Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Bin Laden is dead

Why is a respected publication such as The Seattle Times taking seriously allegations that Osama bin Laden is still releasing audiotapes [“Bin Laden takes credit for plot,” News, Jan. 25]?

Bin Laden has been dead since December 2003, as evidenced by the funeral held for him, his lack of credible public appearances since then and the obvious forgeries of video and audiotapes since that year — along with other evidence of his death.

It is not feasible that a man near death from kidney failure could survive for so many years without technologically advanced health facilities. It is easy to fake audiotapes these days using voice sampling and the tone and message of the audiotapes changed drastically after bin Laden’s death in 2003, strongly suggesting that someone was forging them.

— Roger Burton, Bothell

Don’t try suspected terrorists in court

It disgusts me and my family to hear about Obama’s plan to try these terrorists in federal court [“Bomb-plot interrogation fuels debate on terrorism suspects,” News, Jan. 24]. They are terrorists as he finally mentioned; They should be interrogated and then put to death.

Provide them with any type of a weapon and they will take your life immediately. All the while he is sending bombs onto suspected terrorists in Afghanistan.

Why don’t we arrest them first and provide them with a lawyer and a jury of their peers. We are taking a known terrorist into a civilian courtroom and killing other suspected terrorists. Under the Obama administration’s theory wouldn’t that make the administration the murderers? Or am I the murderer when I fight over there to keep you safe?

— Dustin Whitford, Monroe

Appalled by accusations thrown at Obama

The stories I hear on the news these days — primarily those by the right wing aimed at undermining the Obama presidency — are appalling.

We Americans are expected to forget some very important facts, such as the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. And on the heels of that fact, the Bush administration had a whole lot of intelligence suggesting that such a terrorist act would be attempted.

We can, of course, follow that up with the fact that the Bush administration seemed to do everything it could to make sure bin Laden would not be captured.

And now we’re supposed to believe the fiction that Dick Cheney is peddling about how the Bush administration made us safer? If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be hilarious.

— David McKenzie, Federal Way

Guns are like cars, when used safely and properly

The Seattle Times reported three state lawmakers wish to ban the sale of so-called military-style semi-automatic weapons in response to recent lives lost in Seattle and Lakewood [“Assault weapons ban likely to fail,” News, Jan. 25].

First of all, these state lawmakers are Democratic, secular progressives that quite simply do not like guns and will selfishly use horrible tragedies to help fulfill their anti-gun agenda. This has nothing to do with right or wrong.

If these Democrats — who have been in power in Olympia forever — were serious about repairing recurring problems involving repeat offenders, they should attack “feel-good” laws that return repeat offenders to our streets only to harm and murder in a more violent manner.

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming cars for drunk drivers. Both can be dangerous weapons in the wrong hands; Both can also become lifesavers in the right hands when being used safely and properly.

The next time re-offenders are released into society and do re-offend violently, remember these names: Rep. Ross Hunter and Sens. Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl. Every effort to reform laws that allow violent offenders back to society should be taken immediately without delay.

— Vern LaPrath, Bremerton

Mantra ‘guns don’t kill people’ is false

We are constantly reminded that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right “to keep and bear arms.” I suppose that was the message of the 10 civilian men I saw wearing side arms in Mill Creek last week. Armed strangers make me shy, otherwise, I might have reminded them of the second and third words in the Amendment: “well regulated.”

Everyday we hear horrific reports of gun violence, yet it is ludicrously easy to carry a gun. Everyday we hear the absurd mantra “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Actually, it is largely men who kill people; Less than half the population, they are responsible for 91.3 percent of gun homicides.

So let me pass along a suggestion from Randy Cohen, The New York Times ethicist, to the more responsible half of our population. If we can’t or won’t curb gun violence by restricting the availability of guns, let’s expand and reorient it. Require all women to get a gun — preferably pink — and carry it in plain sight everywhere they go. “Feminizing gun ownership, could ultimately reduce its appeal to men, making gun-toting as unmasculine as carrying a purse,” Cohen says.

That idea is saner than anything we are doing now to confront a very serious problem.

— Sue Griswold, Mill Creek

Bill is too broad

The assault-weapons bill is stated to ban the sale of “assault weapons” but it is far more reaching.

The public would be amazed at how many firearms would be classified as “assault weapons” that are common recreational firearms, hunting rifles and personal-protection firearms. The language of this bill is so broad, most firearm owners I know will have a firearm newly defined as an “assault weapon!”

There are “exceptions” listed in Senate Bill 6396 for law enforcement. Clearly this was done with the thought that police should not be “outgunned” by criminals. This raises the question then, when the private citizen has to face the same criminal as the police, why should the law shackle the law-abiding by outlawing suitable self-defense firearms?

There is a provision to keep those firearms, redefined by SB 6396 as assault weapons, but only if the owner is willing to open up their home to law-enforcement inspection. A U.S. citizen should not have to sacrifice their Fourth Amendment rights just to keep their Second Amendment rights.

— Jeff Doane, Port Angeles

Creating a community gathering place

Regarding your editorial “SeaTac venture is not a public use,” [Opinion, Jan. 25], it should be made clear that Washington state law declares a public parking structure is, by law, a public use.

Last September, the City Council passed a condemnation ordinance to acquire an existing two-acre site with the express purpose of constructing public parking. The editorial inaccurately cited SeaTac’s intention to build “private restaurants, night clubs and shops” alongside this parking on the same parcel. The city has not filed for condemnation in court and is working to reach an agreement with the property owner.

The city has been working on this 40-acre city center across from the airport since 1999. The goal is to create a gathering place for the community. At a recent open house, residents again confirmed this desire. A market study completed by an outside firm concluded this is a viable goal. While the editorial stated taxpayers “would be on the hook for a 1 percent utility tax and $20 annual car-tab fee,” recent projections call for no new taxes to be levied for this project.

