Online only letters to the editor

Regarding "State of the government: Like Abe, like George" [Times, Northwest Voices, Jan. 25]: I dropped my pen and I think my mouth hung open for a couple minutes when I read Kendall Neville's statement that George Bush has had "no Teapot Dome or Monica Lewinsky scandals to taint his tenure." And George W. Bush is comparable to Abraham Lincoln, and the Iraqi people are free from the tyranny of a ruthless dictator. They're better off now that about 100 of them a day are blown to bits, or tortured, or beheaded just for walking out their doors.

Our president's entire tenure is tainted; by his war, his lies, his abuse of the American military, his commitment to protect corporate profits at the expense of education, health care, true national security, clean air and water, our children's future economic prosperity, international relations, the law. You name it and he's screwed it up in the last six years. Man, it seems like a thousand years.

There's nothing this man has done to deserve the title of president, let alone comparison with Abraham Lincoln. I'm trying to recall if Bush's Man on Mars program actually put anyone on Mars. Because my guess is that Kendall Neville has spent at least the last six years on the Red Planet.

— David Brown, Seattle

A vast majority of Americans support stem-cell research. The potential benefits could ease the suffering and possibly cure persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and those with neurological disorders.

Unfortunately, we have among us a group that substitutes nonsense for knowledge and fallacy for fact. The president curries the favor of this group and has threatened to veto the stem-cell bill passed by Congress with the overwhelming support of the people ["House OKs stem-cell legislation; Bush promises veto," News, Jan. 12].

Opposition to stem-cell research is based on belief in fantasy, and is about as medically sound as drilling into the skull to let out the bad humors. Opposition to stem-cell research is especially myopic since if research is not done here, it will progress in other scientifically advanced countries, who will reap the benefits. The House should support an override of the threatened veto, and put America again in the forefront of scientific and medical research on this most important issue.

— Peter Saflund, Kent

Some days ago, our U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued a statement obviously intended to intimidate the courts into accepting the Bush administration's vicious attacks on basic civil liberties, with the claim that judges are not qualified to determine issues of security ["Bush gives ground on domestic eavesdropping program," News, Jan .18].

But what kind of security is he talking about? Security of the United States as a nation? If so, that is ridiculous, because terrorism does not pose a threat to the security of the nation. Terrorists may kill a few individuals, or even a few thousands, but that does not endanger the integrity of the United States as a nation.

More importantly, security is not the first priority of this nation's government. The first priority of our government is the protection of American liberties, for without them, this country has no moral right to exist. If this nation is to be unfree, its security is irrelevant. And judges are indeed qualified to rule on the administration's assaults on our liberties.

Once again, the administration tries to do a shell-game on the public -- to distract our attention from what the administration is really doing, by invoking fear for our physical safety -- the threat of "terrorists." They are trying yet again to make us forget physical safety is not the most important thing for us to be protecting. That's what Patrick Henry meant when he said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Our liberties are more important than our lives.

— Norman Marsh, Darrington

I am deeply frightened about where President Bush is leading our country. Not only does he arrogantly dismiss the majority's desire for a de-escalation of his war, he gambles our own security with a frightening new expansion.

Rather than reducing the risk of terrorism as he claims, the president's military decisions constantly up the ante. Every time we threaten Middle Eastern countries with our saber-rattling, and every time Iraqis are killed, or maimed, or their homes demolished by our bombs, more angry, humiliated and frightened young Muslims join the ranks of those furious with us who are tragically willing to give their lives to terrorism. Worse, President Bush is clearly intent on elevating this conflict into a World War III level "culture clash" to keep us afraid and stay in power.

In the 21st century, war cannot be a way to peace and cowboy politics will only aggravate this fabricated cycle of violence. To escape the embarrassing admission that his presidency has been a colossal failure, George Bush is becoming increasingly irrational and dangerous. If this president will not listen to the bipartisan Iraq Commission or to the American public, it is time to block this war and consider impeachment.

— John Robinson, Fox Island

State of distress

Regarding "Bush plea to Congress: Give Iraq plan a chance" [News, Jan. 24]: President Bush's latest assault on the American middle and poor classes is beyond outrageous. He is going to reduce the deficit by cutting benefits on entitlements (read: Social Security and Medicare). He will not raise taxes (read: on the very rich). Even if one agrees with this, it won't work. The amount of money being squandered in the Middle East is so much larger than any other spending that cutting all benefits will not erase the expenditures of the war. It won't even come close.

Bush's idea of improving health care is to make it a taxable benefit from your employer and give you a tax break. This break would not be subject to Social Security taxes. Therefore it is a two-fer: less money for Social Security and less money that the employer pays. So who wins? It isn't me, and it probably isn't you. Insurance companies and large employers will see the benefits.

The No Child Left Behind Act serves two purposes also. It attacks and erodes the National Education Association (NEA), one of the strongest unions left in America. It gives the impression public education doesn't work, even though the studies show public education is the most effective education available. Private religious schools are the worst. And No Child Left Behind makes money for those who are in the business of selling educational testing materials. And one of the Bush boys just happens to be in the business.

