and extended future. Maybe he and those closest to him on the fifth floor of City Hall might consider the example of Toyota President Akio Toyoda by publicly bowing in humiliation to City Council, to the city’s employees and of course to the citizens.

This “neophyte” McGinn administration should pull in its horns, learn correctly how to intelligently manage city government and then implement that steep learning curve as quickly as possible. I reluctantly voted for this mayor and didn’t do it to see him whither and fail so quickly.

— Patrick Burns, Seattle

Other staff reductions

McGinn’s senior staff cuts are the correct thing to do and should be done now: 200 jobs, at an estimated cost of $100,000 per year — or $20,000,000 total —equals about half of the estimated shortfall. The study by Microsoft a few years ago stating the cost per employee using a loaded rate of 20 to 25 percent of salary is understated.

This understatement is due to the additional costs of building space, supervisors for each six to eight employees, phones and computers, extra human-resource personnel and parking. These are just a few of the additional costs of additional employees.

The longer McGinn waits to reduce these positions, the less effect it will have this year, which means more and larger budget cuts elsewhere: in teacher, firefighter, police, medical staff and welfare [positions]. Or he could just raise taxes to pay for this waste and reduce our morale

McGinn should correct this waste now as well as improve the taxpayers morale.

— Wayne Gaughran, Tacoma

Telling their story

I commend Sara Jean Green for her article highlighting YouthCare and ROOTS [“More aid for homeless youth,” NWThursday, Feb. 4]. Many readers know little about the thousands of Seattle youth struggling to find housing, job training and basic necessities — or about the organizations struggling to serve them. However, both Green and her editor should apologize to Kevin McMillen Jr. for their carelessness in running his comment regarding his parents.

I was with McMillen and his classmates as a volunteer the day your article printed. Each student was in awe and felt empowered by the $7.7 million gift to their center. McMillen was initially thrilled to see his photo above the fold. However, his excitement quickly diminished as he realized he would be unable to share his delight with his parents. McMillen quietly expressed his disappointment that, of all the things he shared with Green, she would choose that piece [of information]. An article meant to emphasize the importance of youth empowerment instead became a source of anxiety and shame for a student it featured.

Parental failure and a young man’s struggle to articulate his disappointment are not news. McMillen’s noticeable passion, perseverance, curiosity and vibrant personality are newsworthy.

— Nathan Hollifield, Seattle

Not just a fair-weather project

I generally read politicians’ comments with bemusement and Jim Brunner’s article about House Bill 2912 was no exception [“Husky Stadium, Safeco Field cut out of tax plan for now,” NWWednesday, Feb. 10]. Despite politicians being willing to throw money at virtually any project imaginable — in the misguided name of “stimulus” — they are reluctant to fund a renovation of Husky Stadium at a time when labor is relatively cheap.

The reason given by Rep. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, for this selective act of fiscal responsibility is that it “sends the wrong message that we’re willing to fund a stadium.”

But what message does it send when representatives are unwilling to keep a government-owned structure safe for the public to use — stadium or otherwise? Upkeep isn’t sexy, politically speaking, but it is their responsibility, like it or not. The only alternative — which I favor and which will never, ever happen — is to privatize those things that government is too irresponsible or simply unable to keep up properly.

It is notoriously hard to keep public infrastructure in good condition in even the best of times. Roads and bridges fall apart even as politicians drool over brand new projects — like unnecessary rail lines and a multibillionaire’s pro-football stadium. Upkeep is even more difficult to fund in hard times, but it is no less necessary.

Hasegawa doesn’t think that tax dollars should go to sports stadiums in a bad economy. I don’t think the public should be forced to fund anything coercively, regardless of the state of the economy. So I propose that politicians do something that goes against their nature: be consistent.

To save the taxpayers money, the Legislature should immediately strip funding for any and all sports-related spending whatsoever — and for arts too. Somehow, I really doubt that will happen.

— Scott Frost, Kenmore

Use LUOA alternative

Editor, The Times:

In “A tall order” [page one, Feb. 8], The Times covered the Vulcan preview but missed the main event: the city meeting where they explained their plans to about 150 residents from not only South Lake Union but also surrounding neighborhoods.

The citizen comments were universally against the aggressive growth proposals of the city and [opted] for the alternative suggested by the Lake Union Opportunity Alliance. That LUOA alternative still supports twice [as much development] as the 20-year growth targets, but with a step down in height near our wonderful Lake Union — with no towers next to the Lake.

And let’s talk factually about the city’s plans. Concerning the four blocks that Vulcan owns next to Lake Union — between Valley and Mercer streets — the city is proposing podiums (bulky bases) up to 85 feet in height and on top of that base, towers up to 300 feet high. These towers of expensive condos would not only block the views for the rest of the neighborhood, but would stifle growth behind them.