These are complex issues but we remain optimistic we can realize the vision and help our community thrive.

— Mayor Terry Anderson, SeaTac

Official is out of touch with reality

Editor, The Times:

Criticism of U.S. military relief-operations in Haiti by Italy’s senior civil-protection official is political hot air [“Disaster expert: U.S. Haiti relief ‘pathetic,’” page one, Jan. 25].

Guido Bertolaso whines that American military officers are running a “civilian” relief effort. I’d like to ask Bertolaso where else he’d find the personnel, equipment, organizational discipline and individual initiative to do what’s been accomplished so far.

Some of the first medical responders to hit the beach were Coast Guard medics from the cutters Tahoma and Mohawk. It was Air Force personnel who reopened the Port-au-Prince airport — providing not only continuous air-traffic control, but maximizing use of a pitifully small aircraft parking-area. The main port would still be closed were it not for Navy Seabees, Navy divers and the Coast Guard cutter Oak — the only buoy tender in Haiti.

Who’s been bringing bulk supplies directly ashore away from Port-au-Prince? It’s the sailors on the landing craft from the Navy assault ship Bataan. Where’s the best-equipped hospital — one that’s not going to crumble in the next aftershock? It’s the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort. Who else has been distributing food and water? Troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division.

Bertolaso’s charge that the military doesn’t “have a close rapport with the international organizations and aid groups” is false. Our military leaders have been coordinating closely with relief groups and U.N. officials.

Haiti relief is an overwhelming job, but the situation there would be even worse without the initial and continuing work of the U.S. military. It’s yet another reason I’m proud to have worn the uniform.

The Italian official describes our military effort as “a truly powerful show of force, but … completely out of touch with reality.” Rubbish. It’s a truly powerful show of compassion and Signor Bertolaso is the one who is out of touch.

— Phil Johnson, retired Coast Guard lieutenant commander, Seattle

Stop your whining

Paine Field is a wonderful airport that contributes an enormous amount to the economy of the surrounding area [“Crowd gives FAA an earful on Paine Field passenger plan,” NWFriday, Jan. 22].

As a private pilot, I am very much aware of the need to be sensitive to the neighbors, but I am getting really sick of the complaints from people who buy property near an airport — knowing full well that the airport is there and that there will be aircraft noise — then start whining about the noise. There is a reason why property values near an airport are typically slightly lower than the values of properties a little further away.

If you don’t like aircraft sounds, don’t buy property near an airport. If you bought your property before the airport was built — that’s a long time ago — the time to complain was then, not now.

— Chris Ryan, Mission, B.C.

Environmental assessment faulty

I attended a very spirited meeting at Meadowdale High School discussing the proposed opening of commercial air traffic at Paine Field. The environmental-assessment study was presented with the conclusion of very little impact on the region.

As a very frequent business traveler utilizing Sea-Tac, I was surveyed about six years ago by one airline asking if I would utilize Paine Field. At first, one thinks of the selfish convenience of just going to Paine Field — one developer stated he was simply tired of going to Sea-Tac.

I reject this viewpoint for several reasons; I believe we observe enough selfishness in our daily lives and need to think about the impact on those around us. I have found travel from Edmonds to Sea-Tac manageable to maintain the area lifestyle.

The study states there will be little environmental impact but it is not based on full airport operation and therefore incomplete. It also does not address the loss of property value in current times where citizens have taken a financial beating. Cities dependent mostly on residential-property taxes, such as Edmonds, will face further revenue burdens.

If Horizon and Allegiant Air enter, other airlines cannot be prevented from joining. Full-scale operations, noise, traffic, pollution and crime will be real-world problems with a decrease in our standard of living.

Proponents will say that significant new jobs will be created. I respond that companies would simply transfer existing workers from other locations with minimal job growth.

After reviewing all opinions this is not a good deal. It is a classic example of a few benefiting financially at public expense. I encourage all citizens to take a serious look and investigate this proposal.

Buckle up ladies and gentlemen; and make no mistake; our wonderful lifestyle here is currently under siege.

— Mike Murdock, Edmonds

It seems arbitrary

Why cut 200 jobs [“McGinn plans cutbacks in 200 city jobs,” NWSaturday, Jan. 23]? Why not five or 1,000? Mayor Mike McGinn has picked a random number out of the air and made a campaign promise.

I acknowledge the city is facing a budget crunch but a responsible executive would get some facts first. Are there unnecessary positions that can be cut? Is there duplication that can be eliminated? Are there noncrucial services that, while nice to provide in good times, Seattle cannot afford in bad times? Will cutting positions in revenue-generating departments save money in salaries but cost the city more in lost fees? Will it frustrate citizens because government no longer functions for them? Do we really want to cut willy-nilly without knowing the impact?

The majority of the positions the mayor has identified are not funded by the general fund and eliminating them will do nothing to make up a deficit there. Seattle has a budget process that can and should be used to identify the cost savings that McGinn hopes to realize.

It seems as though McGinn — having naively made a promise — now intends to compound that error by keeping it. The damage could be tremendous. Is this what we can expect for the next four years?

— Bill Elmelund, Seattle

Driven by greed, they target unfairly

State Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, has my support regarding the red-light cameras [“Bill would change fines, timing of red-light cameras,” NWMonday, Jan. 25].

The driving force behind these cameras is greed. Shortening the yellow-light period is only the start of how the citizens will get soaked. Look at the city of Lake Forest Park and their placement of a camera near the Brookside school on Northeast 178th Street. This road has been a 25 mph area for a long time. The city has created a tricky exception to the rule that is currently in existence around school zones. The camera operates during two different periods of the day: from 7-9:30 a.m. and from 2-4:30 p.m. The exception is that during these two different periods, the speed is 20 mph and the school yellow warning lights are not operating. The camera operates only on school days — another exception.

The result is that a person with little knowledge of the area — especially during the dark and rainy period — would definitely get a ticket. In addition to that, these tickets are probably keeping the courts busy and making money for an out-of-state third-party.