Bush says he wants to rebuild Iraq. He cannot even rebuild New Orleans. He is dangerous and he needs to go.

— Carol Barber, Kent

I watched and listened to President Bush speak about the risks in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad. To put it bluntly, his warning to the American people that the fledgling government in Baghdad is at risk of attack from all sides is an old warning we have heard before.

We know about it because it was communicated by the CIA to Bush before the war that the impact and risk to success was due to hostilities originating from sectarian violence, interference from Iran and instability from the war itself. Bush chose to ignore the warnings and pressed on.

So Bush wants us to have patience and let his new plan work? Interesting. Voices asking for delay, if not avoiding, war with Iraq were not given the same balance of time.

— Jeff Wandling

Hillary stirs things up

Regarding " 'I'm in. And I'm in to win': Clinton hopes to make history" [News, Jan.21]:

I am writing to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton following inspiring conversations I have had with friends from Australia, Canada, England, France, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, the U.S. and former Yugoslavia about your move to run for the presidency in the U.S. I am writing to let you know we are all standing right behind you.

There is a growing swell of women taking up world leadership roles. In Germany, Jamaica, Liberia and New Zealand there are women leading nations, and in more countries there are women taking up top positions in education, commerce and law. You, Sen. Clinton, are a force that will turn this swell into a wave.

When you are elected the first female president of the United States in 2008, your presence can increase the impact of this wave. As a woman leading one of the world's most influential countries, you can redirect the "us and them" mentality that is currently so predominant, to being one of partnership and cooperation. Your very presence will allow women of the next generation around the globe to ride on the crest of this wave.

You have voices supporting you all over the world in diverse political and cultural climates. This support is not issue-based nor party-directed. Many of these supporting voices will even disagree with some of your policies. And that is the prerogative of a democratic voice. The support I speak of is transnational and supra-political. It is a support you have from men and women in many regions who know that for you to take on the election game and win it will be by no means an easy feat, but will be for so many reasons a worthy one. Your victory will signal a change on many fronts.

Take courage from women who have stepped into similar roles around the globe, and from tomorrow's leaders who are willing to make sacrifices similar to the ones you make. And take courage from the fact that your goal is within reach.

You were a first lady who made things happen. You will be the first lady to wear the title of president of the United States. And lady, we are standing right behind you, lifting you in your courage, your ambition and your will to make a difference.

— Cassandra Steer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Why I can't vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton:

Sen. Clinton signed on to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, even though she had intelligence contrary to warrant the action, and scholarly warnings predicting the outcome. She showed poor judgment and disparaging political calculation voting for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. Her Iraq policy has been complacency with a few carefully crafted statements regarding the disastrous mess, until now.

Clinton has decided it is in her best interest to suddenly show some leadership. Her well-publicized trip to the war zone and subsequent press conferences and media interviews were an obvious lead-up to announcing a presidential run.

I am offended by her actions because Iraq is a frightening, dark cloud that hangs over our family life, as it does for so many others. My beloved nephew and his wife were sent to fight this war in 2005. He returned to Iraq for a second tour last October.

Clinton did not stand against this administration for the past four years. Now, when she needs a stage to satisfy her personal ambitions, she uses Iraq as her backdrop to kick off her campaign. It is a shameful and disingenuous act.

As a Democrat, I'll not vote for any candidate who agreed to invade Iraq, those who now stumble at attempts to explain away their wrong. I'm looking to a candidate who knew invading Iraq was a disastrous mistake, as I did, who's demonstrated staunch leadership speaking out beforehand and continually offered sage advice. My candidate must have the qualifications to repair the damages done by this administration and bring our young folks home as soon and safely as possible. My candidate will put this country and its needs first.

That candidate is out there and I'm waiting. I've had enough of self-serving politicians and I'm quite sick of them.

— Leslie Rowe, Tum Tum

Separation of church and state still applies

The Federal Way School Board has chosen to insert religion into schools. ["The inconvenient truth about School Board's film decision" Guest column, Jan. 17]. Scientific data on global warming or cooling is information students must have. Teachers have a responsibility to encourage critical thinking about this type of topic.

Objections to science on religious grounds should be given no weight in public schools. Requests to favor one book [Bible, Torah, Koran, etc] over another can only bring public schools into a debate that cannot be won. Teaching the bias of one man or one group simple inflames the situation.

— Stuart Creighton, Normandy Park

Recently I have been following the news on the proposed marriage equality legislation. I find it appalling that opponents still judge this issue according to religious beliefs. ["Bills' goal: 'marriage equality'"Local News, Jan. 10]. Is separation of church and state no longer so much as a pretense? Perhaps Gary Randall of the Freedom and Faith Network ought to re-examine his definition of freedom -- if only in memory Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

As opponents should recall, marriage is a legal contract and should thus be handled as any other legal right. Withholding legal rights based on an individual's beliefs -- or race -- is unconstitutional. Similarly, the domestic partnership legislation reminds that this is not only an issue for gay and lesbian populations. Privileges such as visiting a loved one in the hospital and keeping a shared home after their death are at stake for seniors who are unable to wed for financial reasons.