If this city administration is listening to the people and neighborhoods, it will modify its plans and at least include the LUOA Alternative requested overwhelmingly by the people.

— John Pehrson, LUOA president, Seattle

Fix Mercer Street congestion

If the city wants to allow taller buildings and greater density in the South Lake Union area, I say it’s fine as long as they make solving the Mercer Street congestion a condition of approval.

Amenities like more green spaces are always nice, but those who benefit from taller buildings should be part of solving the transportation problems they will exacerbate. Greater density means more people. More people means more cars. More cars means greater traffic congestion.

I understand we are paying $150 to $200 million to make traffic revisions in the area and to make Mercer Street a more pleasant thoroughfare, but nothing is being done to relieve the real congestion that frequently backs up to Seattle Center. With increased density and the Gates Foundation offices opening soon, the area will be gridlocked if something isn’t done.

— Jon Boyce, Seattle

Take hint from ‘Undercover Boss’

The recent commentary by former Microsoft Executive Dick Brass regarding Microsoft’s loss of any innovative edge and the rebuttal by Frank Shaw, corporate vice president for corporate communications [“Microsoft’s creative destruction” and “Microsoft: A good idea isn’t enough,” Business, Feb. 8], was eerily reminiscent of Dilbert — a regular feature I read in the comics section of the paper.

On the one hand, we have a logical reconstruction of Microsoft’s miscues, articulated by a company insider with a credible perspective on the issues under discussion. On the other hand, we have a corporate executive striving to characterize the color black as actually only a misrepresentation of a slightly shaded color white.

Following the Super Bowl, I watched the new reality series “Undercover Boss.” In a nutshell, the boss discovers that life in the real world of his company is distinctly different from that perceived in the executive hallways. What an innovative observation, right?

Seeing yet another real-world example of the enormous disconnect between the reality of what most in the working-world experience and the bubble framing the executive’s world view — as apparently also exists at Microsoft — suggests that perhaps [Microsoft CEO] Steve Ballmer should go undercover and get a clue.

— Patrick Schrote, Seattle

Spread the misery to public-sector jobs too

The Times’ article “State’s expense is hardest to cut” [page one, Feb. 7] says “wages and benefits for teachers and state workers make up 60 percent of the budget.” Negotiations of public employees’ labor contracts have a flaw.

Private-sector union negotiators face businesses protecting their stockholders’ — or their own — financial interests, providing a stiff backbone against union demands. Those negotiating public workers’ labor agreements have no such direct pocketbook reason to resist unions’ demands.

Instead they have a great desire to meet union demands since they not only receive election-campaign support but also receive votes from union members. There is really nobody looking out for us citizens in such negotiations.

In these dire times — with governments facing huge deficits and citizens everywhere facing grim losses — there is no reason why union workers in public-sector jobs should not share in the ordeal.

— Spencer Higley, Edmonds

Decrease ‘manager’ positions

While I agree with The Times that the more than friendly relationship between the public-sector unions and the Democrats who control state government contributes to the current budget problems, I think that you’ve entirely missed another — equally significant — factor.

During my time as an employee of two different state agencies, I witnessed an almost “aphid-like” growth in the population of so-called “managers” within state government. Each new manager not only added larger payroll costs, but it was also my experience that each addition led to a measurable reduction on the productivity of the agency.

From the beginning of Gov. Chris Gregoire’s administration to the time I left state employment, the number of levels of management above me nearly doubled. Based on my observations, such choices as deciding to increase taxes or sacrifice our children’s education are false dilemmas. Quality services can be delivered with a reduced budget if the number of nonproductive — and non-unionized — “managers” are cut back, at least to pre-Gregoire levels.

— Mike Farley, DuPont

Anniversary tarnished by discrimination

As an Eagle Scout who served in youth and adult leadership positions, I will always value scouting [“Scouts from boys to men carry oath on,” NWSunday, Feb. 7]. It shaped my life and I was honored to help bring scouting to others.

Yet the 100th anniversary is a hollow celebration for me because the Boy Scouts of America have — since 1991 — adopted discriminatory and exclusionary policies. These policies deny gay youth and adults the opportunity to participate in scouting — just as “don’t ask, don’t tell” denies gays the opportunity to defend our country. Both policies are wrong and both deserve to be changed.

I joined the Boy Scouts over 50 years ago and know many gay scouts who met my definition of “morally straight.” The Scout Oath and its values are clear to me: They are about your own character and that you should respect and defend the rights of others. This does not mean sexually straight.

