Online only letters to the editor

Editor, The Times:

Oil

We need to realize that our so-called "dependency" on oil is not really that but is in fact, a matter of choice. We choose to drive fuel-inefficient vehicles, make one-person-per-vehicle commutes and view public transportation with distain. It is a matter of choice because we can still afford the comfort, convenience and independence of this lifestyle. We will change these habits only when we can no longer afford those luxuries.

I propose increasing the cost of fuel. Yes, increasing it, not lowering it. The strategy would be to add a significant consumer tax and raise the cost of fuel to somewhere between $5 and $10 per gallon at the pump. This would be a tax on fuel purchased by individuals for use in their personal vehicles.

The plan would exempt the trucking industry, airlines, farmers and of course public transportation systems, in order to protect the national economy. Households would receive a tax credit based on their taxable income.

The resulting revenue would be specifically earmarked for research aimed at developing alternative energy sources.

In the last few weeks, a number of articles and letters to the editor have appeared in The Times, focusing on the need to lower the cost of fuel and force oil companies to make less profit. But lowering the cost of fuel just panders to our continuing misuse of a dwindling resource and perpetuates the global turmoil associated with maintaining the flow of oil.

Only when we are forced to make difficult choices and trade-offs will we appreciate the problem. Only when we have to decide between car-pooling or child care, public transportation or a vacation, a small, fuel-efficient vehicle or a new roof on the house, will we all recognize that the oil "problem" is us.

—Paul Heins, Issaquah

The problem will only abate when solutions are in place. We need to make sure our assets are being properly applied rather than being concerned about who has the money. There are those in the energy sector and in government who know what must be done, they have known for 50 years. The time to bite the bullet was long ago, but [doing it] now is much better than waiting.

If we can spend $800 billion on Middle East problems, we certainly can do what is needed in energy. The driver of the truck that brings the food to your local store cannot lie to his truck's fuel tank and expect to deliver.

—Hugh Coleman, Kelso

The most immediate action we could take to conserve gasoline in the United States would be to get semi trucks off of our roads. Freight trains use far less fuel to ship goods than long-haul trucks do, we all know that. But there is another savings that would be found by switching to rail.

Americans are always criticized for our gas-guzzling SUVs, but one of the reasons we drive them is for protection. We all drive every day next to ridiculously huge 18-wheelers on I-5, those aggressive, reckless, law-breaking, lane-changing, paid-by-the-mile, in-a-big-hurry, blind behemoths whose hubcaps stare right at us like evil eyes through our little car windows.

From Blaine to San Diego, there is an endless line of trucks whose freight could just as easily be rolling north and south on rail. Commuters are forced to drive right through the middle of this herd of semis.

We may be no match for a big truck, but we have a far better chance of surviving a crash in an Escalade than in a Yugo. So, any time we can afford it, we buy SUVs for the protecting steel. We aren't resource hogs, we are rational maximizers who want to stay alive.

Get those trucks out of here. The federal government subsidized their industry through the construction of the interstate highway system and put most railroads out of business. Let's put railroads back in business. Then, even with no governmental mandates, we will see the size of automobiles shrink.

The Luddites of the trucking industry and their K Street lobbyists will wail and gnash their teeth, but Americans aren't going to get out of their SUV Sherman tanks until the monster trucks are off the road. If we can't do this — a most obvious solution in every way — all the talk about fuel conservation, air quality, or global warming is empty and going nowhere.

—Hugh Coleman, Kelso

Immigration

As an American, I am tired of being labeled as an immigrant. I am only 26 years old. I was born here, my mother was born here and my father was born here. Their parents were born here. Those who came here as immigrants many centuries ago turned into conquerors of an originally borderless land and made it what it is today.

I'm not an immigrant to this country — this is my country. I welcome those who go through the paces and walk the walk to become legal immigrants. To those folks — welcome to your new home.

But how can those who are here illegally sneak over our borders in clear defiance of our laws, then turn around and seek protection under them? How can they spit on our rights as citizens and then expect to be welcomed?

Send them all home and make them jump through the same hoops our legal immigrants had to! Make those who cross illegally and those who hire them criminals!

There is no argument here and no question about what is right. Illegal immigrants are not an asset and those who hire them only serve to lower the standard that hard-working American citizens like myself have worked so hard to set.

Here's an idea. Instead of sneaking over here and "working hard," why don't you work hard to make your own country a better place?

—Jason Harris, Seattle

Politics

In a recent front-page quote in The Times ["New chief of staff rattles West Wing: Rove's duties shift, McClellan resigns," page one, April 20] is this profound sentence: "Rove, who steered Bush to two national-election victories, will retain his title but focus on broad strategy and politics" (read, staying on the public payroll).

Do you suppose, if politically interpreted, that should read, "Taxpayers will now help pay for Rove to steer scared-to-death up-for-election Republican candidates to a Bush-maneuvered victory"? Would that include use of Air Force I and II? Nobody's hollering about that either!

—Earline Byers, Des Moines

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has proven that not only will he drink the presidential Kool-Aid, he will serve it up too.

