Online-only letters

Global warming

"We are Earth"

Editor, The Times:

In "Woman to woman: The politics of climate science" [Times, syndicated column, Oct. 16], columnists Shaunti Feldhahn and Andrea Sarvady debate the issue of whether scientists are being restricted from an honest debate on the man-vs.-nature cause of the phenomenon of global warming because it's not the politically correct thing to do. Right next door almost two columns of letters were debating the same matter ["Standing in the sun," Northwest Voices, Oct. 16].

How easily we avoid the real issue. Whether man is contributing to global warming and whether this climatic phenomenon is reversible, the underlying crisis is not the warming; it's the hording and waste of resources and our almost total inattention to how the natural order of life cycles on this planet works.

In "Non-fiction prize... " [Northwest Voices, Oct. 16], reader Gerald Yorioka states that if man is responsible, it's the Chinese and the East Indians who are creating the biggest problem. Last time I looked, nothing is made unless it is consumed, and there is no more avaricious consumer on Earth than the average American.

The stripping of Earth's natural resources — the poisoning of its soils, airs and waters; the forced breeding and accelerated fattening of livestock; the rape of the rain- and bamboo forests; the destruction of workable structures in order to build bigger, better and "greener" new ones; the capricious use of Earth's energies and the daily, wholesale dumping of millions of tons of perfectly usable products — all these place us in the very unenviable position of raping the Earth to produce for our own selfish benefit, as if the planet owed us.

In a sense, we are cannibals eating our own body, as we flit about daily, consuming our planet's gifts. We are Earth. The planet viewed from space is a life form.

We are Earth; from it we come and to it we return. We need to learn to treat our body with a lot more respect.

— Robert Squaglia, Seattle

Gore errs

As usual, the combined hatred of the right for anything concerning the Clinton administration, former Vice President Al Gore or global warming all came to a head when Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to educate the world about the very real threat of global warming.

Reader Gerald Yorioka points out that High Court Judge Michael Burton in Britain says that if the British are going to show Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," in schools, they have to have disclaimers concerning nine factual inaccuracies of the film found by Burton.

What Yorioka doesn't mention is that the Briton bringing the lawsuit on behalf of his children runs a large mining concern, allied with ExxonMobil's "scientific" think tank dedicated to the dissemination of what I call "false-flag" scientific information — such as a particular cold snap in a particular area being evidence of global cooling, no matter the fact that certain systems in ocean currents are slowing down due to the lack of cold water in the north, thus causing unseasonable cold weather in certain parts of Europe, caused by the melting of the ice caps, due to global warming.

When the Pentagon — under the current president, no friend to the cause of dealing with global warming — says that the greatest threat to the security of the Earth in the next 50 years will be mass human migrations and resource scarcities due to the effects of global warming, perhaps the right might agree that Mr. Gore does deserve the share of the award he was granted.

— Sten Ryason, Seattle

Proposition 1

Don't cross that bridge

It only takes a few minutes to realize the so-called "integrated regional approach," as described in Sound Transit's overview of Proposition 1, is patently unfair to Eastside residents.

Anyone living east and south of Interstate 405 will have virtually no access to light rail. They will, however, lose the two HOV lanes on the center section of the bridge going over Lake Washington to the light rail tracks.

Proposition 1 plans to squeeze one of the lost lanes onto the outer structure by reducing the current widths of the three traffic lanes. The ultimate result will be slower speeds for all four lanes, which — in combination with the added Mercer Island traffic currently using center section and any future growth — is a sure recipe for gridlock.

Proposition 1 plans to ease the commute for those Eastside residents who use the Highway 520 bridge, to "provide funds" for the bridge rebuild and to "study high capacity transit" (i.e., buses) across the bridge. There are no plans for added park-and-ride lots or commitments for improved bus service on the Eastside.

Proposition 1 is most unfair when it comes to the funding. The brochure shows that of the more than $14 billion budget for 2008 through 2027, only $182 million will come from fares; less than 1.5 percent of the costs. Eastside residents will be major contributors to the other 98.5 percent, even though they will have very little access.

It is particularly unfair that not only will they face increased congestion and higher taxes — mainly to support other riders — they will also be forced to pay a toll to cross either bridge into Seattle.

— Bill Hirt, Bellevue

Crusader McCain

"Make no law"

In a recent speech, presidential contender Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claimed that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

This statement has no basis in fact. It's true that the Constitution makes no reference to separation of church and state; this phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter.

However, while the Constitution refers to a Creator, and the Delcaration of Independence refers to divine Providence, neither document attempts to define who the creator might be, or what divine providence is. There is no reference in the Constitution to Jesus, or to any form or doctrine of the Christian religion. Christianity is conspicuous by its absence.

