Letters to the Editor

Lt. Ehren Watada

Soldiers have right to speak out against something unworthy

Editor, The Times:

The recent editorial in The Seattle Times supporting the military's insistence on obedience by its soldiers ["The case against Lt. Ehren Watada," opinion, Jan. 9] cries out for critical reflection and response. I would like us all to consider this: Do the deeply entrenched military policies that demand blind obedience and limit free speech serve us as a country and individuals?

I think not.

Those in power may argue that in order for a military to maintain control and achieve "success," soldiers must be willing to obey orders regardless of whether or not they agree with them.

I would argue that if the cause the soldiers are fighting for is deemed worthy, they will loyally carry out their orders. If a cause is not worthy of potentially sacrificing their lives or well-being, then they should be free to refuse and to publicly speak out against it.

Unfortunately, the military's policies are congruent with the failings of our educational system. Our schools rarely promote independent thinking, questioning or expression. Students take classes and tests to meet requirements, not because the classes are exciting.

Thus we live in a society predominantly comprised of citizens who rarely if ever question the underlying assumptions and goals behind our individual or collective roles within our political, medical, educational, or social systems and structures. To me, this is a much greater cause for alarm and shame than for a soldier to refuse to fight in any war.

— Tamara Scarlett-Lyon, Seattle

Questioning is our duty

Your editorial advocating the conviction and punishment of Lt. Ehren Watada ["The case against Lt. Ehren Watada," editorial, Jan. 9] wouldn't warrant a gentleman's "D" in the most elementary class on logic.

First, you crow that he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, as if enlightenment is a foreign concept. Then you cite such "military necessities" as the preservation of soldiers' morale. This argument was invented in the 1940s by those who wanted to protect the military from the demoralization of racial integration.

The most reprehensible suggestion of all is that his punishment should be designed to forestall civil demonstrations. Heaven forbid we should do anything to encourage people to protest government malfeasance.

The military is a pre-medieval assembly that clings to the concept that it's enlistees and consciptees should lose all of their civil rights for the sole purpose of maximizing their utility as cannon fodder for power-mad despots who measure their might in corpses. It is high time that somebody inside had the strength of character to question such barbarism. Don't think for one minute that we won't protest if he is persecuted. It is our duty as patriots to question anything that smacks of bad government.

— Harold R. Pettus, Everett

State budget

We have an opportunity to invest in our future

Even before the legislative session began this week, the editorial pages of some newspapers — including this one — started urging the Legislature to cut back on the governor's proposed budget ["A spendy Legislature," opinion, Jan. 4]. The Seattle Times' targets included smart investments in health coverage for low-income children, pay boosts for child-care workers and money to support school breakfasts.

We agree with the governor that current economic conditions present us with a golden opportunity to invest in our future by investing in our children. We aren't talking about luxury items here; we're talking about health coverage, quality child care and food. These are basic necessities and should be considered as such by lawmakers as they convene to write the state's budget.

It is worth noting that health coverage for children just got an infusion of money from the federal government. Thanks to legislation passed in Washington, D.C., last month, our state now has access to $20 million more in federal funds. This additional money should help the state ensure that every child in Washington has affordable health coverage.

With these investments, our children will be healthier and more successful in school. They are investments worth making now.

— Paola Maranan, executive director, Children's Alliance

White House

Guess who's coming to dinner? We have the right to know

Well, isn't this ironic. The same president who asserts the right to listen to our telephone calls and read our mail now claims that "we the people" are not permitted to see lists of visitors meeting with public officials in publicly owned buildings ["White House argues its visitors log is off-limits to public," news, Jan. 6].

Presumably, a fair number of these "visitors" are also elected officials or appointees, and they are there for the purpose of discussing the peoples' affairs, on the peoples' time. But I guess that's none of our business.

Makes you wonder exactly who is the public servant for whom.

— John Davidson, Bellevue

Indecent exposure

Ladies, button up: He's back on the streets

According to The Seattle Times, Detective Joseph Mastel said, "I don't take full responsibility" for exposing himself to a barista at a coffee stand because she was dressed provocatively and led him on ["Panel overturns firing of Spokane detective who exposed himself," local news, Jan. 9]. Does that mean the only way women can be guaranteed protection from Mastel is to be mute and wear a chador?

The Civil Service Commission obviously agrees with Mastel that a justification exists for exposing oneself in public. By overturning his firing, they made him eligible to serve in law enforcement elsewhere. Let's make sure his next job isn't with the beach patrol. Of course, by Mastel's reasoning, sexual assault would be the woman's fault, not his own.

— Michelle R. Reid, Maple Valley

WASL

Gardner's suggestions offer the prospect

of real improvement

In my view, former Gov. Booth Gardner's recommendations regarding the shift in focus from WASL obsession to diagnostic assessments offer the prospect of real improvement for every student ["Obsession with WASL unwise," opinion, Jan. 9].

Real improvement in achievement levels is the goal, after all, for every student, isn't it?

If teachers could be assisted in identifying an individual's strengths and weaknesses and tracking progress, the task of tailoring assignments would be manageable and meaningful.

Advancement could then become the responsibility of the student. Schools could use teachers in a manner that allows them to teach each student how to work, improve and learn in the areas where they are having difficulty.

The WASL's goal is developing in students a better understanding of the process in solving problems. Gardner's proposal suggests the process of solving how to meaningfully educate all of our children lies in successfully diagnosing and then addressing specific needs, using the WASL as a barometer. I agree.

— Patrick Schrote, Seattle