Online only letters

The war on oil

By drill or by foot? Oil problems are now a massive headache

Editor, The Times:

Our reliance on foreign oil is coming home to roost now ["Gas prices jump nearly 3 cents to record, while oil pauses," Times, Business, May 8].

Many in government have sought to open vast reserves in Alaska over the past 15 years that would make our reliance of foreign oils less impacting. They were called anti-environmentalists and were in the pocket of big oil companies and polluters. They said they were trying to prepare for the inevitable fact that the world demand is growing for oil and the trends were not good for gas prices.

Guess who was right?

As the foreign economies take off in China, Taiwan, Russia, etc., competition for the limited source of oil has driven up the price. Now as prices of oil goes up, our local governments want to tax it higher to cover their increasing costs for fuel.

What a vicious cycle. We have reached critical mass, folks. We either drill or we start walking in the not-too-distant future.

I am concerned about the environment, but to allow the migratory patterns of elk to close off a few hundred acres of drilling sites in the millions of acres of national preserves is ludicrous. We have the reserves to make oil prices decline.

I just wish we had politicians who had the courage to do what was right instead of what their lobbyists wanted when the gas prices were $2 a gallon. As it stands now, we won't be able to drill until gas reaches $5 a gallon or more.

— Art Francis, Issaquah

Let's think slower on the road

During World War II, the speed limit was 45 mph to conserve fuel and tires. Tires aren't the problem now, but fuel is a bigger issue than ever. Dare I say it? A 55 mph speed limit!

"The man's mad," you say. "Why, I'd have to leave 10 minutes earlier and my car might not run well at 55, and besides, etc., etc., etc."

C'mon, folks, gimme a break. We all know most of those nice cars on the road aren't going to be scrapped for hybrids anytime soon, and driving less isn't an option for many people.

One thing that everyone, from the man on a motorcycle to the man with the big RV, can do is slow down a little and burn a bit less fuel. The obvious side benefits include lives saved, less pollution by not running the engines so hard and an extra second or so to shift our attention from the cellphone conversation back to the road activity ahead.

Fuel consumption relates to how hard you push on the gas pedal, which relates to how fast you feel you must move over the road and through the wind.

— Robert Alan Wright, Yakima

HOT lane a chilly notion

So here we are in a time of high fuel prices, a dwindling oil supply, a nationwide attempt to adopt greener, more sustainable lifestyles, and the state of Washington is now allowing single-occupant vehicles to use car-pool lanes ["Smooth drive for HOT lane debut," Local News, May 5] -- at a price, of course, as if that will justify the practice, no matter how it will affect the flow of traffic.

What's wrong with this picture? Pay more so you can be less responsible? Waste more, conserve less, and everything is fine as long as you pay for the privilege?

What's next -- motorcycles in bike lanes? Snowmobiles on cross-country ski trails? Float planes landing on Green Lake, as long as they pay for it?

This is a foolish and contradictory policy. Why even have a car-pool lane if single drivers can use it?

— Alan Moen, Entiat

Innovation at stake

As a committed and voting Democrat, trying to make my decision about whom to support financially at this point in the Democratic race, I have just come to a firm conclusion: Sen. Barack Obama.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's support of a repeal of the gas tax for this summer frustrates me, and her rhetoric to garner support, indicating that the congressional opponents of this plan are simply in support of big oil companies, infuriates me. Sen. Patty Murray is one such congressional member in opposition, and with good reason.

What is at stake here is not simply the heft of gas consumers' wallets this summer. What is at stake here is the opportunity to start a valid debate about the need to invest in clean energy, and the jobs that will be created in this country.

Repealing a gas tax will not help our economy, it will not help national infrastructure (such as highways -- which we need to transport products), and it will not help the continued innovative health of this country -- which is the very thing that has propelled us to such a unique position in the global economy.

Innovation. It is essential to the American identity, it is essential to our economy and it is essential to any candidate hoping to lead us into the future.