Society is changing and scouting’s relevance is tarnished by their discriminatory policies. The Girl Scouts, Campfire USA and the 4-H Club do not have such policies; The Boy Scouts shouldn’t either. The 100th anniversary should provide the opportunity for the Boy Scouts to end these discriminatory policies.

— John Chaney, Fall City

Outdoor secondhand smoke a myth

Anti-smoking zealots continue to base their arguments on the fiction that “secondhand smoke” endangers their health, giving them the power to trample the rights of others [“A right to safely enjoy city parks,” Opinion, Feb. 9].

Secondhand smoke is specifically defined as concentrations of smoke in an enclosed area. Concentrations of smoke — even a few feet away from a smoker — in an outdoor area would be virtually unmeasurable and certainly not harmful. Risk from indoor secondhand smoke — as correctly defined — does pose a health risk to others and is properly prohibited. But the science [concerning outdoor secondhand smoke] has been purposely twisted to further a political agenda that seeks to “improve” the lives of others.

One speaker at the Parks Board on Monday admitted that she supports the ban to “pressure smokers to help them quit.” Such “help” is not needed by adults who have the ability to choose for themselves. Outdoor smoking does not endanger the health of others, despite unfounded beliefs of those whose real agenda is a total ban on tobacco and further control over the individual choices of others.

— Paul Gaskill, Seattle

Helps those with chronic respiratory diseases

I recently attended the Seattle Parks Board hearing which was held at City Hall on Jan. 28. Many people shared personal experiences about how they had been affected by smoking permitted at parks. One attendee brought in tons of cigarette butts they had collected from the area, discussed how the chemicals enter our water system and how it takes years for the chemicals to get out of the water source.

I work with people with chronic diseases including asthma, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes and I always recommend that these people exercise in our parks. Patients have expressed that the smoking in parks is a problem for them and we need smoke-free parks.

A patient’s major goal is going to the park after they are seen by health educators, which is an easy and realistic goal. For many people, going to parks is the only option they have for physical activity and exercise, since most of our patients can’t afford a gym membership.

People who currently smoke will also benefit from smoke-free parks. From my personal experience, most people want to quit smoking. However, when they go to a park, they are confronted with that addiction and have more barriers to quitting. We can all help people quit smoking with a ban in parks.

— Edgar Lopez, Burien

‘Tea party’ an erroneous moniker

Editor, The Times:

The National Tea Party Convention last weekend brings to mind just how perfectly appropriate the name is to this movement [“Tea-party convention a milestone,” page one, Feb. 5]. Like their predecessors tossing tea in Boston Harbor in December of 1773, they profess a righteous nonpolitical people’s movement against the tyranny of governmental oppression. In neither case is this actually true.

Most Americans believe the Boston Tea Party was a protest against a British tax on tea. In truth, that tax dated back six years to 1767, so why the long delay? Because the “party” was actually a protest against a seven-month-old British act that reduced tea taxes so that the better-tasting British tea became price-competitive with the less-desirable Dutch tea smuggled into the American colonies by men such as Samuel Adams — who organized the tea party to protect his business but promoted it to Bostonians as righteous indignation.

The modern tea party pretends to attract disgruntled citizens of all walks. Its modern equivalent to Adams appears to be the Koch family — one of the richest families in America, whose Koch Industries is the largest privately held American corporation, doing about $110 billion in annual business in oil and gas [industries]. The corporation helps fund many conservative lobby groups and think tanks, so it’s doubtful they believe in apolitical populist movements — Google them and you’ll find stories of lawsuits, multimillion-dollar settlements, environmental disasters and family members accusing other family members of organized crime.

— David Richardson, Shoreline

Tea party symptomatic of larger problem

The recent tax revolt led by the tea party is understandable, but misguided. An economic climate exists that began with Milton Friedman’s “neoliberalism” and grew with Thomas Friedman’s “flat earth” globalism, in which the economic playing field has been leveled through competition with slave-wage countries.

Beginning with Carter’s relaxation on trade tariffs — continuing full force with Reagan, the both Bushs, Clinton and now Obama — we have essentially become a Third World country and the largest debtor nation in the world.

We now have an aristocratic corporate elite with an obscene amount of wealth. The upper class that used to be represented by professionals such as doctors and lawyers are now the middle class. The working class that attained middle-class status through New Deal gains and strong labor unions have now become a labor class struggling to make ends meat and resenting taxes — despite the fact that state and federal governments can’t pay the bills either.

The tea party revolt is a symptom, but not a solution. I wonder if they realize the possible consequences of their revolt, such as the cessation of government programs such as Social Security and Medicare?

— Chris Anderson, Seattle

Convention wasn’t fiscally responsible

Let me get this straight: Tea partyers paid over $500 to attend their convention, $300 to hear Sarah Palin — who was paid $100,000 — and these people are screaming about deficit spending?

