Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

For the history books

Editor, The Times:

It's breathtaking to read Walter Williams' skewed perspective of America before and after Ronald Reagan's presidency ("Reagan's destructive revolution," Times guest commentary, June 11).

He tells us that we had a wonderful democracy where all were heard. He feels that 10-percent-plus inflation and 20-percent interest rates were good for all the people. He laments that a weak America was just about ready to join the world community where all countries are equal.

Boy, those were the days.

In reality, people everywhere dream of living and working here. We have overcome President Carter's malaise and defeated extremist political correctness.

We now have a media that serves all points of view.

We are actually beginning to recognize that God lives and that religion is part of the answer, not the problem.

We know that higher taxes do not correspond to better government. In fact we know that the opposite is true.

And we know that one-way thinking is not the hallmark of hope and opportunity; it's the death of the human spirit.

Reagan reminded America of its obligation to foster freedoms, personal empowerment and self-determination for all the world's people. Professor Wilson doesn't have a clue about what that means.
— Alfred Petermann, Bellevue

Missing chapters

Walter Williams needs a refresher course in politics. He obviously has forgotten the gentle, even-handedness of the LBJ administration, the openness of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force and the democratic moves of Tom Daschle's Senate Democrats to demand a supermajority for confirming federal judges. He whines like a liberal out of power.
— P. Wayne Townsend, Auburn

Table of discontents

I have been listening to the prime-time eulogies of Ronald Reagan all this week. Some of it is revisionist history, some just see things in a better light through the rear-view mirror.

What I do remember and agree with about the 40th president is that his life was governed by a few simple principles: love of his family, love of his country, love of freedom and trust in the American system.

He was a man who had a very clear vision of his destination but who was willing to zig and zag (read: work with Congress and others) a bit as long as it got him closer to his goal.

Reagan was loved even by his political opposites because he never made the fights personal and never demonized his opponents. Reagan not only talked of personal responsibility, he lived it.

In comparison, George W. Bush may have some governing principles, but they can be set aside for expedience. He does not trust the American system or the American people with the truth.

If he can't convince you he is right, he will try to destroy you; all opposition is personal. He uses fear to lead, not hope. There is no way but his way, the world be damned and no one in the administration has ever been held accountable because they never make mistakes.

George, you are no Ronald Reagan.
— Gerry Gilbert, Kent

Footnote on revisions

I confess I am thoroughly disgusted, though not surprised, to witness the frantic efforts of President Bush's handlers to cash in on former President Reagan's week of mourning, trying to draw a parallel between them to, hopefully, raise Bush's sagging poll numbers. The worst attempt, so far, "George Bush is on Reagan's shoulders!" How very tacky.

I didn't always agree with President Reagan's policies, but he was a good and decent man whom I admired. He was an honorable man and, I assure you, he would not have allowed such conduct in his name.
— Clara McArthur, Federal Way

Trading recipes

Washington state's asparagus industry is subject to the same forces of change in today's global economy as so many other industries ("The war on drugs vs. asparagus," editorial, June 8).

At issue is a 21.3-percent tariff on asparagus imports that protects U.S. producers and harms U.S. consumers. Our asparagus industry is less competitive than Peru's for many reasons, including differences in the length of production seasons (two months in Washington, 12 months in Peru) and improvements in transportation and communication that permit year-round availability of fresh produce.

Greater supply and cheaper transportation costs have contributed to growing per-capita consumption, which benefits all producers.

Our asparagus producers deserve the same support and assistance provided to other industries that are experiencing change.

But to suggest that our asparagus industry is entitled to protection from foreign competition because of its long tradition here, as your editorial does, reminds me of the argument some Peruvians make, that its potato industry — hundreds of years old but no longer competitive — deserves protection from U.S. wheat and potato imports.
— Larry Fuell, former U.S. Agricultural attaché in Lima (1999-2003), Edmonds

Flaming passions

I am so appalled about this "law" (banning barbecuing on multi-residence balconies). I live in an apartment because it is all I can afford. I do not barbecue, mostly because I do not trust myself with an open flame... but, that makes me smart not to barbecue, right?

So, I was thinking, along with this silly new law, let's add on some new stuff:

No one can smoke indoors (even in the privacy of their own apartment) if there is not a sprinkler system (I am not a smoker).

No one can burn candles (even in the privacy of their own apartment) if there is not a sprinkler system (there goes the menorah).

And why stop at the apartment dwellers? Are we the only ones who need protecting? How about if you own a car that does not have a sprinkler system, you cannot pump your own gas?

A little farfetched I agree, but really, isn't that what this is? Farfetched?

When exactly, did the "free" citizens of Washington vote on this so-called "law?"
— Debbie Pheasant, Monroe