How about hiring an extra local patrol and keeping standard rules in place instead of placing obnoxious cameras that cause accidents and tension to the majority of law-abiding citizens? The backlash will be that citizens who have voted for bonds and school levies will slowly stop supporting their local government.

— Fran Whitehill, Shoreline

Show me the evidence

I seems clear there is no good — repeat good — data that camera lights reduce accidents; Anecdotes are not data.

Let’s see the city prove it the red-light cameras not just intended as a revenue source by giving the fines to Mercy Corps.

One Scandinavian country took out the traffic lights altogether and accidents went down. It took guts, but it worked.

One intersection — Northeast 45th Street at Union Bay Place — has five corners and is a good candidate for a European-type roundabout. It has lots of room and will have no lights, no maintenance, no bookkeeping, no electricity and therefore no cameras and bureaucracy.

Otherwise, show me the beef.

— Don Bell, Seattle

Bill before House will help problem

Editor, The Times:

Tina, the little Chihuahua-pug mix, is lucky to be alive [“Pet scrapes with coyote, lives to wiggle happily,” NWWednesday, Jan. 13]. Thanks to a concerned citizen, the coyote dropped the dog and ran off. A few more minutes and the situation could have been fatal for Tina.

Fortunately, scenarios such as these can be prevented by making sure dogs are on a leash. Even well-trained canines can get excited and run off. Coyotes are urban survivalists and will help themselves to pet food in backyards, and their diets are sometimes augmented by free-roaming small pets.

Crowded out of their habitat by humans, some wildlife become opportunists tempted by an easy meal. They can become aggressive, causing property damage and clashing with pets and humans. People should reduce temptations — feed pets indoors or bring food in at night, secure garbage and keep pets close and leashed.

There’s an important bill before our state’s Legislature that would also help reduce wildlife conflicts: House Bill 1885 bans the intentional feeding of coyotes, cougars, wolves, deer, elk, bears and raccoons — wildlife officials and licensed rehabilitators are exempt. This bill won’t penalize you for feeding Fido outdoors, but it helps officials investigate, educate and fine people who intentionally feed potentially harmful wildlife.

Please urge your legislators to support HB 1885 to keep people, pets and wildlife safe.

— Sharon Sneddon, Edmonds

Don’t kill Magnolia coyotes

If you can find the coyote and kill it you can figure out how to trap it [“Officers to hunt, kill magnolia coyotes,” page one, Jan. 22].

It is a tiresome and less-than-civilized mentality that the best response humans can come up with is to exercise the ultimate sanction on animals. If we hadn’t disrupted and displaced animal habitats and disregarded the rights of animals to exist and coexist with humans, then these incursions wouldn’t happen; but since they do, we should be more humane in our solutions. Killing is the easy way out.

— Elizabeth Campbell, Seattle

Keep pets inside

This must be stopped. We share the world with animals and we must understand that it is their planet as much as it is ours.

It’s common sense — if you are with a small child, hold his/her hand, if you are out with your dog, keep your dog on a leash. Keep your cats inside.

Coyotes keep overpopulation of other animals in check. Let’s use our minds and think about our actions rather than obliterate an animal because it is hungry.

— Dolores Rogers, Seattle

Politicians will become NASCAR drivers

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling removing restrictions on campaign contributions from corporations is a blow to the people [“Ruling alters election equation,” page one, Jan. 22]. I guess we need to edit the Declaration of Independence to read: “Of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.”

What needs to be done now is for Congress to pass legislation requiring all politicians to publish their sponsorships. I can see it now: Members of Congress wearing shirts covered with varying-sized logos — much the same as a NASCAR driver.

Or better yet, a senator will be introduced as: “Sen. Maria Cantwell, WA-D; brought to you by Microsoft, Starbucks, and Boeing.”

— Kevin M. Callahan, Seattle

Corporations aren’t people

Democracy is down for the count. Corporations are not people. Corporations are business entities, shielding individuals from liability.

The Supreme Court has made the most reprehensible decision since the Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1857.

Asserting that this recent decision upholds free speech is false. It upholds the ability of the rich and the powerful to influence elections and buy our government — a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Corporations are not people.

We have already seen terrible hardship wrought on the American people by large banks, insurance and other business giants who care far more for profit than they do for the average American citizen — or for democracy itself.

Corporations are not people. If they were, one might be tempted — due to the experience of the American public — to suspect them of tending toward sociopathy.

— Bambi Lin Litchman, Tacoma

Affront to Constitution

Our Constitution is our only — although sometimes ineffective — protection against the powerful enacting arbitrary laws designed to enrich the powerful at the suffering of the people.

Now our Constitution is the victim of an arbitrary interpretation by the powerful designed to enrich the powerful at the suffering of the people it was intended to protect.

This is extremely disheartening. Between the war on drugs, the war on terror and now this, we are coming full circle to a “robber-baron society” — where the powerful justify their arbitrary and capricious policies with fear of what would happen if they were not protecting us.

We die in wars, on the street and in our hospitals. Our opportunities are limited by consolidation of commerce and our lives suffer through wild swings of boom and bust, primarily because a few are addicted to power and wealth they will never be able to fritter away in their lifetimes.

Now they have unlimited ability to flood us with ads that don’t even need to be factual — this when their prime directive is bottom-line profit to shareholders. Result: Short-term profits at the expense of community stability that we all have suffered through.

Please let your representative know that this pendulum has swung way, way too far to be healthy for our culture and our children’s future.

— John Yunker, Seattle

Don’t use credit history, education or income to set rates

Mike Kreidler’s Jan. 22 contributing column hit the nail on the head: Credit scoring in the insurance industry is unfair and discriminatory, especially to people with low incomes [“State must end insurance industry’s use of credit scoring,” Opinion]. The time for the State Legislature to act is now.

