Don’t ignore more than 40 years of commitment

Editor, The Times:

The The Seattle Times article “Dicks channeled federal money to Puget Sound project his son ran,” [Local news, seattletimes.com], was part of a story on congressional earmarks from The Washington Post. The story suggests that Rep. Norm Dicks’ support for protecting Puget Sound was motivated by family and self interest. That is simply wrong.

Dicks did not become a supporter of Puget Sound recovery because his son became the executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership. The truth is Dicks has been an ardent champion for Puget Sound before David Dicks was born.

Beginning in 1968, Dicks served on the staff of Sen. Warren G. Magnuson, who led many efforts to protect the Pacific Northwest’s environment. He worked on a key amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act that banned oil supertankers from Puget Sound.

In Congress since 1976, Dicks has made continued protection of Puget Sound a major focus. He supported funding to study contamination in Puget Sound, including Tacoma’s Commencement Bay. That led to his co-sponsoring the original Superfund legislation in 1980, and he worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to direct clean up funds to Superfund “hot spots.”

Dicks was also successful in including Puget Sound as one of the original estuaries designated in the National Estuary Program in 1987.

When Dicks became chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee in 2007, he was able to increase funding for most of the nation’s great waterways — including the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and Puget Sound.

To suggest that Dicks came late to his concern for Puget Sound or that he took advantage of his position in Congress is to ignore over 40 years of commitment and does a great disservice to an exemplary public servant.

— William D. Ruckelshaus, former chairman of the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, Seattle

Let’s focus on the bigger picture

I myself am a strong supporter in rights for the good treatment of all animals [“Slavery protections for animals? Judge to decide,” Nation and World, seattletimes.com, Feb 6].

However, although I believe that PETA has good intentions in wanting animals (and specifically these five orcas right now) to have rights as well, there is so much human slavery still evident throughout the world today. We, as coherent, altruistic individuals, should focus more on working to find a solution to human enslavement than to set five orcas free.

Would that mean that all animals in all zoos would have to be set free?

The United States has an incredible slave-trafficking rate. We should work on giving each person their individual rights to freedom, and help others become aware of this widespread, global problem.

— Alexandra Devereux, Renton

There needs to be more cancer research

I thought the mission of the Komen foundation was curing cancer — so states their logo [“Komen stops all grants to Planned Parenthood,” page one, Feb. 1].

Yet the current flap is all about screening, which is hardly equivalent to curing cancer, especially since X-ray mammography is controversial among scientific investigators and in many cases, if not most, is not going to detect breast cancer early enough to save a life. The hyperventilating critics do not seem informed of this reality.

The last Komen annual report posted to their website shows “research” at 24 percent. Unfortunately no detail is given, but I should guess most of that “research” favors vested interests. Independent cancer expert Ralph Moss, has said that various promising projects languish for lack of funding; these no doubt are not the kind that interest the drug companies.

Organizations sponsoring the foundation should insist on a higher percentage of research, with more true anti-cancer studies selected by independents such as Moss.

— Murray Swanson, Issaquah

Let’s look at Planned Parenthood’s behavior

To my reading, news organizations and Planned Parenthood (PP) trashed one of the most important private organizations in the country fostering care and research for detection, treatment and cure for breast cancer.

The real lesson of history here may be that an organization that purports to be for woman (Planned Parenthood) and their friends in the media may have set back finding a cure for breast cancer by their shortsighted attacks on Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Did any aggrieved PP supporters consider that an organization that principally caters to needs of pre-menopausal women (PP) may not be the ideal place to provide care and prevention for a disease that overwhelmingly affects postmenopausal women?

Did anyone consider that a clear separation of structures/finances by PP for their abortion-related services would end most of the issues raised in Congress? (I believe PP has refused such a clarifying move.)

Corporate sponsors considering support should take heed of Planned Parenthood’s behavior in this matter, and their directors should be wary, less they too are caught in the juggernaut of PP’s public-relations machine should they decide to fund some other worthy cause.

— Joseph W. Mulcahy, Anacortes

The irony behind the tempest

Now that the tempest surrounding the Susan G. Komen foundation has died down, it is interesting to reflect on the irony of it all. The main issue seems to be that Planned Parenthood provides abortions and those who want to defund it consider abortion to be murder.

Without a doubt, Planned Parenthood does provide abortions; 3 percent of its money goes provides abortion services (2009 data). At the same time, it spends 35 percent of its money on contraception services. The irony is that the very best way to eliminate most abortions is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, which is safely and most realistically done by contraception.