I’d be willing to stand in front of these folks and mouth empty-headed platitudes for 45 minutes for only $75,000. If they had any real sense of fiscal responsibility, they’d take me up on my offer.

— Timothy Walsh, Seattle

‘Joe and Jane citizen’ aren’t practicing common sense

Charles Krauthammer’s “The peasants are revolting” makes some sense [Opinion, Feb. 5]. However, Americans since 1945 appear to apply decreasing common sense, instead choosing what is decidedly less healthy for individuals and the U.S. as a supposedly “model democracy.” Today’s escalating trend: degrade government and politicians and “ennoble” Joe and Jane citizen.

Joe and Jane citizen are frequently hyper-consumers, unwilling to pay taxes to fund the too few, ill-equipped troops. Our “peasants” have shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality, lower job skills and more incivility than other industrialized democracies.

We have congealed into a fractious, self-indulgent nation whose view of “freedom” seems to mean more consumption, no savings and an “it’s their fault” response to problems. While we claim to detest our elected representatives, we re-elect nearly all of them.

Krauthammer degrades liberals for degrading “peasants.” Well, just look at peasants who behave self-destructively and ignorantly state: “Government should get out of my Social Security.” Consider today’s growing tea party; What do they represent that really benefits America? [They] overstate that “Taxes are wrong, government is inept and health-care reform is socialistic.”

Each of these epithets contains some validity. But the issue is how do we rapidly convert epithets into accurate problem statements that — when agreed to — lead to utilitarian solutions? Krauthammer’s ongoing exposure of liberal versus conservative agendas fails to map out clear, concise and compelling answers to these problems.

— Peter Loeb, Sequim

Precedence doesn’t hold with Christmas Day bomber

I was drawn to read Matt Apuzzo’s article “Unexpected controversy on right to remain silent” [News, Feb. 4]. Referring to Sen. Susan Collins statement that the right to have a lawyer applies to U.S. citizens and not to foreign terrorists, Apuzzo says: “Collins is wrong. Immigrants, even those who entered the country illegally, are guaranteed lawyers in the United States when they commit a crime.”

Leaving aside the minor — but obvious points — that terrorists entering this country can hardly be classified as “immigrants” and the fact that those detained as “enemy combatants” are entitled to a lawyer at trial in military tribunals, Apuzzo states as a fact that the Constitution guarantees enemy combatants trials in civilian courts.

That is the heart of the controversy; It is not settled because he says so. William Buckley was known for responding “By whom and to whose satisfaction.” when told “It has been shown that …”

Apuzzo goes on at great length citing cases where terrorists were tried in civilian courts. This doesn’t show it was the right thing to do. That’s what this is about. I do not believe Apuzzo is qualified to explain this part of the Constitution.

— Ron Kroeger, Redmond

Obama, not FBI, responsible for ‘botched’ interrogation

Matt Apuzzo is just another example of a long list [of reporters] who graphically illustrates the Obama administration’s ill-conceived resolutions to lead this country when confronted by increased risks of terror — and instead opt for a utopian view of civil rights.

It is incompetent and ill-conceived because the Miranda rule is not a constitutional requirement — only one conceived by the majority of the Supreme Court. The court-made rule had been misapplied for decades and it has become too late to remove it.

Additionally, a political decision to subject our citizens to the risk of annihilation merely to afford anyone — citizen or otherwise — the right to remain silent, when an exigent emergency is at hand, has never been the rule — constitutional or otherwise — but a well-recognized exception.

Nor has it been the exclusive responsibility of the FBI or any other agency to interrogate a terrorist. The decision to make it the sole responsibility is another example of the incompetence of this administration, which should be able to anticipate the investigation, detention, arrest and interrogation of terrorists both inside and outside this country’s borders, as well as on and off the battlefield.

— Elliott E. Alhadeff, Sammamish

Used as a tool for out-of-state interests

Editor, The Times:

Bruce Ramsey’s editorial, “Bills to spite Eyman don’t help” [Opinion, Feb. 3], gave a one-sided view on ballot initiatives. These proposed legislative bills to restrict initiatives would not only affect Tim Eyman, but all special-interest groups: lobbyists, out-of-state-funders and independent groups.

These groups use our ballot initiatives to influence and promote their own self-interests. By focusing the argument solely on Eyman, Ramsey is being disingenuous. He fails to discuss how the initiative process is not always a “homegrown,” grass-roots campaign.

In 2006, our I-933 “property-rights” initiative was mainly financed by Howard Rich, a New York real-estate developer. With Rich’s wealth and his self-interest group, Americans for Limited Government, this developer used the ballot initiative to influence elections in 11 Western states concerning “property rights.” I-933 was Rich’s attempt to overturn our local, city, county and state regulations on land-use development.

