Online-only letters

Democracy

He's the one

Editor, The Times:

After reading columnist Charles Krauthammer's "Since you mentioned the Gipper... " [Times, syndicated column, Oct. 29], I noticed his motive for concentrating on the Republican candidates who are ordained front-runners by the media.

Krauthammer applauded the four main chest-thumping candidates who claim to be more conservative and who support this pointless mess in Iraq that he thinks is necessary.

The truth is, all the candidates but one are standard, at best. I've noticed them snickering as others were talking during the debates, and inciting the audience to boo at key points. I expect more maturity from people who want to be president. If they can't grow up, then they need to drop out.

There's only one candidate who wants to change the one thing that could right so much: our expensive and asinine foreign policy; probably our worst flaw that Krauthammer kept touting.

The one candidate who wasn't even mentioned, who made more sense than all the others and who everyone is somehow afraid of is Ron Paul. Why are people afraid of integrity and consistency, and true conservatism? It's simply something we're not used to in our politicians, I guess, so I'm preparing for the usual.

As Krauthammer seems to be afraid of, I expect a Democratic landslide, since none of the other Republicans stand the slightest chance against Hillary Rodham Clinton, or any Democrat, for that matter.

— Adam Schmidt, Kirkland

Where disease has spread

It was interesting to read "Fix flawed election system to revive our democracy" [Democracy Papers, Oct. 25]. Since you focused almost exclusively on the national electoral and political process, I don't see how The Times' recommended "fixes" could have any significant impact on improving the operation of our governmental processes.

Yes, the methods of selecting and electing candidates for major public offices at the national, state, county and even municipal levels suffer from the problems that might be improved if The Times' suggestions were adopted. But these changes are directed at correcting political processes, not the operating characteristics of various levels of government; they have virtually nothing to do with representative, constitutional democracy.

One of the fundamental problems affecting our governance is the lack of participation by eligible voters in practically all elections. The Times' suggestions are unlikely to affect this crippling disease that has infected our citizens.

Another equally debilitating ailment is the widespread use of appointed boards, commissions and ad hoc committees to formulate recommendations for elected government bodies. Virtually all such boards, commissions and committees are appointed by their governing bodies; membership is invariably restricted to persons who are known, or thought to hold the same views as the governing bodies.

Opportunities for citizens to participate in the decision-making and policy formulation processes of such boards, commissions and committees is normally severely restricted: Citizens may submit written or electronic forms of communications, to be sure, but such input is rarely acknowledged, and far from effective.

Our representative, constitutional form of democracy can be improved by changes to the concomitant political processes, but the problems are much more serious than just the selection and election of candidates for public office.

— David Plummer, Bellevue

War on terror

What's in a name

It's time to be honest in our terminology. For too long we have used newspeak, doublespeak and euphemisms to describe what is really going on.

The conflict in Iraq is not about "fighting the war on terror"; it's about stealing oil from the Iraqis and giving it to multinational energy companies.

Blackwater and other companies employ civilians, armed to the teeth in a war zone, acting as soldiers. These are not "contractors"; they are mercenaries.

The George Bush administration began illegally wiretapping U.S. citizens before Sept. 11. This is not "antiterrorist surveillance"; it's illegal spying on U.S. citizens.

Waterboarding and naked human pyramids are not "enhanced interrogation techniques"; they are torture.

"Extraordinary rendition" is not a means of preventing terror attacks on the U.S.; it's a means of terrorizing the U.S. public by kidnapping and torture.

The U.S. policy of allowing businesses to employ illegal aliens at substandard wages and unsafe working conditions, keeping the employees quiet with the fear of imprisonment and deportation, is not "filling jobs that Americans don't want to do"; it's indentured servitude and slavery.

Our current tax policies favoring the rich at the expense of the shrinking middle class and growing lower class is not "sound fiscal policy"; it's oligarchy trending toward fascism.

Calling things by their proper names helps you to think more clearly; when you can think more clearly, it's easier to see what is really going on around you and find ways to make life better for all.

— John Snow, Woodinville

Jonah Goldberg is pro-life

Don't shoot

Congratulations to columnist Jonah Goldberg for his willingness to accept his status as uncool by being pro-life ["I know it's uncool, but here's why I'm pro-life," syndicated column, Oct. 22]. He has arrived at a conclusion that hunters are taught early on: If you're not sure whether it's a human being, don't shoot.

Goldberg only needs to extend his logic; he knows babies are deserving of life because they clearly are babies. The unborn fetus doesn't look much like a baby, but the truth is, that's what a human being looks like at that stage of life. If we're not sure of that, at least we shouldn't kill it.

— Victoria Barbosa, Seattle

Middle ground

Perhaps if columnist Jonah Goldberg had dug a little deeper into his ideology, he might have understood how conflicted people can be, both pro-life and pro-choice. A person need not choose one extreme over the other; there is a middle path that resolves the dilemma by respecting both life and liberty.