Two bills have been introduced that will be a solution. House Bill 2513 and Senate Bill 6252 would ban the practice of using a person’s credit history, education or income to set insurance rates. Driving records and vehicle-safety records are reasonable factors for insurers to consider when pricing insurance; A person’s income, education level and credit score are not. With our economy in recession and unemployment in Washington at 9.5 percent, there is absolutely no reason we should allow insurers to squeeze already-vulnerable families on a discriminatory basis.

The insurance commissioner is probably right: Insurers are in the business of collecting premiums and they will defend any basis for doing so with whatever tactics at their disposal. Lawmakers should ignore their smokescreens and enact this legislation. This is a matter of basic fairness.

— Matt Judge, Seattle

Correlation between credit scores and costs of claims

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is wrong to oppose the use of credit scoring in the setting of insurance rates. The use of credit scores streamlines the insurance rate-making process, allowing better anticipation of claims and better management of risk. Eliminating the use of credit scores in insurance rate-making won’t increase fairness — the practice is fair — but it will raise base insurance rates for just about everyone.

A wide variety of studies, including ones conducted by the Texas Department of Insurance and Federal Trade Commission, have documented a statistically significant link between the cost of an individual’s claims and credit scores. The Legislature will hurt Washington consumers if it takes Commissioner Kreidler’s advice.

— Matthew Glans, insurance and finance legislative specialist, Chicago

While we’re at it, throw out auto-insurance law

Washington’s mandatory auto-insurance law should be thrown out! We should set up an entirely new system that will insure everyone and provide more insurance at a price drivers can afford.

14 to 30 percent of drivers — depending on county — have no insurance. The Washington State Patrol has a record for each county and the state based on traffic stops. The problem is getting worse!

The main recipients of our auto-insurance dollars are insurance companies and lawyers. They get about half of your dough. We should be outraged but the silence is deafening.

We are paying for all those ads featuring a gecko, good-hands people and a woman dressed up in a white apron. Personal-injury lawyers simply write a demand letter to the insurance company and the matter is eventually settled netting 20 to 40 percent of the settlement. I believe that lawyers and insurance companies are in bed together. Why should they rock the boat? It is up to us!

Ask your legislator to have the UW do an independent study on “pay-at-the-pump” no-fault auto insurance — when you fill up your tank you ad a few cents a gallon for insurance.

We could adopt the auto plan of our neighbor British Columbia. Everyone there is insured and there is an 84 percent approval rating.

— Ed Patton, Yakima

Eyebrows raised

Editor, The Times:

“Bait and Switch” are the words that come to mind as I watch Mayor Mike McGinn pretend to be concerned about the sea wall, only as a way to undermine the tunnel project [“City Council says ‘not so fast’ to McGinn plan,” page one, Jan. 20].

I don’t want to be asked as a voter to OK a decision that deals with public safety if I have elected officials to take care of my public safety. The sea-wall repair was always a part of the tunnel project.

McGinn did not get my vote because I believe in moving forward not backward. Even when he watered down his opposition to the tunnel, I didn’t believe it for a second.

This new move seems very smarmy and very sneaky — and what a terrible way to start his relationship with the City Council.

My eyebrows are definitely very raised.

— Paige Stockley, Seattle

Necessary safety measure

The WSDOT process of exploring options to replace the existing viaduct cost taxpayers nearly $40 million. The ‘final’ amalgam of options presented at the Town Hall meeting did not include a tunnel. I was there.

The subsequent fandango, cha-cha and polka dance that was done by elected officials resulted in the tunnel. Now we should be suspicious of a newly elected mayor for addressing a critical safety issue that trumps aesthetics and investors?

Perhaps Mayor Mike McGinn is doing the job he was elected to do: advocating safety and well-being for the communities of Seattle. It is brave to propose the sea-wall construction now.

I will support this effort to restore the sea wall and I will support the mayor’s efforts to improve the quality of public education.

While I have never been keen to be taxed more, what vexes me more is the waste of tax money once it is acquired by government.

— Roselee Warren, Seattle

A ploy to separate it from tunnel project

Mayor whats-his-name’s plan to build the sea wall in advance of the tunnel project reeks of political maneuvering.

This is clearly a ploy to divorce the city from the tunnel project in hope of eroding its support and funding while not explicitly reneging on his promise to support it.

This is about as underhanded as it could get. What else will we get from this guy if, less than a month into his tenure, he is already trying to game the people and their intentions?

— Page Russell, Burien

Squandered decades of help

I have minimal sympathy for Haiti [“Hope by the ton for a land in chaos,” page one, Jan. 19]. They squandered decades of help when they should have been improving their country through education, population control, reforming their government, restoring their environment and developing industries and tourism to finance a better infrastructure and stronger, safer buildings.

The good Samaritan helped the injured person he found along the road, but the good Samaritan did not support the man for the rest of his life. When this crisis is over the Haitians will go back to being a perpetual welfare state and governments and charities will continue to be enablers.

I think Pat Robertson is wrong about Haiti being cursed, but I tend to agree with Rush Limbaugh’s “don’t donate” comment.

— Byron Gilbert, Seattle

Evidence of pact with the devil: The Dominican Republic

Pat Robertson can speak of spiritual probabilities, but not spiritual certainties for bad events [“Religious Haitians see hand of God in earthquake,” News, Jan. 18]. The Christian creation story describes a good but — because of human sin — an ever-decaying, broken world. Therefore, God or Satan no longer has to intervene for any particular hardship to occur.

However, Haiti and the Dominican Republic do share the island of Hispaniola. Haiti obtained its independence from France and the Dominican Republic obtained its from Haiti in 1844. Haiti’s religion is voodoo and the Dominican Republic is Catholic. Haiti has suffered traditionally abusive and despotic governments and the Dominican Republic is a democratic republic. The Dominican Republic has enjoyed strong GDP growth to $78.19 billion and per-capita income of $8,200. Haiti has a GDP of $6.95 billion and per-capita income of $1,300.

