Online only letters to the editor

Editor, The Times:

Virgina Mason and WSNA

I read with great interest Carol Ostrom's piece regarding the ongoing legal dispute between Virginia Mason Medical Center (VM) and the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) ["NLRB rules for nurses in dispute with hospital," Times, Local News, May 2].

Ms. Ostrom misrepresents the findings of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by stating the NLRB found that VM "engaged in unfair labor practices by requiring nurses who didn't get flu shots to wear masks". In fact, the NLRB found that there was enough substance to proceed to the next step: a hearing before an administrative law judge.

Why then, is the Seattle Times publishing false information? Is this journalism at its worst or is Ms. Ostrom a mouthpiece for the self-interests of the WSNA?

The WSNA has made many false claims. Among them is the claim that VM did not use alternatives to encourage flu vaccines among its workers. In fact, education and vaccines were made available on all units/all shifts to no avail.

Seattle has one of the highest concentrations of people over 85 years of age. VM has an elderly patient population. Research has repeatedly demonstrated the high morbidity and mortality associated with elders contracting influenza (well babies have also died after contracting influenza from their nurses). Ninety-eight percent of the VM nurses have done the right thing and are now vaccinated. WSNA, however, continues to package this dispute as a job shop issue, when it is truly a public health issue. Who will come and decide which patient should be allowed to die from influenza? Isn't even one life worth fighting for?

WSNA is choosing nurses over patients (check out their website with their slogan "Nurses Prevail" next to the upraised fist). As a nurse for 30 years, I intend to fight for the welfare of my frail, weak patients. I am deactivating my membership in WSNA because of this issue. I do not want to be counted among those who seek to advance their self-interests, hoping to obscure the painful human consequences imbedded in the issue.

— Mary Shelkey, Seattle

Sonics

When I decided to take up skiing, I bought my gear. When I decided to take up sailing, I built a 28 feet sloop. I didn't ask or expect anybody else to pay my way, much less use the taxing power of the almighty state to force people to pay for my pastimes.

I suggest that the same philosophy be used in the Sonics situation.

Let those who get their kicks out of watching grown men play children's games make binding pledges to pay for a fancy playpen for them. I, along with hundreds of thousands of others in the state, derive absolutely nothing from, and have no desire to be forced to pay for yet another playpen for billionaire owners and their millionaire jocks.

Howard Schultz could pay for a stadium out of his lunch money. Either he or those of you who get your kicks watching men chasing a ball should pay for your own entertainment. Please leave me out of it.

The last time I read the state constitution, I noticed a clause that prevented public money from being spent to benefit private individuals, not that anyone pays any attention to the state or national constitution anymore?

—Don, Issaquah

WASL

I've long been puzzled as to why the Seattle Times, and the press in general, has implicitly, if not explicitly, been opposed to academic achievement, as reflected by the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL).

Puzzled, that is, until I realized the intellectually-deficient requirements needed to enter and graduate from journalism schools.

Only about ten percent of the applicants for my undergraduate (electrical) engineering school were accepted and, of those, fully twenty-five failed to cut the mustard and graduate.

Has anyone ever failed to enter and graduate from a journalism school?

— Gerald Stiles, Sequim

Drug Secrets

I read the original Seattle Times story about the selling of drug secrets and was sickened by it. However, what struck me about your May 8 update and Senator Grassley's pursuit of this topic, was the comment by Paul Latta, Seattle based research director for McAdams Wright Ragen ["Grassley asks SEC to step up probe of drug-secret leaks," Times, Business and Technology, May 8].

Since when is it "above board" to purchase "confidential information" from doctors who have signed a contract with drug companies not to divulge such information? Is Mr. Latta stating that since it's the doctor violating his own contract with a drug company, that a researcher like himself who pays for information is thus exonerated?

I'm no SEC expert, but this certainly has the appearance of insider trading and I am appalled and disgusted that Mr. Latta stated no concerns about the propriety of buying confidential access, but instead was grumbling that some companies didn't have enough money to participate in the process. As a player in the "free market", he should understand by now that nobody is interested in getting ahead wants a level playing field, and people like him will do just about anything to improve their odds.

—Judy Neldam, Bellevue

The Star Spangled Banner

The resolution sponsored by Lamar Alexander and other Republicans to require that the Star Spangled Banner be sung only in English is pure political opportunism. George W. Bush sang along with the anthem in Spanish at Hispanic rallies on the 1999 campaign trail, and at the 2001 White House inauguration, singer and Cuban exile Jon Secada sung the song in both English and Spanish.