Surveys of international-health data show that prohibitions have little effect on the number of abortions performed. Bans simply lead to the rise of black-market abortions and the decline of women's safety.

Most abortions are prevented only when a woman, coerced by neither law nor fear, freely chooses not to have one. The right-to-life movement should acknowledge this and stop wasting energy trying to remove Roe v. Wade as an obstacle to state regulation. Rather, it should focus on making both Roe v. Wade and any state ban irrelevant by changing the social and economic environment in which abortion decisions are made.

As a start, conservatives who are truly pro-life need to divorce their views of sex from the issue of abortion. Countries with low abortion rates typically have the best sexual literacy rates, so anyone who believes abortion is murder should not be shy about passing out condoms.

Political passions must be redirected toward promoting sex education, contraception and adoption, destigmatizing non-traditional families, and supporting social services — public and private — for mothers and their children.

Only by the combined power of education, tolerance and charity — not the regulatory power of government — can the number of abortions be drastically reduced.

— Todd Hubbard, Lynnwood

For sure

"I don't see how you can be that sure, which is why I'm pro-life — not because I'm certain, but because I'm not." One thing columnist Jonah Goldberg may be very sure about: The individual liberties that are sacrificed when the state restricts reproductive freedom will never be his.

— Jodi Forschmiedt, Shoreline

Sex ed

Knowledge is power

Having retired from teaching sex education in the public schools for many years, I would like to mention some things.

Columnists Shaunti Feldhahn and Andrea Sarvady ["Do public schools encourage sexual activity?" Woman to Woman, Oct. 30] don't know the half of it. When our 16-year-old daughter, who attends a high school here in Seattle, saw that title, she screamed "of course they do!"

Every school needs a comprehensive sex-ed program. Any parent who thinks children are not sexually active or inquisitive and won't look in strange places for information is living in Lala land.

In New Hanover, Wilmington, N.C., parents and students are given three choices: no sex ed, abstinence-only sex ed or comprehensive sex ed — the one I taught. Approximately 3 percent elected to take nothing. Approximately 7 percent took abstinence-only.

The rest took the comprehensive course — the program built each year so that it gets more and more detailed. This was detailed information on anatomy, reproduction, sexually transmitted diseases, values and contraception. We did not hand out condoms. We handed out factual information.

We will never know how many lives we also saved due to discussion on testicular cancer — I know of three of my former students — and breast self-exam... to say nothing of information on sexually transmitted diseases.

Teach sex ed correctly or suffer the consequences.

— Laura Baxter, Seattle

Good old values

If God had a name

The Freedom From Religion Foundation ["Wisconsin capital welcomes atheists, agnostics," News, Oct. 12] should be named the Freedom From Religiosity Foundation.

I don't see its cause as being so much against religion as against the use of religion for purposes of personal exaltation, intimidation and political power. The world is plagued by true believers who are more about making society and other people to their liking than about becoming nicer people.

Speaking as a gentile, infidel nonbeliever, I say it is self-evident that science is doing a good job of describing the creation but has not explained its existence. So there must be a God. Furthermore, God gave us freedom to choose between good and evil, and God will not be thwarted by self-absorbed, power-wielding religious freaks who think theirs is the only true religion.

Indeed, they have made their choice.

— Robert Keiter, Johnson City, Tenn.

Philosopher's stone

We've been hearing a lot lately about the terrible Islamofascists who are terrorizing everyone. We haven't heard much about the Christian fascists who may be equally problematic.

A long list of Christian fascists includes the Crusaders — didn't George Bush describe our current war as a crusade? — the Spanish Inquisitors, Puritan Minister Cotton Mather, the Nazis and most recently the current fundamentalist Christians, best exemplified by George Bush and the president of Blackwater, a friend of Bush's who is also "born again" and makes major contributions to the Republican Party and [allegedly] kills Iraqis with abandon — for which he is paid huge amounts of money.

I have talked to many so-called Christians about their favorite philosopher lately. Like our president, they claim to be "born again," having "accepted Jesus as their personal savior" and Jesus is their favorite philosopher.

So I asked them about the philosophy of Jesus, specifically the Beatitudes, the Golden Rule, and the commandment to love your enemies. They all consistently said this was impractical and could not apply to the world today.

Most recently, a professor from a Christian college confirmed that this was his belief and he challenged me to tell him of anyone who had actually lived by those outdated and impractical principles. I guess he hadn't heard of Jesus Christ, Indian pacifist leader Mahatma Gandhi, American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, retired archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, or former South African President Nelson Mandela. Probably they didn't count anyway because they didn't claim to be "born again," as far as I know.

I don't quite understand Christians who reject all the major messages Christ left us.

By the way, Christ is my favorite philosopher.

— Donald Sherrard, Bellevue