Classical Christian thought says humans live with the consequences of their decisions and God does not override those human choices. By making a pact with the devil for their independence, Haitians would empower the devil to extract a pound of flesh in myriad ways as long as they remained unrepentant. From a Christian perspective, the residents of the Dominican Republic repented of this sin and prospered.

— Nolan Nelson, Eugene Ore.

Danny Glover’s comments more outrageous

Your newspaper devoted many lines to recurrent themes about Pat Robertson — i.e. putting his foot in his mouth regarding “divine punishment of Haitians for their religious aberrations.”

Meanwhile another “wise” man — this time a liberal — Danny Glover, said, in my opinion, an even more outrageous and idiotic thing on the same subject. He blamed the failure of the conference on global climate in Copenhagen for the earthquake in Haiti. He also blamed the U.S.A. for everything bad that has happened during this century — but only a very lazy liberal doesn’t blame America for that.

— Michael Velikin, Kenmore

Bodies imply racism

The hundreds of bodies strewed across the cover of Jan. 15’s edition was extremely humbling [“Desperation grips Haiti as aid struggles to get in,” page one]. Thank you for your reports on the devastation and allowing us at home to be more involved in the tragedy.

However, I have always been disturbed at the implied racism that comes with only displaying mutilated bodies of non-Americans — and never of Americans. Given the United States’ dark history of using the bodies of prisoners, minorities and the poor as cadavers for medical practice, and using “unclaimed Chinese bodies” in the Bodies Exhibit — a for-profit exhibition — it is clear that racism and elitism still exist in our progressive state.

Of course, I don’t yearn to see the misfortune of others, but if The Times chooses to display bodies of people not of our citizenship, The Times should also display bodies of our fallen troops and victims of our disasters and misfortune. Or no photographs of explicit dead bodies should be shown at all. There is a double standard regarding whose death gets to be depicted as dignified and whose is just entertainment.

— Yingxuan Law, Seattle

Detriment to a healthy society

I would have to disagree with your editorial supporting the privatization of liquor sales [“Privatize liquor sales,” Opinion, Jan. 19].

Alcohol is a powerful influencing factor in all sorts of social pathologies: crimes — including violent crimes and sexual assaults — divorce and other bad human behavior. Anything that tends to increase alcohol consumption will automatically result in an increase in these social problems.

What we should be doing is asking ourselves: What can be done to reduce — as much as possible — the consumption of alcohol? This would result in a healthier society overall.

— Dan Hochberg, Seattle

Saves taxpayer money

I couldn’t agree more with your editorial on privatizing liquor sales in Washington state. Doing so would save untold millions.

No more state employees with their salaries, health care and pensions to pay for. No more buildings to lease, own or maintain. Let’s let the private sector pay these expenses.

The state would actually net more income on the liquor taxes alone without having personnel, payroll, building locations and other normal overhead to pay for.

— Wayne Jensen, Kirkland

Model for news will still exist — with necessary changes

Robert McChesney and John Nichols undermine their own argument for governmental subsidies for struggling newspapers [“Subsidies necessary to keep a free press for a free nation,” Opinion, Jan. 17] when they say “there is no known way a free and self-governing society can survive without credible independent journalism.” Because this is true, because news is essential, there will always be a viable economic model for the news industry — if news organizations are willing to make the necessary changes.

McChesney and Nichols claim that government subsidies are compatible with journalistic diversity, and support their view with a survey claiming that the subsidized media of Northern Europe are the freest in the world.

This claim is challenged by American author and gay activist Bruce Bawer, who — after living in Europe for several years — wrote in “While Europe Slept” that “journalistic diversity in Europe is largely illusory and blatantly ideological in its slant and in the selection of events and details. By American standards the [media’s] cumulative ideological range was quite narrow — from one end of the left to the other.”

“Dead tree” journalism — the journalism of the newspaper on the front porch — is indeed endangered. But tens of millions of Americans willingly pay substantial monthly fees for cellphones, cable television and Internet access — and if their only source for the local daily news is via an online newspaper, they will pay for that as well.

— Stephen Triesch, Shoreline

Ben Franklin omitted

McChesney and Nichols got the founding father wrong in their guest column. The correct analysis is to recognize Benjamin Franklin for his guidance of freedom of the press and speech.

Before his involvement with government, Franklin ran a printing business. To expand his printing business he bought a bankrupt newspaper. He had no noble cause involved in printing some kind of truth and instead he printed rumors he picked up in business meetings and at times he even made up his own stories. People liked his stories and his printing business expanded. Newspapers are in the same printing business but are writing stuff fewer and fewer people find interesting.

Most businesses are conducting paperless business as part of going green. Newspapers want to go the other way and print more. Why? Then the ultimate question: Who gets to choose who would get a subsidy — maybe I will start a paper to get a government check.

— Dennis Helgeson, Kent

Loss is ironic

Editor, The Times:

I just saw in the news that the Republican [Scott Brown] won the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Edward Kennedy [“GOP wins Kennedy seat,” page one, Jan. 20]. How ironic is it that the Senate seat of America’s greatest advocate for universal health care in America should become the means by which the Republican party can now attempt to halt the first significant health-care legislation?

I’m stunned and disgusted. The health-care bills currently before Congress are not what I think Sen. Kennedy had in mind, but they are the first steps in the right direction. If you don’t take a first step, you can’t take a second or third step or have a chance to correct your direction. You have no direction.

I think we all understand that the Republicans — as they have stated — want to kill the health-care legislation because they feel that losing on this issue will be President Obama’s Waterloo. And they will do anything to see him fail. So the American people are, once again, held hostage by those who are supposed to be our representatives.