Of course, many people feel just as strongly about contraception as they do about abortion. I can see a case for considering abortion the ending of a “life” depending on the age of the fetus and other tangible considerations. However, contraception does not end the “life” of anything. It is just not the same issue.

Why those so obsessed with Planned Parenthood cannot focus on the end result that they profess to want so much and support any effort to achieve it, defies reason.

Perhaps it’s political after all?

— Richard Thompson, Bellevue

There’s so much more that Lance Dickie missed

Lance Dickie in his Feb. 3 column “GOP faithful: It’s your party, you can cry if you want to” [Opinion] didn’t get even half of what is wrong with the current permutation (mutation?) of the Republican Party.

The party’s been taken over by increasingly bigoted, delusional and hypocritical men. The candidates are using increasingly racist and classist rhetoric, evoking stereotypes of poor minorities which only serve to continue and worsen the problems the downtrodden have in trying to get past the biases of hirers to get employment.

They blame President Obama and the federal government for not creating jobs when it is the private sector that needs to do it and companies are still sitting on cash piles.

The strident, hypocritical so-called “pro-life” stance of the candidates further threatens poor women and their children who are already between a rock and a hard place: local governments have already cut back on access to birth control, schools don’t teach anything practical about preventing unwanted pregnancies, and there is little access to health care.

Further, they threaten to end food stamps and other anti-poverty programs that ensure access to the necessities of life; they are also threatening to pass an amendment which would essentially criminalize using birth control, let alone having an abortion or even suffering a miscarriage!

The Republican Party has lost all rationality and it’s the fault of the party faithful.

The rank and file let their party be taken over by these kooks. The few rational moderates left have been utterly gutless and done nothing to check the slide of the party into the abyss. The country needs to have choice and balance in politics, but Republican Party has given us no rational alternative.

— Leslie Jordan, Shoreline

We need to learn to do with less

For some time now, all branches of government have been trying to find another way to separate us from our money [“Cut, reform — then discuss a tax increase,” Opinion, Feb. 8].

Seems like it’s usually through higher fees and taxes. Unlike the common tax payer, when we lose our job or run into financial problems, we have to tough it out, do with less.

When government runs low on money, they just look for new ways to get their hands in our pockets. Doesn’t matter who it hurts out here, they have needs.

— Steve Drake, Seattle

The rights of children

The story of the murdered Powell children in this week’s The Seattle Times leads me to the conclusion that the legal rights of children in our society must be expanded [“Grandparents say boys didn’t want to see dad,” page one, Feb. 7].

No agency should be allowed to force children to spend time with any noncustodial parent, or other adult, who the children are uncomfortable spending time with. When the Powell boys told their grandfather that they did not want to visit their father that day, their wishes should have been respected.

Children are not always able to articulate the reasons for their feelings, but that does not mean that their feelings should be disregarded. Children should be given a chance to have a say about what happens in their lives, especially when the adults involved may have serious problems.

— Wynne Schweid, Seattle

It is our job to protect the innocent

I am stunned and broken over the deaths of Charlie and Braden Powell. How is it possible that this is the best protection that the state of Washington could offer those two little boys?

After all the bureaucrats from Utah and Washington are finished making excuses for themselves, there will be two little boys to bury. Children in the custody and under the protection of the state of Washington died an unthinkable death.

We as a society trust in the laws, police, judges, Department of Social and Health Services, etc. to protect the innocent, but that was a mistake in this case.

Our blind faith in justice wasn’t enough to save the lives of Susan Cox-Powells’ children. The failure of Washington state to prevent Josh Powell from murdering his sons should end the careers of all the state workers involved.

We pay the salaries of these people and should demand justice for Charlie and Braden. I don’t want to hear how no one thought it could happen, because that isn’t true. Charlie and Braden knew and were afraid, Chuck and Judy Cox knew and were also afraid.

— Cheryl Parrish, Redmond

Why was he allowed to visit them at home?

As a former Department of Children and Family services social worker, it is hard for me to fathom the court’s allowing visitation at the home. It should have been at a neutral, secure site under the circumstances.

How will DCFS and the court possibly explain this, especially since Powell was to undergo a psychosexual evaluation?

— Andy Thompson, Spokane

Letter from an 8-year-old

I read the newspaper Monday yesterday (I think it was the front page) about that man who killed himself and his kids [“Boys’ death ‘an act of evil,” page one, Jan 6].