Recently, to keep George Bush's shrinking base in line, Rumsfeld served up a well-crafted slur that possessed the emotional content required of quality propaganda and triggered the most primitive of emotional reactions — fear.

Speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show, Rumsfeld said it was important to "recognize that the terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have media committees, they are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it."

To those who feed on a diet of right-wing supremacy disguised as true patriotism, Rumsfeld served up the sick and unsupported lie that those who speak against him are being manipulated by terrorists; all wise party faithful should repel such voices as terrorist threats.

What a crock. We will hear no evidence that this exists, no names of who speaks the terrorists' words. It is Rumsfeld practicing the same propaganda techniques used by Joe McCarthy, Hitler, Pol Pot and other skilled liars throughout history. The lies and innuendo worked then, they work now.

Rumsfeld will likely be secure as long as he skillfully defends the endless lie and America will continue to suffer for it.

—Marc Sterling, Olympia

Given the caliber of U.S. troops (stellar) and their equipment (most advanced in the world), it amazes me that people still support Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

How can someone with such excellent resources at his disposal make such a dog's dinner out of Iraq? Incompetence is the only answer, and supporting Rumsfeld now is only a vote for more casualties, especially given there was no link to Sept. 11 and no weapons of mass destruction. No one had to die at all.

—Bert Schulz, Redmond

On May 2, 2003, George W. Bush appeared on the deck of the USS Lincoln to announce, with a banner behind him "Mission Accomplished."

When it comes to changing security status, he can do it at will. How many have asked if a piece of information was declassified?

So to set the story straight, he can and should have the banner rewritten, "Mission Deaccomplished." This will be another face-saving gesture which cannot be blamed on Porter Goss.

Buy the DVD you have been waiting for, "Porter Goss, in The Sinister Administration."

—Leo Shillong, Bellingham

The Times may think that "Nick Licata must be joking" with his Seattle Center proposal ["A bad joke played on the arts, Sonics," editorial, May 3], but just about everyone I know seems to think he's really onto something.

Imagine, after years of blatant favoritism granted to special interests by state, county and city government, an elected official finally says enough is enough. Let's fund something that goes beyond the last "wish list" from Vulcan, or Milliken or in this case, the Seattle Supersonics.

The Times states that Seattle's City Council President Licata might derail the Sonics deal because his proposal is too broad with things like support for the arts, improvements for Seattle Center, and promotion of tourism. Well, so what? If overspending does occur — and remember these dollars are spread over 30 years — wouldn't it still be more beneficial for the city at large? And that also answers The Times' next charge of no long-range planning for Seattle Center. It just isn't so.

The Times goes on to question why we need to improve funding of low-industry art wages for dancers, poets, actors, musicians, singers, and writers, when everyone knows you need this money to satisfy the multi-million-dollar salaries of a few stick and ball slingers.

I don't smell hypocrisy in Licata's proposal at all. I do, however, get a strong smell of whine and cheese from The Times' editorial. You might find a growing number of people who think too much has been done for a wealthy few who neither deserve or need the favors.

—Jim Kirby, Seattle

Pension Reform

Pension reform is imperative - enough of the criminal actions of corporations that are dumping pensions!

—James Deller, Issaquah

Wal-Mart

An otherwise excellent article about Wal-Mart missed the big reason why unionizing the giant corporation would be bad for its workers.

Unions always justify themselves by setting employees against management. It keeps the rank-and-file in line when they threaten a strike and keeps that same rank-and-file from noticing the high pay and benefits of union executives. Orwell immortalized such people as the pigs in the book, "Animal Farm."

But this employee/management barrier makes it hard for someone, however hardworking and talented, to move up. If you want an example, ask yourself how many Boeing execs started out as machinists.

At present, someone can marry his high-school sweetheart and start as a stocking clerk at Wal-Mart. If he has talent and works hard, he can move into management and even become an executive. No nasty us/them, union-policed barriers exist between the two jobs. That's rare in today's business world. Even Microsoft, started by college dropouts, requires a college degree for most jobs.

Wal-Mart certainly deserves the criticism it's getting, particularly its often anemic health-care benefits and zeal to export jobs to the country with the lowest pay.

But the answer to Wal-Mart's ills isn't the nasty promotion-blocking barrier created when a union walks in the door.

— Mike Perry, Seattle

The Sonics

After reading all the letters complaining about the latest subsidies the Sonics want, I just have to ask, Where were all you people when the Seachickens and the Mariners were [plundering] us taxpayers? We voted no on one stadium and it was built anyhow! We were blackmailed and threatened with extortion with both new stadiums! Where were all you people then?

Talk about two-faced. I bet some of the most vocal critics of the latest high-priced welfare plan to a different multimillionaire voted for and supported the corruption that got us stuck with two new stadiums while still paying off the first one.

I am tired of all three sports teams' constant whining and crying about more money. Let's throw them all (Seachickens, Mariners and Sonics) out of town and get businesses in here that puts money into the city, county and state. Not continually suck it out! I can cheer for the overpaid, obnoxious, whining, conceited prima donnas wherever they play!

— Randal Kram, Covington