Haitians vs. Na’vi tribes

Editor, The Times:

Although it is difficult to calculate, around $1 billion has been donated to Haiti after the earthquake [“Starting from scratch in Port-au-Prince ruins,” News, Jan. 25]. Compare that with the proceeds from Avatar, which are known precisely and tallied up to the minute — as of this writing the total gross for Avatar is $1,878,025,999. We know to the dollar what the global take for a movie is, but don’t have a clue what has been made available to alleviate the suffering in Haiti.

I know what you are saying: “But, Avatar is freaking cool!” Or maybe: “Dude, those 3-D glasses are awesome, I saw it 4 times!” I am guessing that Avatar made more money because it was better entertainment.

My suggestion is that it is worthwhile to consider the plight of the unfortunate people in the world. If you want to spend $12.50 to go see Avatar, donate an equivalent amount to a charity like Mercy Corps, which does good things with it.

If that is too much, just donate the money and rent a DVD. You won’t have to wear those goofy glasses that way. You may not save the world, but you would help someone who is in need.

— John Seger, Brier

‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’

There are a lot of problems facing us right now. The two wars, terrorism threats, jobs, the economy, Haiti and health care. But I feel compelled to ask something regarding items mentioned in President Barack Obama’s speech [Wednesday] night [“Obama: Jobs, economy must be ‘our No. 1 focus,’.” page one, Jan. 28].

Let me get it straight — pun intended — he is going to work on getting rid of the ridiculous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy so a gay or lesbian person can go defend the country, risk and perhaps lose his/her lives. Yet, in this country gays and lesbians are not free to marry the person they love and get the equal tax and Social Security benefits that the straight soldiers who are fighting alongside them get.

My question then is, does there seem something wrong with that picture?

— Robert J Klein, Renton

Vision Line slices park in half

The newly elected Bellevue City Council majority has just made an astonishing request for Sound Transit to study a new light-rail alignment that would slice Mercer Slough Nature Park in half [“The Vision Line provides light-rail access to Eastside,” Opinion, Jan. 25].

The City Council seems willing to sacrifice a major public park to placate a vociferous neighborhood’s opposition to the previously agreed route along heavily traveled Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue Southeast.

For years, Bellevue has prided itself on setting aside this 300-acre gem of open space. Part of the lake-bottom land exposed by lowering Lake Washington in 1916, it was acquired from farmers who tilled it until the 1960s. The city has invested heavily in the public openness and natural qualities of this space, recently completing an environmental-education center on its eastern edge.

People from Bellevue and surrounding communities enjoy the park on foot trails and in canoes and kayaks, drawn to its quiet and the wildlife that abounds there. The new Bellevue Council members seem unaware of how important it is to maintain the park’s integrity, rather than chopping it into two smaller pieces dominated by light-rail structures.

— Peter S Marshall, Bellevue

Do-not-mail registry

In an article printed in The Times on Jan. 26 [“Seattle council talks about junk mail, but what for?” NWTuesday], it was wrongly stated, regarding the city of Seattle’s “Do Not Mail Registry” resolution on junk mail: “The only government that could pass a workable do-not-mail registry is the federal government.” In fact, the state is absolutely able to establish and enforce penalties for mailers in violation of the registry.

The article also states that Seattle’s “Do Not Mail Registry” resolution accomplishes nothing directly. Wrong, it mandates Seattle Public Utilities to research available opt-out registries and recommend the best ones to customers. Until we get the state to pass legislation, this is a concrete first step the council accomplished.

Some against the resolution are concerned about businesses. If businesses are dependent on waste for profit, then they need to adapt. We cannot keep depleting valuable resources just because there is profit in sending out unwanted garbage. The same arguments could have been made by manufacturers of asbestos, DDT and lead-based paints.

The vast majority of us are in favor of a do-not-mail registry. All I want is to have the choice not to participate in this wanton waste.

— Ellie Rose, Seattle

Privatization of liquor

As I follow the debate about privatization of liquor sales in our state [Privatizing alcohol,” Northwest Voices, Jan 21], it seems that the discussion has focused mainly on convenience and economics. While privatization might make it marginally more convenient — and there are some valid economic arguments — I haven’t heard mention of what I consider the most important aspect regarding this subject.