I am very sad about that. I think the government should say that the police department should protect all kids that have criminals for moms or dads.

P.S. If they find Susan Powell alive, she’s going to be very sad.

— Samuel Merel Llanillo, age 8, Seattle

This is a matter of conscience

While there is little controversy regarding “contraception” when defined as things like condoms, birth control pills, etc. For Catholics, this is a matter of conscience, and it is a personal matter between them and their Church — not a matter for the federal government to decide [“Little late for this debate, NWWednesday, Feb. 8].

The real rub, though, is that the federal government’s definition of “contraception” extends beyond those medicines and devices that prevent conception, to include medicines that act post-conception.

For those who believe that life begins at conception, these so-called “contraceptives” are actually abortion pills — and as Westneat notes, abortion is still very controversial.

So in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and most practicing Catholics, the Obama administration’s dictates are in fact a mandate to provide certain types of abortions as part of their health plans.

— Mark Ursino, Sammamish

It’s an embarrassing time to be a Catholic

It’s an embarrassing time to be a Catholic. Prominent bishops and conservative (quasi) Catholic politicians like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum decry the Catholic Church being forced to pay for birth control of others, against our apparent collective conscience. How bizarre.

All my life I have paid taxes for wars I did not believe in, executions I do not approve of, political stances not my own — that’s what it means to be part of a social fabric. We constantly must give minimal support to things we personally do not endorse.

If we want to hire people of all faiths and/or none to work alongside us in our hospitals, schools, social service agencies, then we must support them in their reasonable decisions. More importantly, though official Catholic teaching may decry contraception, most good Catholics do not.

Most of us would see loving each other, caring for the poor, speaking out for justice and fostering the other values of Jesus as far more important.

— L. Patrick Carroll, Seattle

Birth control access is a women’s right

A big thank you to Danny Westneat for his Feb. 8 column asking why the U.S. Conference of Bishops — quickly rubber-stamped by Republican presidential hopefuls are launching an assault on birth control coverage under the 2009 national health-insurance law. Birth control, which is practiced, and endorsed by over 98 percent of everybody!

The most twisted part of the church/GOP argument is that mandating that institutions serving the general public be required to cover contraception along with other preventive health care for women is a violation of individual rights and religious freedom!

Excuse me, but the church is no more an individual than is Wal-Mart (recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding).

It is the real, oxygen-breathing humans who have the right to decide, on the basis of their own personal beliefs, whether they will take advantage of this health benefit or not. And make no mistake.

Equal access to birth control is a giant question of individual liberty for women.

— Megan Cornish, Seattle

This is a challenge to women’s freedom and right to equality

Denial of women’s access to contraception is another example in the Catholic Church’s long unresolved history of denial of women’s right to equality with men [“Contraception mandate outrages religious groups,” News, Feb. 4].

Now we learn it is also an opinion voiced by three of the Republican candidates for president. The church and the candidates claim that providing contraception access to women who want control over the number of children they bear is an attack on religious freedom.

In reality it is just another thinly disguised attempt to challenge a women’s freedom and right to equality.

— Paul C. Cooper, Sequim

This is an activity of commerce not religion

When the Catholic Church offers health insurance to it’s employees who may or may not be Catholic, they are in the insurance business and should abide by the regulations governing that industry.

This is an activity of commerce not religion. If they operate in the marketplace, they need to follow the rules of the marketplace. This is not an issue of religious freedom and shame on those who characterize it as such.

— Joan Newcomb, Seattle

Look at the commission’s report on birth control

In response to the article “Contraception mandate outrages religious groups” on Feb. 4, and Danny Westneat’s column on Feb. 8, it may be interesting to add that the only teaching on contraception in the Catholic Church totally disregards the findings of the majority report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control in 1967.

This commission was made up of priests, physicians, theologians, sociologists, and other professionals including the “real professionals” — long-married couples.

It’s sad to think that the laity understands better than the hierarchy that contraception is the most ethical and realistic approach to reducing the abortion rate, and that it is the best way to guarantee women adequate, affordable health care.

— Sheila Giesler, Lynnwood

It is not their job to control reproduction

With all due respect to the Conference of Bishops, and none at all to the Republican Party, why is it that old, pompous men think its their business to control women and their reproductive organs? Have they ever been pregnant? Have they ever been afraid of getting pregnant?

Isn’t it time for men to stop trying to keep women down? This is not about religious freedom. This is about control over women.

— Robert Reed, Seattle

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