Like a hair in my favorite clam chowder

Editor, The Times:

I felt like I found a hair in my favorite clam chowder after reading “Undersea billboards a hoax” [NWThursday, Nov. 12].

Ivar has crossed the line from innovative ad campaign to inappropriate the moment they recruited outside authorities to lie on their behalf.

Ivar’s officials and one of those authorities, historian Paul Dorpat, want to present it all as cheeky good fun. But don’t forget this wasn’t about fun, it was about making money by duping the public. Through lying and forgery, the company managed to finagle free advertising and boost their sales.

The Times ought to bill Ivar’s for the free inches. As for Dorpat, his credibility as a historian and a writer is now zero.

— Debra Smith, Everett

Obama’s broken war promises

Congratulations to Bruce Ramsey for his column “The nation owes its soldiers a war worthy of their blood” [Opinion, Nov. 11].

Ramsey pointed out the all-important fact that we have failed to learn even after our disastrous misadventure of the Vietnam War. Namely, that an occupied people will always fight first and foremost to rid their country of the occupiers exactly as we would do under similar circumstances.

More American soldiers can only result in more death, destruction and waste. We can never change Afghanistan into our type of democracy by military force.

What a tragedy that President Obama is following the Bush-Cheney military policies instead of constructively rethinking the problem as he promised to do during his campaign.

— Morton S. Wood, Seattle

Pursuing peace and justice

Instead of owing its soldiers a war worthy of their blood, I would prefer if our nation decided it owes its soldiers — and the rest of us — a life dedicated to the pursuit of peace and justice.

— Jerome Chroman, Seattle

Monetary cost of Afghanistan, Iraq too high

Why is it that when government thinks about programs for Americans, everyone harps on the cost, and when we go to war, cost is at most an annoying afterthought [“Looking back with doubts and hope,” page one, Nov. 11]?

We are spending about $2.5 billion per month on Iraq and Afghanistan. That is $300 billion over 10 years. Here are some choices for that $300 billion: cut taxes, extend unemployment insurance benefits, reduce the budget deficits, aid struggling state governments, pay $300 billion of the $1.1 trillion cost of new health-care reform.

Whatever your political persuasion, any of the above is better than squandering the money, and the lives of our brave American fighters, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

People from the left, such as Robert Greenwald on his video series “Rethinking Afghanistan,” and on the right, such as George F. Will [“The corruption of strangers,” Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 6], are calling for our withdrawal.

We are creating enemies by killing civilians in Afghanistan. We would likely become bogged down there, just as the Soviets did.

Afghanistan’s president was elected in a stolen election, and his brother is a suspected drug dealer. They don’t represent our ideals, and don’t deserve our support.

Recent estimates are that fewer than 100 al-Qaida operatives are now in Afghanistan. And they will always find somewhere to go.

Grab $100 of your own hard-earned money, and hold it in your hand. Then ask yourself how much of that money you want to send to the drug-dealing brother of Hamid Karzai. And ask yourself how much of that you would want to spend on a better life here in the U.S. for yourself and your kids.

Hey, spend some of it on wine, women and song, and then waste the rest of it in Afghanistan.

— Michael Mockovak, Newcastle

Prioritizing academics over athletics

Trying to fix academic problems in high school by adding more credit requirements would likely result in one thing for certain: more cost to educate, due to a need to hire more staff to teach 20 percent more classes [“Boost credits to ensure high-school grads are ready to succeed,” Opinion, guest commentary, Nov. 12].

There are many school districts in this state that already have 24-credit programs, and they aren’t preparing kids for graduation. In fact, Washington state is now 43rd in the nation in high-school completion.

Writer Trish Millines Dziko is so right when she stated we are not preparing kids for adulthood. Why? Our secondary schools, unlike those in most of the rest of the world, are more social halls than places of learning.

In a 20-credit school, you can obtain all of the credits and courses you need to gain admission to the most competitive colleges in this country.

What is needed is a much more serious, focused, deliberate approach to secondary schools by educators, parents and students.

One student was quoted on TV recently as saying, “High school is all about friends and sports,” and her parent agreed.

As long as this is the priority of students, educators and parents, more courses — costing more money — will not solve the achievement problem.

— Charlie Hoff, Kent

Current plan splits up siblings

All sides in the debate over the new Seattle school-assignment plan acknowledge that community involvement is the key to making successful schools [“Parents want answers on new school boundaries,” NWSunday, Nov. 8]. Unfortunately, the plan as currently proposed looks set to undermine two critical pillars of successful school communities.

Many of the new school boundaries destroy long-standing relationships between neighborhoods and their schools. The new attendance areas don’t respect the geographic realities of the neighborhoods they are to serve, and they will put many children on buses who can walk or bike today.

Worse, the plan also splits up siblings in the affected areas. It forces families to choose between yanking older children out of their current schools, or dividing limited time and energy between two schools, two PTAs and two sets of friends. Families in this bind can never give the same energy and support to two schools they now give to one.

