This would help restore the health of our streams

Editor, The Times:

Thanks for the Feb. 6 editorial calling for action to implement Low Impact Development (LID) building practices [“Build green infrastructure,” Opinion].

Halting the onslaught of stormwater runoff is the most important action we can take to restore the health of our streams, lakes and Puget Sound. Those of us who monitor streams can attest to the damage done by stormwater runoff from the heavily built environment we have created.

Large volumes of runoff into streams destroy salmon spawning and hatching habitat by scouring out gravel beds or burying them in silt, which smothers embryonic eggs as well as the aquatic flies and other insects that live in the gravels and form the base of the stream food chain.

Toxins carried by runoff from roads, parking lots and yards make the water, itself, poisonous to all the creatures that live in it.

Another major benefit from widespread implementation of LID would be to curtail property damage from flooding — millions of dollars worth over the last decade in my small town alone.

— Mark Phillips, Lake Forest Park

Eliminate pollution at the source

The “Build green infrastructure” editorial confuses stormwater management with pollution control. The containment of stormwater on-site via Low Impact Development (LID) methods reduces the amount of water that flows into the stormwater systems.

However, this water does not pollute the environment. The pollution comes from the roadways where years of improvement by the auto industry to eliminate oil, brake lining and tire residue has greatly reduced this pollution. Reducing the water running over the roads and into the stormwater systems dilutes the concentration of pollutants in the stormwater, but does not eliminate the pollutants.

While LID methods are a worthy goal for stormwater management, they do almost nothing to eliminate pollutants. The elimination of pollutants should be addressed at their source: i.e., continued elimination by the auto industry and others.

— George Toskey, Sammamish

There is still a chance for diplomacy

There is still a chance for diplomacy with Iran [“A nuclear Iran would put us over a barrel,” Opinion, Feb. 6]. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told The Washington Post that there is more than a 50-50 chance Israel will attack Iranian nuclear sites next spring.

In response, an Iranian revolutionary guard commander indicated that within the first few weeks of such an attack an estimated 300,000 Americans would be killed. Although his response is more of a bluff, it should make us think harder before the time of no return reaches.

Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has made the uranium-enrichment process a matter of national honor during the last decade, and now he cannot face a humiliation to back off. Iran is feeling the crippling sanctions more than ever. A few weeks ago, the Iranian revolutionary guard threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, where almost 40 percent of the world’s oil passes daily.

The U.S. should provide enough carrots to the regime while allowing it to keep face while suspending uranium enrichment at high levels.

— Amir Ajami, Lynnwood

There can be no peace without justice

I was not surprised to read the usual number of slippery-slope arguments and far-flung conclusions in Wendy Rosen’s recent op-ed regarding Iran’s nuclear and military intentions.

What did however surprise and sadden me is that as director of Seattle’s American Jewish Committee, she considers the violent murder of scientists part of an “encouraging” stealth campaign.

This type of public encouragement to violence is completely at odds with common decency and internationally recognized paths of diplomacy. There can be no peace without justice.

— Alexander Scott, Seattle

Is this worth a war?

According to the Dahaf Institute of Israel, The New York Times and a Program for International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll, in November 2011, only 43 percent of Israelis polled favor military strikes on Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons program. Perhaps the 57 percent who oppose a new war know that Iran is a paper tiger with regards to nuclear weapons.

In January, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commented in the National Journal that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities now would be “premature,” and urged nonmilitary means to convince Iran to cooperate.

An unconfirmed report indicates that Gen. Dempsey, when he recently visited Israel, sternly warned Israeli Mossad chief Tamir Pardo not to launch any unilateral airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The war hawks in London, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C., are risking perhaps a new world war with an enraged Russia and China over the corpse of Iran, or Syria. Why?

For the same old imperial geopolitical reasons that have plunged the world into endless warfare. Only the removal of Barack Obama as president and whipping the Congress to change policies will resolve this crisis.

— James D. Wyrick, Bothell

Look at Israel first

It’s Israel that has Americans over a barrel, not Iran. It’s Israel that has nuclear weapons, not Iran.

We might actually be seen by the rest of the world as reasonable instead of oil-thirsty aggressors if we force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons before we start wars with Israel’s neighbors to prevent them from acquiring nuclear technology.