If the American people are against the movement to provide health care for all Americans, it is simply because they have been fed so many lies about this issue by the ones who would stand to lose significant wealth if such a program was ever to be passed into law — i.e. the medical insurers and pharmaceutical companies, etc. The individuals that speak the loudest about how health care would not help the general public are usually those who are public servants. They have never been without health-care benefits for their families and have never had to pay exorbitant amounts for their coverage.

— Linda Joyce Knowlton, Redmond

Health care decided election

With the very fortunate and timely election of Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, the Democrat party is in complete meltdown and denial mode. They have already thrown their hapless candidate under the bus and driven back and forth over her several times.

But in truth, there is no way she could have won this race because this race was not about her. It was instead about how President Obama and senior Democrat leaders in both chambers of Congress are trying to ram this abomination of a health-care bill down the throat of the people and we don’t appreciate it.

Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to have to look at this whole process anew and hit the restart button and start listening to the people once again. Or come November, they will join Martha Coakley as newly unelected persons looking for new opportunities.

— Scott Stoppelman, LaConner

Ashamed of Massachusetts roots

“I was born and raised in Massachusetts.” Up until today, I have always said those seven words with pride, but no more.

This Tuesday, 52 percent of Bay State voters let fear, greed and selfishness get the better of their intelligence, good sense and conscience. I am angry and ashamed.

As I tally up the years, I find that — coincidentally — as of this year, I will have lived in the Seattle-area longer than I lived in Massachusetts. From this day forward: “I am from Seattle.”

— David Swanson, Kirkland

Chance for Republicans to implement health care?

The Republican Party is to be congratulated for their victory in Massachusetts. Now the evil Democratic health-care overhaul plan can be summarily scrapped and the Republicans can begin working in earnest to implement their own health-care plan. This is great news and every concerned American should be proud!

Wait a minute…there is no Republican health-care plan — other than if you get sick to just go to the nearest emergency room.

Those popping sounds you’re hearing are Champagne bottles being opened in the boardrooms of pharmaceutical and insurance companies across the land. I’m sure Republicans will continue to give us the same wonderful care that they have in the past.

— Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island

Tragedy or farce?

In the concept of politics as theater, Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts is truly among the darkest of Greek tragedies! When a giant of the Senate like Ted Kennedy is replaced by a conservative neophyte only six months after his death, it might also qualify as a ridiculous farce!

Actually, the greatest overall tragedy is the U.S. Senate today. As one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies in the world, it makes a mockery of democracy with its filibuster rules. Where else is 59 percent of the vote considered insufficient for a victory? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!

— James A. Young, Seattle

Eliminate the power of the filibuster

Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi and Iowa combined have approximately the same population as California. California has two U.S. senators and all the other listed states have 42.

Not only is this undemocratic, it’s insane. I appreciate the significance of the Connecticut Compromise, but that was over 200 years and the Civil War ago. No other country in the world has a system such as ours. Our government was state of the art in 1787, but now it’s dysfunctional.

The underlying undemocratic nature of the U.S. Senate is exasperated by the use of the filibuster. The time has come to eliminate the filibuster from the rules of the U.S. Senate. I think the Democratic Party should commit to changing the Senate rules in 2011 so that a majority vote is sufficient to pass legislation.

Having said that, I think a supermajority should be required for issues not subject to legislative reversal, such as the confirmation of judges granted a lifetime appointment.

Making this change would restore vibrancy to our democracy and would require voters to become engaged and policy would matter once again.

— Edward Wietecha, Sammamish

Waiting for other parties if filibuster remains

The most evident problem that has been brought to the forefront by the health-care debate, is that America’s majority continues to lose out because of the filibuster process of the senate.

If our Senators want to show that they are willing to work for the people of this country, they should stop the filibuster process and accomplish bringing about the changes required to make us a strong, honorable nation again.

Do nothing and leave me hoping for the coming of a third party that I can stand behind and support.

— Patrick Lockridge, Renton

Chances better for third parties in Senate race

Some minor parties have done nothing but harp and carp about the “Top Two” primary — mostly because, according to them, it would keep minor parties out of the general election — but with the recent report about the U.S. Senate election in The Times, [“For Sen. Patty Murray and Democrats, voter anger is wild card,” page one, Jan. 17] it would seem a minor party’s chance of making it to the general election in a major race under “Top Two” is better than ever.

The report stated there were six Republicans running against the incumbent Murray. None of them seem to be particularly well-known in statewide politics. If the Republican vote is split six ways or more, that would seem to be an idea opportunity for a Green, Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate — or other minor-party or independent candidate — to get in the general election. And since that candidate would be one of two, he or she cannot be ignored by the media as in the past.

Some minor parties should stop effectively boycotting “Top Two” and get in the game. Half the battle, after all, is just showing up.

— Mark Greene, chairman of the Party of Commons, Newcastle

The Obama administration can’t be center-right, right?

In his column, David Sirota takes journalists to task for presenting news reports with a conservative bias [“We’re left in the middle, right?, Opinion, Jan. 18). I guess he has no quarrel with all the liberal bias in the media.

He gave away his own bias when he referred to conservative talk-radio hosts as goons. Such name-calling is simply standard operating procedure for liberals, even those pretending to be objective members of the media.

But the comment that I could not believe was his description of the Obama administration as a center-right administration. That is as far from the truth as it would be to call the Clinton administration a right-wing conservative administration.

If the Obama administration was truly center-right — and not radically and revolutionary to the left — our center-right country would not be rising up in opposition to his policies as it has the past year and is continuing to do this year.

I do not understand how The Times can feature an article by a person who would make such an outrageous statement, even if he is a syndicated columnist.

— Jack Hurley, Bellevue

Political labeling diverts attention

In regards to David Sirota’s column, when someone labels an argument as liberal or conservative they immediately divert attention away from the issue. It is the quickest way to stop progress of a potentially illuminating dialogue. The details seem to matter less.

This labeling has become common for many media outlets and Internet blogs. They concentrate on pigeonholing issues as liberal or conservative.