If Clinton is unable or unwilling to see the need to move forward as a nation rather than moving back, and to be bold enough as a candidate to take risky moves, then I not only will not support her, I will actively campaign against her.

This country needs new leadership. It needs dynamic leadership. I am not willing to risk this campaign on a Democrat who cannot deliver. For that reason, my money and my support are now going to Obama.

— Briana Thirloway

To attack Iran

A knife in the heart

I recently returned from spending two weeks in Iran as part of a citizen diplomacy delegation organized by Global Exchange in San Francisco.

I am outraged that Sen. Hillary Clinton is perpetuating the warmongering approach of the Bush-Cheney administration by stating that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel ["Iran condemns Clinton for threatening force," News, April 30].

As our delegation visited the cities of Tehran, Yazd, Shiraz, and Esfahan, we were consistently met with generosity, kindness, hospitality and friendliness from the Iranian people. Everywhere we went we were welcomed. The many Iranians we talked with in bazaars, tea houses, schools, shops and historical sites were excited to have Americans visiting and learning firsthand about their country.

When conversations ventured into politics, we usually ended up agreeing that both our leaders are crazy. The Iranians we met were sophisticated enough to separate a country's government from its people.

It is outrageous for Clinton to suggest she would consider obliterating any other country on the planet; the fact she has recently targeted the 75 million men, women and children of Iran, some of whom I was fortunate enough to meet, is like a knife in my heart.

She obviously does not possess the wisdom required to be president.

— Nancy Penrose, Seattle

Abuse or discipline?

Cracks in the law

Regarding "Ocean Shores police officer acquitted of assault in disciplining daughter" [Local News, May 3]: I was outraged to read that an Aberdeen Municipal Court jury found it to be "acceptable discipline for police officer, Jeffrey Elmore to beat his 17-year-old daughter with a belt." Defense lawyer David L. Mistachkin argued that Elmore was "exercising reasonable discretion in parental discipline."

Had Elmore beat his wife with a belt and not his daughter, a young woman still considered a child because of her age, I doubt the outcome would have been the same. The fact that this 17-year -old is still a "child" for another year somehow allowed the jury to consider this abuse as "parental discipline rather than domestic violence and assault. This is a case that should be referred to Child Protective Services.

Ocean Shores and Aberdeen, I hope you are not stuck in the Dark Ages and allowing your children and young people to be beaten and abused behind closed doors! You should be more protective of all your citizens, especially vulnerable children.

It is outrageous that a police officer, someone who is mandated to keep his temper under control, is beating his children and the community is sanctioning it! It is not acceptable to beat your child -- or anyone, for that matter -- with a belt or any other instrument!

Ocean Shores Police Department, can you trust an officer who beats his family members to maintain control on the streets? I think not. Next time I come your way, I am driving quickly through your town and not stopping. You need to rethink your values.

— Debi Kirkpatrick, Shoreline

Prescription drugs

Medications available for all

As a pharmacist, I want to applaud Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. working to preserve access to prescription drugs for low-income patients and families covered by Medicaid.

Federal regulators are planning to cut billions in funding for a wide range of Medicaid prescriptions. The resulting drug reimbursements will be 36 percent below pharmacies' costs, on average.

These cuts threaten pharmacies' ability to provide important health-care services, especially in rural and inner-city areas with high Medicaid populations. Some stores could be forced to reduce their hours or even close, limiting prescription access for all the patients they serve.

Fortunately, Sen. Cantwell is working in support of the Fair Medicaid Drug Payment Act, which will address these drastic cuts. Her efforts on behalf of Medicaid patients will help ensure that they have access to prescriptions from their local pharmacy; convenient medication therapy will lower health-care costs by reducing the need for catastrophic care and emergency room visits.

Thank you to Sen. Cantwell for looking out for Medicaid patients and taxpayers.

— Carol Rogers Carnahan, Seattle