— Brian Conkle, Seattle

This isn’t a realistic way to evaluate teachers

As a former teacher, I would have loved to have my professional evaluations derived from the standardized test scores of my students, if my school existed in a glass bubble [“Bills would reshape how state teachers evaluated,” NWMonday, Feb. 6].

But my evaluators had to consider the external factors that constantly entered my classroom. For example, there are parents who feel they have no obligation to ensure the following: a child eats a balanced meal before attending school, homework assignments are completed, controlled substances are not within the household, truancy is not a problem, books are being read in lieu of playing video games, and manners and respect for a school’s personnel are first taught at home.

As most educators know, there is very little the individual teacher can do to stop the sloppy parenting that plagues the American school system, because politicians don’t want to confront registered voters with the truth.

On a final note, when I started teaching in 1986, my school’s administration consisted of a principal, guidance counselor and a curriculum specialist. When I retired from the same school in 2010, there were at least 10 expensive, quasi-administrative people running the school. And most of their jobs were tied to buffering poor parenting skills, which directly affected the students’ progress.

— Donell Quinitchette, Seattle

This shows real promise to improve teaching

I am a 20-plus-year nationally certified teaching veteran. I am amazed that The Seattle Times is crying foul on legislative blocking of a teacher evaluation bill, when there already is one about to be implemented (Senate Bill 6696).

And I, for one, will welcome this new system, which (finally!) will give me specific research-based feedback on how to improve my teaching.

The “value-added” systems you prefer, which use student test scores as “accountability measures,” are developed by private corporations.

They use complex and proprietary algorithms to create teacher evaluation “scores.”

Thus, teachers never know exactly what criteria they are being evaluated on, how it is weighted, or how to improve their “scores” — or their teaching.

Research has shown that their accuracy and effectiveness in measuring teacher quality is highly questionable.

The biggest benefit seems to be for the corporations who develop and promote them, since they provide great revenue streams of public tax dollars to corporate coffers.

These “accountability” systems have been adopted by credulous politicians in many other states, eager to score Brownie points with equally credulous voters.

We are fortunate to have legislators here who are better informed. Shame on The Seattle Times for not supporting them, or the previously passed (and cheaper) bill, which shows real promise to improve teaching in our state.

— Ann Morgan, Everett

It is time for the U.S. to lead by example

So the United States is expressing outrage at Russia and China for blocking the U.N. resolution calling for Syria’s President Bashar Assad to step down? Seriously? What a pack of hypocrites! [“Why Russia wants U.S., others to keep hands off Syria,” page one, Feb. 8].

For years, the United States has blocked every single U.N. resolution that has been submitted in dealing with Israel and its inhumane and violent measures against Palestinians.

Yes, the treatment of the citizens in Syria is outrageous but the United States needs to lead by example and seek fair humane treatment for all people instead of picking and choosing who is worthy depending on their political motivations.

— Barbara J. Rasaie, Redmond

There are more important problems

Jay Inslee said Monday that he wants to demand “fundamental reforms” to make state government “more focused on the principal job of the state of Washington, which is job creation.” [“Inslee unveils agenda for jobs,” NWTuesday, Feb. 7].

Then he goes on to suggest the creation of a new Cabinet department apart from the already existing Commerce Department, a whole new bureaucracy, as his initial step in accomplishing his “primary” goal.

The next thing out of his mouth was tax breaks for “new industry” when our Legislature can’t even get its act together to rid us of the old ones.

Jay. This is a Democrat talking to you. Job creation may be one of the jobs of state government, but it certainly is not the principal one. There are a lot more important goals needing serious attention that are central to what makes a great state.

Certainly the education and welfare of its citizenry and dealing with revenues and budget before our credit completely tanks ranks way up there, well before job creation.

— Robert Squaglia, Seattle

What about the marine trades?

I apparently missed the news flash that Puget Sound and other Washington waters no longer has world-class seaports in Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Bremerton, Longview, Vancouver and elsewhere, and that Washington state’s vast maritime industry has apparently been exported overseas, leaving us with only the “key industries such as aerospace, clean energy and agriculture” to power job creation.

Candidate Jay Inslee, are you even aware of the current proposals down in Olympia to start some kind of marine-technology programs at community colleges and our state’s preeminent position in the maritime world?

I respectfully suggest that it would be a good idea, if you want to be our governor, to recognize the huge importance of the marine crafts, marine trade, (not to mention the Navy), and their supporting infrastructures in the Washington economy.