It's clear from the wording of the First Amendment that the framers intended to prevent the state from interfering with the "free exercise of religion" and that the state should not endorse or favor any one belief over another. For the government to endorse any variety of Christianity over other religions would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The Founding Fathers were mostly Christian but had experienced state religion in England, where first Catholicism, then various forms of Protestant Christianity, were banned by the state and their followers persecuted. The bloodshed and misery caused by these religious squabbles were to be avoided at all costs.

It's interesting that religious reactionaries cite these documents as a proof of an endorsement of Christianity, when in fact they clearly show the opposite. The state is to remain neutral in matters of religion.

— Marc Szeftel, Burien

The Iranian illusion

Last resort

I find it indescribably offensive to read columnist Charles Krauthammer cavalierly assert that America is going to be joined in "a last-ditch effort to find a nonmilitary solution to the Iranian issue" ["French flip boosts Bush," syndicated column, Oct. 1].

While I have no illusions about the morass of problems pervading the Middle East, calmer heads must acknowledge that we have yet to engage Iran in any meaningful way. Chest-thumping rhetoric, such as Krauthammer's, serves only to bolster the extreme elements on both sides, while simultaneously alienating the more moderate majority that constitutes the Iranian populace.

I do understand that the neocons need another war to turn the public's attention from the continuing debacle in Iraq. However, I do hope that the media and the American people have learned that the cost in lives, treasure, and moral standing, requires that any military option always be the last option. We are a long, long way from even considering such a destructive and unpredictable course.

— Bill Glewicz, Woodinville

Vices of tax exemption

Hope alone remains

Shame on the state Department of Revenue and Gov. Christine Gregoire for even considering a waiver of the sales tax for a special-interest, for-profit company like Flexcar ["No new taxes yet for Flexcar," Local News, Oct. 2].

Just because Flexcar is operating in the current popular wave of living and breathing "green" doesn't mean its customers should be exempt from sales taxation. The last time I looked, Flexcars use the same roads, bridges, tunnels and viaducts as the rest of us and the people driving Flexcars are all (presumably) beneficiaries of the state's tax revenues. There is no logical reason this one group of consumers should be exempt from paying its fair share.

If the state wants to waive the sales tax on Flexcar under the guise of its being environmentally friendly or reducing traffic congestion, then it needs to waive the tax on all other green products and services, such as items sold in recyclable containers, vehicles with hybrid or flex-fuel engines and solar-powered anything.

Furthermore, the state should mandate all public transportation to be free of charge to everybody. In fact, let's take this whole green movement to the extreme and make any product that can be reduced, reused or recycled free of taxes, surcharges and government fees.

Of course, the less eco-friendly products like cars, tires, gasoline, anything packed with Styrofoam, computers, audio equipment, cellphones and opaque plastics will be taxed at triple the current sales-tax rate. Would you be willing to pay an additional 18-20 percent in sales tax for that plastic jug of laundry detergent or the latest piece of electronic gadgetry? It's only fair, right?

If the state opens the Pandora's box of special-interest sales-tax exemption, there will be an immediate lineup at the door of the Department of Revenue with myriad other sales-tax exemption requests, all in the name of social and environmental responsibility.

If we have to pay sales tax, then it should be assessed equitably against all nonfood consumers' purchases. The only real exceptions should be medical care, prescriptions and home sales

— Ron Aiken, Seattle

Native-American law amended

May ancestors rest in peace

"Two words go too far in ancestral-remains law" [editorial, Oct. 4] suggests that a much-needed technical amendment to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) would allow Native American tribes to make wild claims to any newly discovered remains and potentially reopen the Kennewick Man case.

As the attorney who represented the tribes in the Kennewick Man litigation, I can tell you this is not true. NAGPRA was passed to benefit tribes by restoring the basic human right to protect the graves of their ancestors. The Kennewick Man litigation revealed a gaping hole in that protection caused by a vague definition of "Native American."

The bipartisan legislation that cleared committee recently fixes this oversight. The amendment simply makes it easier for NAGPRA to apply in the first place. The forward-looking amendment would not do away with the rigorous requirement that tribes prove a cultural connection with the remains. And, the amendment is not retroactive, meaning it has no bearing on the Kennewick Man remains.

Let's not repeat the errors of the past. It is time for Congress to amend NAGPRA to allow tribes to protect their ancestors and block a needless scientific study.

— Rob Roy Smith, attorney, Seattle

Reichert's promises

Crossing the line

Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, has a magnificent, full-color, full-page ad in The Times [Oct. 1] stating that he believes every single child deserves a chance to be happy, healthy and successful, and he is fighting in Washington to get uninsured children the health-care coverage they need and deserve.

If Reichert wants to cross the floor and be a Democrat, we can probably arrange something. But that would hurt the feelings of President George Bush, who came out here a few weeks ago and raised a huge amount of money so Reichert can have full-page, full-color ads on page A6 of The Times.

Really, Reichert needs to spend more time with his family.

— Imogene Williams, Seattle