We need to keep the boundaries closer to the common-sense boundaries of real, living neighborhoods. We need to respect the commitments so many families have already made to the schools they volunteer at, raise money for, and love.

We need, in short, to reconsider this assignment plan.

— Steve Theodore, Seattle

Dividing time, energy at Bagley Elementary

My children both go to Bagley Elementary and we are very happy there.

In addition to our effective principal, teachers and staff, we attribute the exceptional learning environment at Bagley to the devoted parent body and active PTA.

Though my family is not directly affected by the new assignment plan for elementary schools, we will most definitely be affected. Splitting families between more than one school will have an immediate negative impact on all Seattle schools — not just ours.

At Bagley we think they are about 60 families that will be affected. That’s 60 families that will have more than one school fundraiser to contribute to, 60 families that have to decide what PTA meeting to go to.

It’s hard enough finding the time and energy to participate — why would the Seattle School Board make it even harder?

Why zap our school of its hard-fought volunteer power and financial contributions? This just seems wrong, given our lower school funding requires everyone pulling together for the schools.

An inflexible approach to sibling assignment seems like an avoidable public-relations problem. We urge the School Board to come up with a solution that will keep the majority of these families together — especially in elementary school.

— Kelly Powers, Seattle

Retaining a parents’ right to choose

My children will be in high school in three years. I do not wish to wait and see if the Seattle School District can equalize the schools. That is a tall order since parents and their social economic factors contribute largely to the success of public schools.

Good choices in public education should be a fundamental right, not an option. The underlying discussion we should be having is how to restore buying power back to consumers.

Opponents of charter schools suggest the charter concept erodes support for public schools. I contend that for most things, erosion can only occur when there is a weakness in the system.

If the system cannot provide acceptable choices, parents should be able to opt out, and take their federal support elsewhere to buy a better education for their children.

Forcing the schools to compete for attendance spells accountability for our students. Poor-performing schools have to either improve or go out of business, leaving stronger performers to thrive. A free-market system? It works for businesses in the free world. Schools should not be the exception.

Private or charter school may not be the ticket for all, but it should be an option available to parents. If the public school is afraid it will lose students, then it needs to clean up its act.

Rest assured, if parents had to pay out of pocket for their children’s education and the school fails their children, the school would not be in business.

It is puzzling why we continue to pour money into failing public schools.

There are many things that Seattle schools can do to improve, including performance and reaching excellence for all. Taking school choices away will do neither of those things.

We should retain parents’ right to choose. A future for our children must be a real choice and a fundamental right.

— Loan Nguyen, Seattle

But what if the labels and assumptions are accurate?

Editor, The Times:

“All of the horror and heartache of the Fort Hood shootings should not be compounded by labels and assumptions seeking motives to explain a heinous, irrational act” [“Labels and assumptions,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 11].

Who wrote this nonsense?

The doctor was a radical Islamist, who had the intent to kill those who opposed his religion. He said so himself on the Internet, at medical conferences, and while he was massacring Americans at Fort Hood. He talked to a fundamentalist imam who was a member of al-Qaida. He attended services regularly. He bought guns that would kill many, very quickly. He planned the whole event. He praised his god while murdering U.S. citizens.

And the writer of this editorial says, don’t jump to conclusions? Don’t blame his religion. Don’t slander those who preached death and encouraged his behavior?

If we do as the writer says, we will continue to suffer these heinous crimes. If we stick our heads in the sand, the radicals will have the freedom to assert their beliefs, and destroy our society.

By all means, don’t look at the facts in front of you. You might offend the next suicide bomber.

— Janet Suppes, Bellevue

You crossed the line, Seattle Times

Where does restraint cross the line into making excuses for terrorists or simply refusing to accept that there are evildoers who at this very moment are proceeding methodically to plan and carry out murderous attacks on our citizens?

One needs to look no further than The Seattle Times’ Nov. 11 editorial to find the answer to this question.

How many more attacks by Islamic jihadist terrorists will we have to absorb before liberals will accept the truth?

In desperation to avoid even the barest association of Nidal Malik Hasan with extreme Islam, The Times once again dredge up Timothy McVeigh. But the plunge into relativism and moral equivalency also provided an opportunity to take a gratuitous swipe at the Republican Party and the Catholic Church: “Little time was spent exploring Timothy McVeigh’s Catholic and Republican connections ”

Army Maj. Hasan was shouting “Allah Akhbar!” as he gunned down innocent, unarmed bystanders. Was McVeigh shouting out quotes from Ronald Reagan or reciting the rosary as he set the bomb off in Oklahoma City? If anyone can identify cardinals or bishops of the church who are exhorting their followers to kill women and children in God’s name, please let me know.

Such a despicable comparison undoubtedly plays well with far-left readers, but fortunately most Americans, Democrats and Republicans realize who our real enemies are, and why we need clarity and honesty in defining both what we fight for and whom we fight against.

