Link to jump to start of content The Seattle Times Company Jobs Autos Homes Rentals NWsource Classifieds seattletimes.com
The Seattle Times Editorials
Traffic | Weather | Your account Movies | Restaurants | Today's events

Saturday, April 28, 2007 - Page updated at 02:00 AM

E-mail article     Print view      Share:    Digg     Newsvine

Letters to the Editor

"If they succeed, they just may end up with a bigger war of their own."

UW salaries

Making a layup to try and put things in perspective

Editor, The Times:

Your story on the fact that the University of Washington paid Lee Huntsman $300,000 a year after he stepped down as president ["UW: Thanks a million, Lee," Times, Local News, April 26] casts a glaring spotlight on the misappropriation of state tax dollars. By directing that sum to subsidizing the Sonics, our legislators could have paid Ray Allen to play one whole game. Without Allen in the lineup, the Sonics could easily have lost another game last season with devastating effects on their final standings.

Your salary statistics for UW officials might be more meaningful if you used units with which the average reader can identify. Allen was paid about $14.6 million to score 1,454 points last season. That is $10,000 per NBA-game point. Therefore, UW President Mark Emmert makes the equivalent of 51.9 NBA-game points. Certainly his leadership cannot have as much value to the state as boosting the Sonics' scoring statistics by 52 points.

On the other hand, if we fired all 25 of UW's top-paid officials, we could afford to pay 28 percent of Shaquille O'Neal's salary. Who needs a top-ranked university when you can buy 28 percent of Shaq?

— Cecil Hayes, Seattle

Retail development

Convenience at a cost

Perhaps we can count on our city's visionaries to produce opportunities for Jerry Large ["Easier doesn't come easily," Times, Local News, April 26] and the rest of us who don't require more than 2,300 parking spaces to buy a pair of socks.

The proposed mall at the Goodwill site on Rainier Avenue not only abuts Little Saigon, but is a mere 10-minute walk to Pioneer Square and less than half-hour to downtown. But what good is it to be within walking distance if streets are obliterated and pedestrians are kept in their cars?

While Greg Nickels and Ron Sims tussle over who is "greener," development of unimaginative, hulking retail stores will only turn this critical piece of old Seattle into Southcenter North.

All the benches, affordable housing and jobs a developer can muster won't turn this project into anything we won't regret beyond convenience for the lucky driver who makes it through the stoplights.

Why can't we have denser and smaller versions of these stores? Or better yet, let's create a zone where local entrepreneurs can create their own empires of small specialty shops, including one for socks.

— Daniela McDonald, Seattle

Fighting words

He said, he said

How many readers missed the profound irony in the following passage published in The Seattle Times: "Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's comments. 'I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog, he told reporters.' " ["Rebels use "new methods" in fatal Diyala bombings," Times, News, April 25]?

— Eric Tronsen, Seattle

Pelosi's politics

Her priorities clearly aren't in best interest of the American people

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can travel halfway around the world to conduct a dialogue with Syrian President Bashar Assad, an evil dictator who actively supports terrorist enemies that vow to destroy the U.S.

But she refuses to spend 45 minutes to hear Gen. David Petraeus brief Congress on the current and projected status of the surge effect in the war on terror in Iraq?

Pelosi seems determined to set a date for withdrawal of our troops from this fight. It appears to me that liberal Democratic leaders are more interested in defeating "Bush's war" than our enemies. If they succeed, they just may end up with a bigger war of their own.

— Jim Burchfield, Maple Valley

Future of Iraq

If we build it, hopefully, they will come (home)

According to President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership, victory in Iraq will require both military and political elements. A military solution will assure the civilian security necessary to have a stable government. A political solution follows as stable governments are jump-started by democratic elections.

Bush has rightly touted success of the several elections that have taken place since the fall of Saddam Hussein — slates of candidates fairly representing various political factions and the franchise fairly representing all segments of the voting population.

But what would a successful election involve today? Of 27 million Iraqis, almost 2 million have fled since the last election, many having moved to neighboring Syria and Jordan.

Should Iraq wait until the 2 million return to form a democratically elected government or allow almost 10 percent of potential voters to determine who will form a government in which they are unlikely to participate?

This problem cannot be approached until there is a real choice — a country secure enough for people to come home. That 10 percent needs to be able to register to vote at polling stations without fearing they will be blown up.

— Don Pogoloff, Kingston

Virginia Tech shootings

We need control of people, not guns

Seung-Hui Cho had been judicially determined to be a danger to himself and to others, but was allowed to roam free without anyone being told of the danger he posed to society, which resulted in the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Lawmakers are now proposing new and more-restrictive gun-control laws ["This time, response is mostly one-sided," Times, News, April 16], completely ignoring the fact that Cho was allowed to roam free without anyone being warned of his mental condition.

Anyone who is determined to be a danger to themselves or to others should not be allowed to be on the street and we should enact legislation to remove such dangerous individuals from society. Law enforcement should have been warned of the danger he posed. In addition, we should prohibit illegal and legal aliens from possessing and purchasing weapons.

Let's go after the cause of such incidents and not the tools they choose to use. Is it not better to restrict the rights of the mentally ill than those of every law-abiding American? We do not need more gun control, we need control of the mentally ill.

— Michael Hawkins, Edmonds

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Marketplace