When Ramsey fails to give a complete view of the overuse and abuse of the initiative process without regard to all the facts, he does his readers a disservice by slanting the argument as a group of state legislators attempting to usurp democratic principles.

— Glenda Tecklenburg, Mill Creek

Initiative is important popular check on government

On Feb. 3, the Democrat-controlled Legislature introduced legislation to undo the will of the people — Senate Bill 6843. Initiative 960 forced our legislators to reveal how much new bills would cost — last year, some proposed bills were shown to cost billions! They sounded nice; we didn’t have billions to spend. Once the fiscal note was attached to the bill, it often — and rightly — failed. If this new bill passes, transparency is gone.

I- 960 also required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature — or a simple majority vote of the Legislature along with a vote of the people — to increase taxes. In other words, we wanted them to live within their means! Through rushed political maneuvering, legislators are trying to get through this bill that undoes I-960 without allowing us to read the bill or comment on it. It is appalling that they can be so arrogant in flouting our will.

If SB 6843 bill passes, you can bet there will be large tax increases for us and we will begin down the road to insolvency, similar to that which plagues other states.

— Nancy Thompson, Clinton

Initiative befuddles system, empowers troublemakers

The problem with the initiative is at least twofold:

First, the principle of representative government was weakened when, in 1912, the state adopted the progressive agenda — that included initiatives, referendums and recalls — to hobble the influence of “big business.” Today, in a much more complicated world, with better-educated voters and legislators, we don’t need the initiative.

Today’s legislators — not a bad lot compared with those from 1912 — have the ability to do their real job of representing us voters and putting together complex legislation that voters could not possibly undertake rationally — and do it much better without the initiative. The initiative is a constitutional anachronism, it is disruptive of good government and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

Ours is a representative democracy, not that of a Swiss canton — our state constitution says so.

Second, the initiative gives full scope to troublemakers like Tim Eyman. He not only earns big money by playing to the fears and ignorance of too many of us, asking “Wouldn’t you like government on the cheap?”

He cynically does the nihilistic work of his backers: wealthy but vicious ideologues. He gives employment to pitiable folks who will do anything for a buck, but they should find employment less damaging to our public treasure: the civic process.

The best way to weaken Eyman and his backers is to require, by law, that signature gatherers may not be paid. Should conscientious voters be willing to let the Eymans of this world do their civic work for them?

— James Huntley, Sequim

Essential for preserving democracy

The article regarding the ballot proposition in which King County voters are being asked to support the King County Library System by an increase in property taxes did provide excellent information about the origins, effect on a hypothetical property tax and the long-term plans for the use of these funds [“Property-tax boost needed to avoid cuts, library says,” NWThursday, Feb. 4].

I regret that Will Knedlik, who wrote the opposition statement in the Voter’s Pamphlet, was the only person quoted outside of the library-system’s staff. The article would have been much more balanced if it had included a statement from those who see the everyday benefits of having a well-used library in their community.

Libraries are at the center of our secular democracy; they truly serve everyone. It is not a mystery why, in tough times, libraries have been sought out even more for both information and respite.

An example is the White Center Library, an overcrowded 6,000-square-foot space into which 8,000 to 10,000 people walk every month. Especially in the late afternoon, the computers are often busy with students who are doing their homework — in our community, not everyone has a computer at home.

What I would invite Knedlik to do, is take his Kindle and retire to a comfortable space, where he will not be bothered by those who seek the benefits of learning, which he obviously enjoys for himself.

— Rachael Levine, Seattle

Analogous to local ferries

Toyota’s recent problems with sudden, unexpected acceleration [“The car-computer conundrum,” News, Feb. 5] is reminiscent of the similar problems experienced by the Issaquah-class ferries when they were new.

Their engines were controlled from the pilothouse via computers that proved to be unreliable. They sent erroneous signals to the engines, causing them to speed up or slow down against the wishes of the pilot. In one case, a computer caused a ferry to pull away from the dock while it was loading cars.

Washington State Ferries solved the problem by junking the computers and replacing them with “tried-and-true” pneumatic controls. Automobile manufactures should take a lesson from this and stick with the tried-and-true mechanical connections between the gas pedal and the engine.

Computers have their place in automotive technology, but where vital functions like steering, braking and engine speed are concerned, they should only advise the driver and not control those functions.

— Bryan Shrader, Port Townsend

America’s double standards

In August 2007, Mattel — the nation’s largest toy maker — recalled 1.5 million Fisher-Price infant toys made in China due to possible lead paint hazards. Later that year, Simplicity Inc. recalled 1 million Chinese-manufactured drop-side cribs following the death of two infants. Both cases shared one thing in common: products carrying American brands, but manufactured in China. Yet, China was made the villain for the simple reason that they were “made in China” and China should therefore take the blame.

