Online only letters

Attack and retreat

Fighting fire with fire doesn't work

Editor, The Times:

Your sensationalist headline recently was "Who torched the Street of Dreams?" [Times page one, March 4]. The better question would be "Who torched the U.S. dollar?" Why do you succumb to the lure of sensationalism and refer to this crime as "eco-terrorism"? ["Fight eco-terrorism with law, and reason," editorial, March 5.]

If it happens to a little person like me, it's arson. If it happens to the money men, it's eco-terrorism. What a crock.

You know what terror is? Not being able to pay for lifesaving or life-preserving dialysis or knowing that your child is bound for a life of crime because you have to work two jobs to make ends meet and can't spend enough time with him.

But again, when it happens to normal people, it's, "Tough luck folks." When it happens to builders, who have properties sitting on the market unsold for half a year, a mysterious fire happens and a banner with the letters of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) just happens to be found (how convenient), it's eco-terrorism!!!!

— Laura McCarty, Seattle

Clumsy catapult

Professional bomb-thrower Bill Cunningham flogs Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) middle name in a cheesy attempt to link him with Arabs and thus, by implication, make him seem pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli ["Campaign Notebook: McCain apologizes for remarks," News, Feb. 27].

I, on the other hand, prefer to flog his first name: the Old Testament warrior who saved the Israelites.

— Don Pogoloff, Kingston

Predictable strategy

The mission of The Seattle Time's editorial page is to offer readers the informed opinions of various columnists on important matters of the day.

Maureen Dowd's obsessive and continued attacks on Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., ["Sandman in camel-colored pajamas may give your children nightmares," syndicated column, March 4] offer us no news and little insight; instead they reveal the unhealthy obsessions of a writer who needs to express her pathological dislike of Clinton on a regular basis.

Enough already — we get Dowd's point. Let's move on to something more substantive.

— Jan Whitner, Kenmore

Time to derail

Hurrah for "Is animal testing on way out?" [News, Feb. 15] and "Report of monkey's death prompts call for prosecution" [Local News, Feb. 5]!!

That boiling-alive of the monkey at SNBL USA was only the tip of the iceberg. What's done to animals in labs is horrific. These sadists in lab coats should be prosecuted, not paid.

It's time to end this white-coat welfare. Animal experimenters have been on the grant-gravy train far too long. We taxpayers are fed up with funding taxes for torture. Our senators and representatives need to hear from us regarding this subsidized sadism.

— Darlene Kaiser, Lynnwood

Out of the trenches

Reader Tim Clark states, "We have never lived in a more dangerous time … That is why it is more dangerous now than it ever has been in the history of mankind" ["Technical glitches: Line's gone dead," Northwest Voices, Feb. 28].

He then laments being accused of fear-mongering, asserting that he is "reality-mongering." People like Clark, although well-intentioned, are accused of fear-mongering because they make outrageous statements like those above.

Al-Qaida is a danger to U.S. citizens, but to claim that this is the greatest threat faced by humanity in its 160,000-year history (and that's just anatomically-modern Homo sapiens) is not reality-based at all. Islamic terrorism is by no means the greatest danger we've faced as a species.

Let's maintain a little historical perspective and respond effectively to the threat of terrorism, but always be thankful that we live in one of the safest societies the world has ever known.

— Jay Fancher, Vancouver

Trying the guilty

Mark Doumit's recent piece refers to "some people with a political agenda choosing to blame first, based on wild supposition, rather than wait for science to determine the causes of [the] flood" in Lewis County in December ["Flood victims interested in helping, being helped — not finding a scapegoat," guest commentary, Feb. 28].

The Times published several pictures in December of a very steep hillside (said to be 55 degrees) above the Chehalis River that was clear-cut by Weyerhaeuser and that sent mudslides down ["Mudslide photo spurs look at logging practices," Local News, Dec. 16].

According to Peter J. Goldmark, who is a candidate for Washington Commissioner of Public Lands, the Department of Natural Resources acted against state rules by permitting this clear cut on this very steep slope ["Risky timber practices worsened December flooding," guest commentary, Jan. 20]. It seems a matter only of common sense, not wild supposition, to hold the Department of Natural Resources accountable to existing state rules — presumably based on the best available science — of not clear-cutting on slopes steeper than 35 degrees.