— Lawrence Baum, charter captain, Camano Sail and Power, Camano Island

Teens need their privacy too

Editor, The Times:

I think that teens need to have freedom over their technology use [“The tussle over teens’ tech time,” Business, Jan. 28]. Encouraging parents to closely monitor their teen’s technology use is encouraging a relationship with a low level of trust between parent and child, leading to conflict.

Reading your teen’s texts is unacceptable. Just as you need privacy, so do your children. They need to have their own personal life just as you (as a parent) have your own personal life. I think that as long as they are not hurting themselves or others, they should be allowed the same privacy that adults have.

If there ever is a situation where your teen inflicts hurt or gets hurt then you can have a calm, rational discussion about the issue. Teens need freedom to explore and grow without parents encroaching on that freedom, even if you as a parent don’t agree with all of their decisions.

I think that as long as your children are getting up in the morning, parents don’t get to control how much sleep they get. If the children are staying up all night texting or skyping with a friend, then they’re the ones who have to deal with the effects of that — not parents.

— Arianna Riley, Seattle

Americans need to start reading the label

Regarding Darrell Igelmund’s Feb. 4 letter, thanks for your insight as a 25-year-veteran of U.S. manufacturing [“Apple’s workers,” Opinion].

Thankfully, some foreign manufactures have built U.S. factories, thus keeping some money here and creating jobs here. Most, sadly, haven’t.

With the approximately 4-to-1 ratio of goods from China to U.S. versus U.S. to China, there is no “balance of trade.”American consumers need to read the label and start caring about American jobs, and not looking only at the cheapest price.

As long as we only seek out the lowest price (and most times get the lowest quality), we are sending the message to companies that we support having everything made overseas and we don’t care about American jobs or the quality of what we purchase. It’s no wonder China has excess money to loan the U.S. government —it is getting most of the retail money we spend.

I suggest that we all read the labels on the goods in our department, apparel, hardware and other stores. I think most people would be shocked at the huge percentage of products now “Made in China” and other overseas countries. Tell your retailer you want to see their “Made in USA” version of that product you want. (They probably don’t carry any.)

Please read the labels. Please buy “Made in USA,” if you can’t find a “Made in USA” version of what you are seeking — maybe you can live without it. Eventually the companies that have sent their manufacturing jobs overseas will get your message. Eventually we may have quality products and American manufacturing jobs (and all the related material-supplier jobs) once again.

— Paul Brenna, Issaquah

Why was he allowed on a supervised visit?

I am appalled and sickened by these events and by the extreme negligence, once again, both by the Department of Social Health and Services and court systems in the state of Washington! [“Boys’ deaths ‘an act of evil,’ ”page one, Feb. 6].

In the end, we, as citizens, are all implicated in these terrible, yet totally preventable events.

Why does one allow a probable known murderer like Josh Powell “supervised visitation” rights in his own home? This is not a supervised situation.

Not only the children were negligently placed in harm’s way, but also the DSHS worker who took these children on her own to a private home! How can anyone ever have any control of what goes on in someone else’s home? How can this be a “supervised” visit?

The total lack of common sense on the part of the court, DSHS and the grandparents, who forced these children to go to this visit even when they both expressed fear of going there, is stunning and horrific!

We as citizens must demand an overhaul of the court and justice system. Also, the persons who determined the conditions of these “supervised” visits to the home of a parent, who had been denied custody of this own children and who was likely the murderer of the mother of these children, must be held accountable and pay a penalty.

— Carol Meyer, Seattle

This was a tragedy

I take strong exception to Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor’s admonition to “not call this a tragedy.” Yes, it certainly was an act of evil. When is murder not evil?

But it was above all else a tragedy, and nothing can “sanitize” that. Not able to man up and accept at least partial responsibility for their mother’s murder, Powell committed this heinously selfish act.

The murder of three innocents is nothing if not a tragedy — Pastor should be sensitive enough to see that and to choose his words more wisely.

— Stephen Nelson, Seattle

Let’s fight against it

Thanks for putting the word “evil” on the front page with reference to the two innocent boys murdered be their evil father. Let’s acknowledge the existence of evil. Let’s not try to understand it or negotiate with it. Let’s just fight against it.

— John Dukes, Ferndale