That the Senate scarcely managed to ban sexual-orientation-based discrimination, a 25-23 vote, is further disturbing. With a simple phone call I reminded my legislators that marriage equality and other basic rights are a matter of social justice -- not religious beliefs. I urge you to do the same. (1-800-562-6000)

— Sasha Botos, Seattle

The speaker wears Prada

Interesting that some "news" commentators commented on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's clothes. They wondered just how much her suit cost, and one figured it was as much as some people paid for their first house. ["Attention to Pelosi's wardrobe wears thin for some" News, Nov. 22, 2006].

I have never heard a "news" commentator mention the suits of the males on the podium of the people's House, nor did I hear them in comparison with Speaker Pelosi. True, she is the first female speaker, just like this year's Super Bowl will be coached by two African Americans for the first time.

I wonder if there will ever come a time when we don't notice either item anymore.

— Bert Schulz, Redmond

Inhumane society

Regarding "Brain aneurysm induced in dog prompts inquiry" [News, Jan. 13]: OK -- I will confess I am totally biased -- I am repelled by the use of animals in research, and I believe justice would be better done if those who tortured and killed animals had to endure some of the same pain as their victims! That being said, anyone who has ever been close to a pet, or who has read any of the books describing the social order and interaction between primates should at least have second thoughts about the value of an animal's life.

But for those who don't find a puppy particularly cuddly, or who don't find the idea of wiring electrodes into a chimp's brain repulsive, let's take a look at things purely from the viewpoint of human self-interest.

In a current issue of their newsletter/magazine, Dr. Neal Barnard, president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, describes a scene at a recent medical conference promoting alternatives to animal testing. Some Yale medical students stopped by their booth and asked "What are you talking about? What kind of a medical school kills animals to teach medical students?" They couldn't imagine it. Barnard states that roughly 110 of 125 U.S. medical schools have eliminated animal exercises from their curricula. And it's not just to quiet a bunch of animal-rights "wing nuts."

Animals are different from humans, and much of what is applicable to animals does not apply to people. Aspirin can kill a cat. Sheep can consume arsenic. Chocolate is toxic to dogs. And does anyone remember thalidomide? More and more we are seeing that results obtained from animal research are not reliable when it comes to human application because, big surprise here, we are different!

I would wager that a good number of the 62% of Americans who support animal testing are suffering from the same affliction as those who initially supported the original reasons for going to war in Iraq and have now changed their minds -- misinformation! Animal testing won't cure itbut becoming informed just might.

— Marilyn Tomlin, Seattle

Scary square

As a frequent visitor to Seattle, I was shocked to learn one of my good friends was attacked and severely injured one very recent evening as he walked on the sidewalk in Pioneer Square. During this robbery, his jaw was broken in three places and he has a number of missing teeth. His hospitalization lasted for five days, and my friend will bear the physical and emotional scars for life.

I was further dismayed to discover that Seattle locals tend to stay out of Pioneer Square, especially at night, for this reason.

Pioneer Square is one of Seattle's great assets. It should be well lit and teeming with nightlife, while generating jobs and oodles of tax revenues. I suggest that the city of Seattle consider what worked for us in New York. First, "Giuliani-ize the place!"

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (and his successor Mayor Michael Bloomberg) "flooded" the city streets, especially the tourist areas like Times Square (previously known for pimps, porn and the like) with cops. Clearly, there is something about the presence of armed men and women in blue uniforms and a badge (on foot, in cars, on bikes and especially horseback), that makes hoodlums think twice before breaking the law. This should be number one job in Pioneer Square.

Please don't get me wrong. This letter is not an endorsement for Rudy Giuliani for president. As a long time New York City resident, I can tell you that would make a horrible U.S. president, but, he did make the streets in New York safe again.

There are absolutely ways to protect the free speech of street people, while vigorously enforcing the law. This is an investment Seattle should make, and as soon as possible. I look forward to my next (safe) visit!

— John Sullivan, New York, N.Y.

Home grown and raised

In this day of newspaper merger-mania, The Seattle Times stands alone in our area as a locally owned and operated daily.

Recently, the King County Journal was bought by a Canadian firm. Last year the Seattle Weekly was bought by another out-of-town publisher.

Some argue that it's better to have an out-of-towner buy a newspaper than to have it go out of business. The King County Journal will be no more, however. It's going back to nine weeklies in South King County.

I am thankful that 2007 starts out with an independent voice, such as the Seattle Times.

— Bill Wippel, SeaTac

Fuel flaw

I read Ms. Read's story on "Why gas prices aren't falling" [Business & Technology, Jan. 20]. I see one major flaw in the story. I can't imagine why anyone would believe one thing in it.

Go back to when the prices were going up. Research how long it took for prices to go up. It wasn't weeks was it? And how much did it go up? Do some research on that too.

Let's see what the profits are on the next report. Don't be surprised to see another huge profit.

Bottom line is, the story is only what the gas and oil industry want us to believe. Why do you print such biased stories? Do some fact finding and report it the way it should be.

— Bob Tuma, Fort Worth, TX