Ironies abound with the anthem itself; Francis Scott Key wrote the lyrics to commemorate a battle during the War of 1812, a war that the U.S. declared on Great Britain not to gain freedom, but as a pretext to launch an unsuccessful invasion of Canada. Also, the War of 1812 was as unpopular with Americans then as the war in Iraq is now, and this led it to end in a stalemate. Interestingly, the Americans purloined an old English drinking song to supply the melody for the anthem.

The failure to annex Canada led the U.S. to push its policy of expansionism westward, obtaining California, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado after defeating Mexico in the Mexican-American War of 1848. The U.S. thus gained control over an area that had been inhabited by Spanish-speaking peoples for 300 years, and is still rich in Spanish tradition.

Because of these events, not to mention the annexation of Texas, there is a unique and longstanding relationship between Mexicans and Americans. Part of that relationship, unfortunately, has been a tradition of employing Mexican nationals as cheap labor; however, it is this systematic exploitation that allows Americans to pay moderate prices for fruits and vegetables, and today, realistic prices for homes. You can't have it both ways, people. The day that Americans are willing to pick field crops at piecework rates, or do construction work for minimum wage, is not coming anytime soon.

It's hard to believe that the Republican party thinks it can mask the country's serious domestic and international problems by attempting to rally voters around xenophobia about illegal immigrants and a non-issue such as the singing of the national anthem.

—John Kneeland, Ontario, B.C.

Gas Prices

By definition (or guilt by association), I along with a vast majority of my fellow Americans (at least according to our ever-out-of-touch commander in chief) have officially been labeled as over-consuming gas-a-holics. Well, excuse me for going about my daily course of business. I highly doubt I am much different than most typical working citizens in terms of my gasoline consumption requirements; my habits haven't changed, nor have I significantly (if at all) increased my need for fuel in several years, and I'm willing to bet most people can say the same. So why the urgency all of the sudden?

Our president and lawmakers wag the finger at us nevertheless, chiding us into believing we have an uncontrollably higher than normal demand for oil — what a load. Nothing we have done could conceivably account for the lopsided, head-spinning upswing in the price of gas. Since the "demand" card doesn't appear to hold much weight (and as supplies are reportedly very abundant), what are the real reasons behind $75per barrel oil? I expect these answers from our administration, but I'm not holding my breath.. The country wants truthful answers, but basically we get the bird instead. But hey — we have a stylin' new press secretary!

We're provided with the usual annual garbage about the "demands of summer, peak, or holiday driving seasons" — they're no different than they were four to five years ago when gas was $1.50 per gallon. So what's the true story, G?

Our government's short-term solution to this basically equates to buying our silence in the form of either a token rebate (Yippee — you mean a whole hundred dollars?), or seasonal gas tax relief (Wow, now I can get an ice cream bar in the mini mart!). Now that's pure genius — almost as brilliant as suggesting a windfall profits tax be imposed on the big oil companies, and who do you suppose gets that money? I encourage my fellow addicts nationwide to do all we can to ensure the re-election of these talented and caring minds. How about working for the people by addressing the real issue, instead of laying out corny, worthless, and patronizing solutions in response to a potentially serious situation?

Ultimately, the powers that be have the audacity to imply that I and the balance of my fellow abusers now must weigh out potentially drastic personal and economic decisions in order to curtail our nasty little habit, including contemplating where we can afford to live and work. When you're held hostage by this manufactured crisis and don't have much of a choice, it's not a matter of the willingness to pay a completely outrageous price for gasoline — it's now a matter of trying to figure out how to stay in the game until the powers that be of our country come to their senses and start working to substantially alleviate this concern.

Bottom line is, the focus has been directed at finding and using alternative fuel sources, finding ways to stretch the mileage, and implementing the use of alternative transportation. There are those who profess the virtues of (minimal-effect) hybrid technology, or how to run your car on bacon grease, and people are just fawning all over it, when the real focus should be on procuring affordable oil (and therefore gasoline). Where there is talk of people quitting or changing jobs because they can no longer afford to drive to work, we should be talking about building new refineries, and developing the means in getting the price of oil and gas back down to realistic levels. We need to keep everybody moving along with minimal disruption, instead of jerking with people's lives due to either gross incompetence, negligence, inaction, or all of the above. Enough already.

— David Sisk, Burlington