How can we address the massive federal deficit, unfunded future federal liabilities, the significance of global warming or the complex issues of health care? One can so effortlessly eliminate any educational discussion that may be counter to their interest.

As we learn of the complexity of subjects, our emotional attachment to our opinions wanes. Humility and uncertainty take the place of arrogance and pervasive labeling guarantees a future laden with problems too long avoided.

— Steven Short, Mercer Island

We are part of the same human family

Editor, The Times:

As we see the human tragedy unfold in Haiti and know that the suffering will only deepen and continue, how are we to respond? [“Desperation grips Haiti as aid struggles to get in,” page one, Jan. 15] How might we — as individuals, but also as a community — mobilize material response while also asking deeper questions?

Do we see ourselves in the faces of Haitian children, women and men? Are we really members of one human family sharing one Earth? How are disasters made worse by the structural violence of poverty and the convoluted mix of the environment and politics?

The basic human rights of food, water, home and health, denied to many Haitians daily, are now utterly absent for hundreds of thousands. But is this just another natural disaster, news flash or tragic case study? And will we refuse to accept that our lives are too busy and our personal connections too distant to get involved?

As our hearts are moved, we can resolve to work collectively, creatively and concretely in the months ahead. Such understanding and efforts are the essence of the hope for a better world we so readily avow.

— James Loucky, Bellingham

Organize airdrops

Your headline in Friday’s paper refers to aid to Haiti not being able to be delivered. It seems to me that others must have had thoughts similar to mine: Organize a parachute drop. The roads are virtually nonexistent, the airfield has one landing strip and supplies are delivered in planes from all over the world that have had to circle Haiti for hours waiting for permission to land.

Fly the supplies to bases in the U.S., transfer the supplies to planes such as C-130s and go to Haiti flying a grid pattern and drop the goods from the planes.

People will at least get water, food and medical necessities days earlier than by the method currently in use. We are trying to distribute emergency supplies in a time-honored fashion that is just not consistent with the nature and scope of this particular natural catastrophe.

— Don Rogers, Camano Island

Earthquake foreboding for the U.S.

Hey all you anti-taxers, take a look at earthquake-devastated Haiti for a vision of the USA’s future if you get your way.

Haiti has no building code to build safe, strong buildings. Building codes are developed and enforced by government, financed by taxes. Haiti has virtually no public hospitals, fire or emergency services, which are run by government and financed by taxes. The airport in Port-au-Prince has one runway and one access road. Of course, airports and roads are generally built by tax dollars, then operated by a public, aka government, agency.

Transport of relief supplies from the airport is hindered by limited and damaged roads. Roads are generally built by the government and financed by tax dollars. Delivery of relief supplies by sea is impossible as port facilities are in shambles and there are no operating cranes. Port facilities are a government function and financed by tax dollars.

As our state legislators and the U.S. Congress consider tax issues that will improve the common good, I invite every tax protester to consider the importance of government responses to earthquakes and wildfires in California, volcanoes and forest fires in Washington, hurricanes on the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast, tornadoes in the Midwest, floods in our river valleys and, of course, 9/11. In every instance, the government has stepped in, provided services and helped to rebuild. These services are not free; they are financed by taxes.

Taxes are the dues we pay to belong to the greatest club on the planet: club USA. That club strives to assure our safe travel by land, air and sea. It guarantees the basic education of our children, financial subsistence of our elderly and disabled and safety of our population through police, fire and emergency services. To deny our responsibility to each other is to deny our own humanity.

— Paula Joneli, Des Moines

Another way to help

You really should include Partners in Health on your list of recommended charities [“Haiti earthquake: how to help,” News, Jan. 15]. It was founded by Dr. Paul Farmer, whose biography by Tracy Kidder — a New York Times Notable Book for 2003 — was the first book adopted by the University of Washington as a recommended read for all incoming freshmen the next year.

PIH has operated in Haiti for 20 years and is known as a model for charities in other poor countries. Its reputation is as an excellent organization that makes the most of its contributions and has very low operating costs.

PIH was praised after getting assistance to Port-au-Prince very early after the quake and Farmer’s hospital in Cange is already filled with injured refugees from the city.

— Edna R. Peak, Des Moines

Limbaugh’s comments

Rush Limbaugh should be charged with a hate crime. When someone like Limbaugh, who has a national radio show that reaches millions, asks people not to donate to relief efforts in Haiti after the devastating earthquake, should he not be charged with a hate crime?

Without donations that some Americans might not now give, many more people could die because of his cruel words.

He said Americans don’t need to contribute to earthquake relief because they already donate to Haiti through their income taxes. He will do anything, no mater how low, to get reactions from the media, Robert Gibbs, myself and countless others.

In our lives, most of us know people just as petty but they don’t have radio shows. How can this man sleep at night knowing there are small babies, children and other human beings buried under rubble at this very moment?

— Joe Giannunzio, Redmond

Photo of bodies inappropriate

The photo on the front page of Friday’s Seattle Times of the dead earthquake victims in Haiti is abhorrent and completely inappropriate.

One of the important tenets of humanity is that we care for the dead and respectfully honor their passing. In the situation in Haiti, with so many deaths resulting from a natural disaster, there are not enough resources and too many dead for this to occur.

By publishing such a horrific picture of these victims, The Seattle Times has shown only the highest disrespect for these victims and their country in its hour of need.

— Christy Wyborny, Seattle

A slippery saliva slope

It is clear that Seattle Parks and Recreation has an excess of employees and time [“No more spitting, smoking at parks?” page one, Jan. 15]. I realize that not much is happening in our parks during this dark and wet time of the year; no flowers are growing, no grass needs mowing and no baseball games are scheduled. But give me a break!

Is the city paying its employees to fret about spitting? Is the city really OK with its employees standing around engaging in informal discussions about spitting and is the city not embarrassed that it is has a department head conducting a formal analysis? Is Eric Friedli, the manager of policy and business analysis, facing a shortage of serious issues that really need analyzing?