This week, Toyota announced recalls for 4.2 million vehicles — including its best-selling models, Camry and Corolla — due to a sticking gas-pedal problem. The recalls have largely affected U.S. manufactured vehicles that used pedals manufactured by the CTS Corporation of Elkhart, Ind. Toyota has confirmed that vehicles with Vehicle Identification Numbers beginning with “J” — indicating Japanese origin of assembly — are not affected.

If we use the same logic as Chinese toy and crib recalls, the country that manufactured the problematic parts should be blamed. Then, let’s all blame America, not Toyota, for making unsafe vehicles. Otherwise, it’s really not fair for Toyota. America loves to treat itself and others with double standards.

At least, Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda has apologized. Did Bernie Madoff do the same?

— Yitan Li, Seattle

Media bias toward Toyota?

The Times has presented daily series of prominent articles all highly critical of the quality of Toyota automobiles. In some of them, we learn that the U.S. government is investigating complaints from Toyota owners.

It occurs that other brands of autos may also receive such complaints, since many millions of them are operated every day. So why is it that only Toyotas appear in such bad light in the media? Could this be a national campaign to hurt Toyota, so that GM and Chrysler — owned by the U.S. government — might sell more autos?

And why is The Times indifferent to the huge conflict of interest arising from investigations by our government of Toyota — one of its largest competitors in the manufacture and sales of autos?

— Hank Bradley, Seattle

King of the hill

Toyota is where Detroit was in the’70s: sitting on “top of the heap,” fat and lazy.

Japan is right where the U.S. companies were for years, cutting corners to compete, faced with rising wages, a poor business plan and more competition from slightly “awakened” U.S. automakers,

South Korea is where Japan used to be. Their cars rival and in many ways exceed what Japan and the U.S. can offer — and at a much better price. It’s time for those folk who have not looked beyond Japanese companies to see the transition. America builds great cars, give them a chance. If not, Hyundai builds in the U.S. as well.

— Rick Eirich, Kirkland

Civilization heading toward self-destruction

Editor, The Times:

Thank you for the Jan. 31 column by Danny Westneat [“Bookstores may have to turn the page,” NWSunday]. It was devastating to learn how book sales fell 60 percent compared with last January. I never realized that people were predicting the end of the bookstore and that Borders is now a penny stock — to say nothing of the recent closings of Bailey/Coy and Horizon Books on Capitol Hill. A bookseller confides there are forces larger than ours out there. I’m guessing one of those forces is Amazon and another is the technology that it, along with other companies, is creating — like the Kindle.

It makes me think how it is said that necessity is the mother of invention, but how, in this case, economic profit is the mother of invention. It seems like we are willing to risk our sense of place, our sense of history, our sense of what it means to be human to the altar of efficiency, expediency and the narcotic of the new, the quick, the fast and the entertaining.

This prediction of the end of books makes it seem like civilization is headed down some sort of intentional path. To me, it feels as if we’re on the road to nowhere, heading toward a cliff, with our self-destruction being our final destination.

Could we all just slow down for a spell and take stock of where we are — and then maybe figure out who we are? What makes us think that the goal of life is just to keep going without forethought of where we’re going and what kind of footprints we’re making on our way there?

Currently this competition for the eyeball in the name of “screen time” seems to be about distancing ourselves further and further from a direct experience of life.

— Joel Gillman, Bellingham

Stores closing, but Bookworm maintaining tradition

Please keep writing about the plight of bookstores — particularly independent bookstores that are struggling to keep their doors open. Places where customers and owners know each other make our lives a little richer.

[However,] Danny Westneat wrote in his column that Bookworm Exchange in Columbia City is “likely to close this spring.” That is not the case. I’ve been curating and hosting an evening of poetry at Bookworm Exchange for more than five years — and doing a poetry night in Columbia City for nine years now!

When I read in your column that Bookworm was closing this spring, I contacted the owner, Jim Holmes. [He said] he’s not closing this spring. He needs more customers, but the business is staying open through the rest of 2010. Hopefully a few more customers will buy a few more books every week and keep the place open for several more years.

Independent bookstores are an endangered species. Seattle has lost some good ones in the last couple of years. But Bookworm Exchange and my monthly poetry series inside the store on the third Friday of each month will continue.

— Christopher J. Jarmick, Bellevue

Will of the executives, not the people

When Bill Maurer, speaking on corporate advocacy [“Corporate speech is not un-American,” Opinion, Feb. 2], notes that “a corporation is made up of people,” he fails to mention that corporate political positions are made up of the executive officers— often one corporate executive. There is no input from employees, stockholders or customers.