If one goes to a state where privatization is the norm, one would grasp the impact this would have on our state. In Michigan, for example, liquor is absolutely everywhere. It is in convenience stores, gas stations, drugstores and grocery stores. Whole aisles and endcaps are dedicated to booze. It is as common as a jar of mayonnaise or a bag of dog food. Personally, I don’t have any moral objection to it because I drink the stuff, but it sure is overwhelming.

I’m glad we don’t have that here. To me, this is one of those cases of “if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.” Here, everyone now knows where and when you can go to get it — unless you’re on the road, have to ask and then drive a few blocks to get it.

Another important aspect of wider availability that I haven’t heard addressed is shoplifting. It seems to me that due diligence for our legislators would be to speak with stop-loss managers in a state like Michigan. There is a huge problem with underage drinkers procuring liquor there.

To me, this whole debate boils down to safety. Once we go down this road of increased availability and decreased control, it will be like trying to put the proverbial toothpaste back into the tube. It will be too late when the first carload of kids who shoplifted a bottle wrap themselves around a tree. And more importantly, I don’t want to make it any easier for them to get drunk and plow into me. That’s my bottom line.

— Stuart E Geldhof, Bellingham

Smoking in parks

I urge the Seattle Parks Board to reject a proposal to ban smoking in our city parks. As long as smoking is legal in this country, people should be allowed to do so in public places that do not create concentrations of secondhand smoke [“No more spitting, smoking at parks?” page one, Jan. 15].

Outdoor areas such as public parks certainly meet that standard. Barring smoking from such areas serves no public-health benefit and instead seems more like a form of harassment.

Let’s not make Seattle seem intolerant toward people whose legal lifestyle choices might differ from those embraced by the majority. Seattle can be both a healthy city and a tolerant city, but adoption of this intolerant proposal would be bad for our mental health.

— Russell Scheidelman, Seattle

Large classes at UW

I was a bit surprised at the seemingly neutral view of increasing class-sizes at the UW — specifically the Biology 180 class that had 700 people in it [“Taking intro to biology? At UW, you’re not alone,” page one, Jan. 27]. Coincidentally, 700 is the number of people President Obama addressed during the State of the Union address.

Is this what we want for our schools? I think not. Students in intro classes may not need the one-on-one attention that higher-level students need, but in my experience, one-on-one availability and smaller class sizes lead to a better understanding of the curriculum and better preparation for further study.

As was mentioned in the article, knowing your classmates is also critical — in a class of 700, however, knowing your classmates is more likely to be luck-based than anything. This too hurts our education.

The problem is: Who will pay for it? Students, those who care most, are also those who have the least ability to do something about it. Somebody has to step in at some point. Seven hundred students in a class seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

— Matt Delaney, Shorewood High School junior, Shoreline

Race issue in textbook appeal

Regarding Danny Westneat’s column on the high-school textbook appeal [“Textbook argument divides us,” NWWednesday, Jan. 27], I am a plaintiff in the appeal, the white grandmother of an Seattle Public School fifth-grader and a retired public-school math teacher.

We’ve brought race and ethnicity — as well as economic status — into this appeal because there is ample WASL (and other) evidence that these issues are a factor. In 10 years of teaching in Seattle schools, I found no evidence that people of color are less capable than whites of being outstanding learners. However, in my 30-plus years of parenting and grandparenting Seattle Public School students — along with my years as a teacher — I’ve developed deep, broad awareness of the ways that centuries of societally mandated racism play out in our classrooms — even in this era of Obama’s presidency.

Students of color, students from economically struggling families, students with learning difficulties — as well as everyone else — are guaranteed equal access to education by the laws of our nation and state. A panoply of factors, put into place long ago and slow to fade, converge to make it generally challenging for minorities to access the resources essential for safety, security and basic needs in the U.S.

These factors also have made it inevitable that the confusing “Discovering” textbooks and the learning environment they create will hurt minorities more than whites. The texts are deleterious, more so to vulnerable classes of people than others. I believe their adoption is a violation of many students’ right to equal education.

— Martha McLaren, Seattle