Let’s stop the politically correct hand-wringing, therapeutic-enabling of terrorists and get down to the unpleasant — but unfortunately necessary — work of identifying and destroying terrorists, and holding them and their ideological leaders responsible.

— Daniel S. Schwartz, Seattle

Suspect’s troubled past is to blame

I greatly appreciated Steve Miletich’s article about Christopher Monfort, “Self-doubts troubled polite loner,” [News, Nov. 10].

I encourage readers to use it to see through the recent violence to Monfort’s past. He was a troubled young man, uncertain about his identity, and lacking close ties with others. A young man who explored one path, and then took another. A young man who could have been reached out to, but was not grasped in time.

If this community is truly outraged by the violence, then I challenge each and every citizen to get out of their chair and actually do something.

There are hundred and hundreds of kids — many of them boys without men in their lives — who have asked for caring adult mentors, and are waiting, because not enough concerned people have stepped forward. These are good kids, optimistic kids, who want to succeed in life. These are kids who want to have fun, learn from a positive role model and follow the correct path to their fullest potential.

And they are waiting for someone to say they care.

— Erin Wenzel, Seattle

A wolf in sheep’s clothing?

In response to the Nov. 10 headline “Self-doubts troubled polite loner,” huh? I thought the article was about Charlie Brown.

What’s truly troubled is this headline and the reductionism it perpetuates.

While I respect American justice in that everyone deserves their day in court, and likewise respectfully consider Christopher Monfort has a mother and family in turmoil, I nonetheless shake my head at the headline’s subtle disrespect for the family of slain Seattle Officer Timothy Brenton.

We tire of the media reports of surprised neighbors and co-workers in the face of heinous crimes. Is society so shallow that they forgot all wolves wear sheep’s clothing?

— Shelly Ossinger, Shoreline

Lefties stuck in the middle

A telling article [“State Dems facing revolt by labor,” page one, Nov. 11]. Telling because it highlights the conflict between government union bosses and the taxpayers.

The Democrats are caught in the middle. On one side the government union leaders, who devote much of their workers’ dues to financing the election of Democrats, expect pay and benefit increases in return.

On the other side the Democrats actually get elected by the votes of taxpayers — among others — who are much more numerous than union bosses and members. Unions want to keep and expand what they get, and raise taxes to do so.

This is, of course, unfairly rewarding union members at the expense of taxpayers who pay the wages of government union members, which are higher than their own. All this during a time of high unemployment, declining housing prices and nongovernmental workers’ wage decreases.

The union bosses are, to my way of thinking, threatening Democrats. The poor Democrats are stuck in the middle. To whom are they really accountable? Those who pay for their elections or the voters?

This is critical time for politicians who in the past have pretty well given government union bosses what they wanted. That, among other decisions, has led to the large deficits experienced by the state and many jurisdictions within it.

— Theodore M. Wight, Seattle

China’s problems are everyone’s problems

The destruction of a sizable portion of the Great Wall by a Chinese gold mining company is a symptom of several of the obstacles facing the development of an equitable and prosperous China [“China mining co. accused of damaging Great Wall,” Seattletimes.com, Nation and World, Nov. 11].

For one, there is a serious disconnect between China’s central and local governments. The problem continues to manifest itself in the form of corruption, environmental degradation, and now the irreparable damage of the majestic Great Wall of China.

Limited accountability of local officials enables them to turn a blind eye to such grievances in the name of regional economic development. But when the salaries and promotional opportunities of government officials are based on regional economic performance, what actions can those officials be expected to take?

Furthermore, China’s gold-mining interests are a direct result of understandable efforts to protect itself against dollar devaluation. What nation in the world would not suffer economically if China, which owns more than $800 billion of America’s debt, were to be faced with a declining dollar?

In reality, few of the problems facing China’s development are strictly China’s. In such circumstances, it is as important to be critical of our contribution to the problem as we are of China’s.

— Caitlin M. Wood, Tacoma

A hearty “No thanks” from a Fairwood resident

Once again The Times offers an opinion in ignorance, this time about the Renton and Fairwood issue [“Renton and Fairwood: It’s time to get hitched,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 11].

Regardless of the fact that studies performed by finance experts have suggested Fairwood is feasible, The Times offers Renton as some proverbial paradise. As Renton knows all too well, and as the studies showed, Fairwood is a tax exporter and thus we have more than ample funds to provide and improve our basic services.

However, becoming a new city is a scary thing, and voters apparently desire the seemingly easy path of annexation rather than the best long-term path of incorporation.

The Landing was cited as evidence of a transformed Renton, while the editorial failed to mention the high vacancy rates there, and Renton’s $8 million budget deficit.

So how will Fairwood’s services improve? Sadly, the editorial simply overlooks the reality of our situation — not a surprise, as we’re far-flung from Seattle.

Renton is salivating at the prospect of acquiring Fairwood, solely for the tax surplus we generate. Fairwood will become another forgotten, rundown Renton neighborhood while the city mismanages our tax surplus on failed projects.

— Tom Edwards, Fairwood