I would love to see an account of the number of employee hours that have gone into the spitting issue. Oh but that’s not the end, we’ll need a trained enforcement team to identify spitters then ban them from parks. And then we’ll need an appeals process because not all spitting is equal and that will need analyzing too — I personally think that when a bug flies into my mouth, it’s OK to spit it out.

— Boyd Brakken, Seattle

Don’t change what works

All of a sudden, in the course of a week, we learned that our high-school daughter’s principal at Center School is being transferred to Rainier Beach smack dab in the middle of the school year and that our 5-year-old son’s principal is being transferred out of Madrona K-8 in March.

I have no idea what is motivating these transfers, but I do know this much: After years of being saddled with the APP program, Madrona K-8 is emerging as a real beacon of hope for Seattle schools. Test scores are skyrocketing. School spirit is high. The kids are wonderful and happy and the teachers are great. The school’s community is strong, and a big part of that comes from the strong leadership provided by Madrona’s current principal.

With the upcoming change to neighborhood-based schools, we need her leadership more than ever. We need continuity and vision until the successes we’ve seen at Madrona K-8 become entrenched as part of the school’s culture. It’s definitely not time to take away our leader.

As for Center School: The principal, who seems wonderful, just arrived! Why transfer her so soon after she just started her work there?

When a school is working, don’t break it apart. Let it thrive and let other schools learn from that success.

— Peter O’Neil, Seattle

Can’t afford two principals at Rainier Beach

As a taxpayer in Seattle, I have serious concerns about the plan and expense of having two full-time principals at Rainier Beach High School. If the current principal is not capable of running the school on his own, then get rid of him and hire someone who is competent. If we expect excellence from our students, the expectations for our principals should be no less.

— Mary Beth Hatfield, Seattle

Job loss abroad

Editor, The Times:

I don’t understand how anyone in the government expects there to be a permanent increase in the number of jobs available without looking outside our country for the work that has escaped our shores [“Focus should be on job creation,” Opinion, Jan. 10].

Current job programs focus on bolstering employment by getting buyers to purchase products and services now available in our country. Without bringing manufacturing back to the United States from overseas, there can be no lasting cure to the jobless dilemma.

Today’s programs are a bit like encouraging me to buy meals from my wife while she is pushed to buy lawn-mowing services from me. Ignoring the obvious sexist tone of this example, there is no net gain to our family. To make a difference to our economic situation, we must add value within our family and sell that added value to someone outside the house.

This is a corollary to the present decline of manufacturing in the U.S. Until our country has an industrial policy that encourages keeping and increasing value-creation activity within the country, markets the value-added products outside the country and imposes penalties on imported value, there is no reason for the capitalistic system to create value here. We can’t fully employ our work force if they are their only customers.

— Mike Anderson, Burien

An economic clarification

Your Jan. 10 article about the growing acceptance of Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s libertarian campaign [“Economy puts Paul’s views in spotlight,” News, Jan. 10], along with its reference to the grievously neglected Austrian School of Economics, was a welcome sight indeed for those of us who have deplored the lack of free-market-oriented coverage in the mainstream media.

However, the article’s description of Austrian economics as one that “emphasized tight controls on credit and money supply” calls for clarification lest some readers be led to believe that it endorses government-administered credit control. Nothing could be more incorrect.

While it is true that Austrian economics maintains that credit must be inextricably linked to savings and that any issuance of credit by banks — that is not covered by savings deposits — is fraudulent as well as unsustainable and destabilizing to the credit markets, this view doesn’t imply the necessity of central control of bank credit.

If banks were subject to the same requirements to honor their obligations as other businesses are, then the ever-present threat of a run on their demand deposits would create a powerful incentive for them to limit loans to saving deposits. Thus, in a free-market environment, with no central bank or compulsory bank deposit insurance, it would be holders of demand deposits who would ultimately keep bank credit in check.

— Mark G. Warner, Bellevue

Fearing for the American dream

I have lived the American dream. I grew up going to public schools, then community college and graduated from state college. I own and operate a small business that has grown over the past two decades to employ up to 18.

However, I fear for the direction that my country is taking and the future my children will inherit. My company has grown and survived the past recessions. I have always been bullish that my company and our country would survive such downturns. We are a country founded on freedom and capitalism. Because of this we have become rich not only in treasure but also in spirit.

This next year we will all get a clearer picture of how the left has changed the direction of the economy. We are near or past the tipping point where the private sector will no longer continue to lead us to the position we have attained.

Taxes will go up to cover the spending free-for-all. When taxes go too high, the behavior of the successful will change. Why would the business community continue to lay the golden eggs needed to finance the spending, if it offers little to no reward?

No policy from Obama’s administration is pro-business. More small businesses will go away, and this time new ones will not be replacing them.

— Mark Peterson, Yakima

Federal government is no deus ex machina

Rep. Ross Hunter’s, D-Medina, euphemism “manna from heaven” when referring to potential budget help from the federal government is indicative of the kind of thinking that got the state in this budget mess to begin with [“$2.6 billion budget gap prompts look at taxes,” page one, Jan. 11].

There is no more manna left in the federal coffers; they merely borrow it or print it — neither very heavenly. A more accurate description would be manna from the Chinese or Saudis, or whoever else may purchase new U.S. government debt. But in the end, the “manna” is actually from our children and unborn grandchildren.

— Donald Villeneuve, Renton

Start an income tax

As mentioned in The Times’ article, Washington state ranks dead last in regressive tax structure.

The more money you have, the less of your income goes to state taxes; The less you have, the more of your income goes to the state. This is not right.

With our state facing a huge budget hole and some type of new tax is needed to preserve essential services, 2010 should be the year our Legislature bucks up and starts a state income tax. Unless you’re very wealthy, this will be far better for you than a sales tax increase.

— Melanie Mayock, Seattle