One example: My wife and I hold Weyerhaeuser stock — a small amount. A few years ago the governor and Legislature — conservative Republicans — of the state of Alabama made the hard decision that some additional tax must be raised to support their schools. An executive of Weyerhaeuser made the decision to put substantial corporate funds into a campaign to defeat this measure.

My wife and I have grandchildren. We support schools. We were not informed, let alone asked for our — being the owners — opinion on this decision. These corporate funds could have been added to our stockholder dividends and we could have decided whether or not to support this, or any other political measure.

This was brought up at a subsequent stockholder’s meeting and we were told that even if the stockholders voted, it would only be an “advisory” vote. Where is the Supreme Court decision as to whether the stockholders or a paid — often well-paid — executive makes the decisions?

— Carl Schwartz, Sammamish

Not even a constitutional issue

Bill Maurer misses the whole point in his feeble attempt to justify the recent ruling by the Supreme Court. The Tillman Act — and related law — does not abridge the content of corporate speech and thus does not violate the First Amendment.

But the notion that a few individuals on a corporate board can spend millions to influence a federal election does not support the ideals of a democracy that is “by the people.” Individuals with opposing views have no equitable recourse.

Spending limits for electoral campaigns is not a constitutional issue. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers, in the 18th century, could imagine the power of today’s mass media — and would support this politicized court ruling? Does Maurer really think that unrestricted Saudi Aramco money used to influence our Federal elections is a good idea?

— Barry Zimmerman, Bellevue

The corrosive effect of money

After the recent decision by the Supreme Court, I took the time to read — again — the First Amendment and it clearly uses the term “people” once. How the high court could translate that into corporations is beyond me — and many others.

Bill Maurer’s description of corporations being “like every association … made up of people” sounds reasonable on its face. But corporations are in fact entities created by the state, controlled by specific laws and are hardly a consultative body that holds the political thoughts, fears and concerns of its investors at heart. I maintain that they were constructed to allow competitive advantages and contribute to the economic well-being of their stockholders and the country in general — and that’s it.

Their focus is appropriately parochial and they are run by CEOs and boards. In practice, CEOs and boards make the decisions, not the people. Their interest is to make a profit and maximize the return on investment. A lot [of corporations] make a lot of money and that’s probably good. But as a result, their ability to influence the political process is grossly disproportionate due to the vast sums of money at their disposal and that’s probably bad.

Our system has suffered a continual decline due to many factors but the corrosive effect of money applied to the political process is certainly one of the main contributors. If there was an overarching fear extant when the founders cobbled our nation together, it was fear of domination from one sector — be it one of the branches of governance, religion or a monarch — and they injected restraints and checks and balances to ensure lack of domination.

I think they would be deeply disappointed to see this unfettered source of power and influence — money — wedging itself into our political process and would not stand for such a turn of events. Had they known then what we now know, they would have specifically written corporations “out” and preserved all that the First Amendment provides for the people — individual citizens.

— Dave Stromquist, Tacoma

Amid count, city steps up sweeps of homeless

Officials for the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness claim that “What we’re doing is working.” That was exactly what they said last year when there was an increase of 196 unsheltered people counted in King County since 2008’s count. Almost five years into the 10-Year Plan, we have not made up the housing units lost since the start of the plan. Next year the plan will also be “working,” no matter what the count is and no matter how much housing is or is not available.

Here’s a little perspective regarding Seattle’s count in particular. This year, Seattle learned to do green-area sweeps only days before the count and the city also learned to step up the ticketing of cars and trucks — the homes of many homeless — to get them off the streets. The resultant effect was noted by counters who live in the neighborhoods they counted, who spoke of the absence of cars and camps they’d seen recently.

Last year the number of people counted in cars or trucks in Seattle was 513; This year the figure was 590. The totals in Seattle’s parks and bushes/undergrowth was 102 in 2009 but 173 in 2010.

It’s unknown how different the count would have been if the city hadn’t very recently banned the cars and [hadn’t] swept the camps. It’s also unknown where those people went, but it’s entirely possible they went deeper into the areas we don’t count, thus causing the count to be even less accurate than the “snapshot in time” it is purported to be.

The sweeps are working, unlike the plan.

— Sally Kinney, Seattle

Understanding the federal deficit

The article “What is the budget deficit and how did it get there?” was sobering to say the least [News, Feb. 2]. I couldn’t help but notice that even if the government completely eradicated all spending other than defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as interest on the debt, we would still run a deficit!