After reading both pieces, we feel Goldmark has no quarrel with science. He simply wants public officials held accountable for their lax enforcement of state-forestry rules.

— Karen & Jerry Clegg, Seattle

Lost in the woods

Paying for missing bread crumbs

What are the priorities of the Port of Seattle Commissioners? ["Port will hire former U.S. Attorney McKay to run fraud investigation," Local News, Feb. 13.]

In any other organization, if the senior staff had been found to have lost $97 million, the board would suspend their employment and the suspect staff members would be hiring their own legal counsel.

Why are our tax dollars being used to defend the people who lost the money? Our money!

I'm dismayed at the conflict of interests displayed in using our money to hire attorneys to confuse the trail to the missing funds. The people being investigated are employees of the citizens and residents of King County. Why are we being forced to pay for their defense against their incompetence or malfeasance? We're paying to defend them from prosecution for stealing from us?

This is standard-operating procedure for the Port: to be secretive, to run backdoor deals with commercial interests, and the total lack of concern for pollutants, road systems and adequate wages for any nonunion workers.

The commissioners and senior Port officials should be ashamed of themselves.

— Michael McGrath, Seattle

Common ground

Where do we draw the line?

The historical success of America has been based on the understanding that the community as a whole, through the collection of taxes, will provide certain basic services to all its citizens. This has included police and fire-protection services, national defense, universal education and a transportation system. The recent implementation of user fees is a fundamental break with that tradition ["As tolling grows, so does technology to collect fees," News, March 2].

The underlying philosophy of user fees is the belief that people should only have to pay for what they use. This philosophy is in sync with the rise of individual self-interest as a dominant theme in the American ethic. We are moving away from an understanding that there are certain things that are worth paying for communally because they are investments that are necessary if we want the overall system to function successfully.

Transportation is a basic requirement for functioning in our country as it exists. Making the payment of user fees (tolls) a requirement for access to the transportation system completely alters the equation ["Pull over and consider this: The traffic could get even worse," guest commentary, March 5].

What it does, in effect, is privatize the transportation system for the use of those who can afford to pay the fee. Those who can't are put at a great disadvantage; they become second-class citizens.

The recent popularity of user fees serves the purpose of the canary in the coal mine: It is telling us something about the health of our society. If the logic of user fees for access to the transportation infrastructure is extended to other aspects of American life, then citizens should have to pay a fee every time they require the services of the police, firefighters, schools and military.

Have we really reached such a state of mind that we believe a child should not have access to education if his family can't afford to pay for it? Do we believe that firefighters should collect a fee before putting out a fire?

Have we really drifted that far from our understanding of ourselves as a nation with common interests? The popularity of user fees would seem to indicate that we have. And that is very sad.

— Dick Schwartz, Bellevue

1950 called

It wants its party line back

As President George Bush returned from his African sojourn aboard Air Force One recently, he addressed some unfinished legislative business: reauthorizing the Protect America Act.

Before recessing, the House of Representatives failed to pass the bill with the one provision Bush said he must have: Phone companies that took part in his warrantless domestic-spying program must be shielded from lawsuits ["House fails to renew surveillance measure," News, Feb. 15].

Ironically, House Democrats finally agree with Bush on something. They agree that there should be no compromise on this issue.

I hope that Congress doesn't falter in its position because, frankly, Americans don't need the Protect America Act. We still have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) laws that permit eavesdropping (eavesdropping with warrants, of course, the way God and the Constitution intended).

No, American citizens don't need the Protect America Act; only the telecom giants need it. These corporate behemoths blithely and blindly did Bush's bidding by participating in his warrantless domestic-spying program. They could have said, "No, Mr. President, that's unconstitutional." But they didn't.

The telecom folks will contend that Bush told them they could do it. When they mount that defense, we should remind the telecom industry that we live in a democracy, not a monarchy. Bush is, after all, a mere president, not a king.

The real question is why our president, a man who took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, would seek to create a warrantless surveillance program that undermines that Constitution and the civil liberties of all Americans.

— John Scannell, Pearson