It brings into sharp focus how irresponsible the Republicans have been to blindly advocate tax cuts without the guts to take on military programs or health-care reform — though they did offer a “plan” for Social Security: To put it in the stock market … just before the crash.

And the sad consequences of modern Republican policies were shown starkly in the chart of annual deficits. Since World War II, deficits were relatively small until exploding during the Reagan years, then brought to zero and finally showing a surplus under Clinton, only to explode again under Bush. Now suddenly the Republicans are all worried about the deficit and blaming Obama? Please, do the math.

— Rick Kosterman, Seattle

Federal budget costly, no incentives for business

Your headline “Obama offers a budget of hard choices” really irritates me [page one, Feb. 2]. There is not one hard choice in this absurd budget, except that our struggling country will need to borrow $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years to pay for President Obama’s budget.

When our country desperately needs money for investment to create jobs, he takes it for the government and adds monumental tax increases on businesses and the “investor class.” He adds to the number of employees in the federal government by nearly 15 percent — during his first two years.

A key indicator of either his feelings about business or his economic ignorance is that he slashes the Commerce Department budget by 12 percent and increases liberal favorites such as the Energy, Education and State departments by an average of 7 percent each.

There are no hard choices in this budget, but only irresponsibility for the future of this country. Please think of how we are going to pay off this $8.5 trillion. Wouldn’t it have been better to reduce the size and cost of the federal government in these times of need and boost incentives for business?

— Theodore M. Wight, Seattle

Republicans acting against security interests

Editor, The Times:

When Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee calling on Congress to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which has resulted in the discharges of otherwise qualified [service] members — 13,000 during the last 17 years — Republicans sided against national security by speaking out against such a repeal. [“Top brass: ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ must go,” page one, Feb. 3.]

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said most service members support the law, when most actually support its repeal. An angry Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reversed his position from more than two years ago. During the fall of 2006, McCain said that if military leaders ever supported repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he would listen to them and support it’s repeal as well. But yesterday he made it clear he opposes such a repeal.

McCain is facing a strong primary challenge from right-winger J.D. Heyworth. I guess McCain has decided to put re-election, not country, first.

— Robert M. Keenan, Mukilteo

God is dead

The Times’ editorial “The right thing, overdue,” [Opinion, Feb. 3], stated some very important beliefs — if you read between the lines.

What you said is that God and his word, the Bible, no longer have a place in the lives of the people in the United States. It would seem to me that if you were going to take the stand that you took with integrity, you would at least tell your readers explicitly that, in your own opinion, you believe that God no longer has a place in the USA.

— Edwin Holden, Renton

Catholic tradition teaches dignity

I write [on behalf of myself, Robin LaMoria, Sue Ford and John Reid] to raise our collective voice in answer to Leonard Pitts Jr.’s question, “Who speaks for the poor?” [Opinion, Jan. 31] After our disbelief at reading Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s words — in reference to his comparison of people who receive public assistance to stray animals who keep reproducing — we were outraged. As Catholics, we are challenged by the values of our Catholic social teaching. Three values come immediately to mind.

First, the dignity and respect of all people: Recognizing that all people, created in God’s image, are sacred and worthy of respect and dignity. In this regard, poor and rich are equal.

Second, the call to community: This calls us to accept our responsibility to uphold the dignity of all people by helping to assure all have access to basic needs — food, health care, safe housing, education and basic freedoms. These needs are not the privilege of the rich and middle classes.

Third, a special option for the poor: We believe that when we legislate policies and prepare budgets in our homes, institutions and in legislative bodies, we first ask how these policies impact people who are poor. Does it make their situation better or worse?

Where is the dignity and respect for others in Bauer’s remarks? We can only repeat that we are outraged by his comments and hope his comments spark others to speak out and act with and on behalf of those who are struggling.

— Bobbie Beaudreau, Edgewood

Removing poverty, not through social Darwinism

Leonard Pitts Jr. is on to something, although he doesn’t analyze it far enough. The Bible says — I think I remember that it was Jesus — you have the poor with you always.

The intellectual elite at one time — in’20s and’30s — believed that social Darwinism would, with public-policy implementation, eliminate or make this [poverty] problem manageable. It was called “eugenics.” However, that idealistic solution was abandoned by the elite when Hitler actually applied it — to the horror of the world.

There is no doubt that basic ability is a factor, along with environment — probably 50 percent each — and as Pitts says, “Jim Crow” affects some areas if not all, as to explain why the poor are poor and its effects.

If our people ever achieved a consensus of the view that helping the poor become educated and responsible through training and incentives — while we stimulate investment — we could all move forward together to make a better life for all. Although Pitts uses this polemic to knock one Republican official, maybe the light of truth and reason will creep into our zeitgeist and not pit one faction against the other.

— John E Woodbery, Monroe