"Please, Mr. Gates, look closer to home."

A cure for what ails

Dealing with malaria could end up starting a downward spiral

Editor, The Times:

Having traveled to Southern Africa several times myself, it's easy to understand the Gates Foundation's desire to find a cure for malaria [ "Gates Foundation tackles a giant that preys on Africa's children," Times, page one, Sept. 23]. Disease and poverty are rampant and omnipresent. However, from a purely logical and scientific sense, I have to wonder if the money spent on a cure for malaria isn't just another well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive feel-good endeavor.

I have no issue with trying to reduce human suffering. However, it seems evident that to cure a disease like malaria, which would result in a rapid decline in the death rate, while not simultaneously addressing the birth rate, might ultimately lead to even greater problems in the future.

If you read the news, barely a week goes by without a major story centering on the theme of decreasing natural resources clashing with increasing human activity, the result usually being some kind of calamity — flooding, landslides, droughts, erosion, failing crops.

Bill Gates famously missed the Internet revolution at Microsoft in the late '90s. Curing malaria (or any number of other diseases) while not addressing overpopulation, global warming and environmental degradation might actually be a similar parallel.

— Greg James, Mercer Island

Don't forget that home is where the hurt is

I read with disbelief the time, energy and of course money Bill Gates is pouring into the world of malaria. I am from New Orleans; I was there during Hurricane Katrina and for three weeks afterward before I was forced from my home at gunpoint by the police.

I support helping people worldwide since we are all humans working to survive. However, when your own backyard is a mass of destruction, homelessness, broken hearts and broken dreams, I would like some media exposure, time, energy and of course money to be used effectively to restore one of the greatest cities on this planet.

Please, Mr. Gates, look closer to home.

— Barry Garth Gobatie, Kirkland

Motivation, anyone?

What a crazy story. Cholera is a much bigger killer than malaria. Bill Gates must be more interested in good PR than anything.

Let him fix that before we start kneeling.

— David L. French, Bellevue

We're spraying up the wrong tree

In regard to Michael R. Fancher's "Gates Foundation's malaria effort foretells new role for Seattle" [Inside The Times, Sept. 23], the real point is missed. Bill Gates could spend a lot of time and money finding a cure for malaria, or he could just support the reintroduction of DDT, and actually save lives now.

Millions of the world's poor have died to make environmentalists feel good about a made-up, contrived and overstated problem. Rachel Carson blatantly misrepresented the science of DDT in her 1962 book "Silent Spring." She scared everyone with wild predictions based on an agenda, instead of science. Years later, we know the truth, but it does little good to the dying.

Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving high levels of DDT resulted in no tremors, mortality or reproductive interference. But since DDT was made to be unpopular, a powerful defense against mosquitoes is made unavailable, and people have to die.

You can simply Google "DDT" to learn the other side of the argument that has rarely been heard. It's time to realize our mistake and save people's lives. Bill Gates should use his money and influence to help Africa now, today, and work to bring back DDT.

— Colin P. Reed, Collinsville, Okla.

Passing the buck

There is no free lunch — or health insurance if it makes you ill

I see Congress has passed the so-called College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ["Students winners in revised U.S. loan program" Business, Sept. 23]. Whether good or bad, like most measures, the title is weasel-worded. The measure doesn't cut college costs; it just redistributes who pays for it.

Since Democrats were highly supportive of the bill, it's a safe bet that the cost of college will be reduced for those likely to vote Democratic and increased for those likely to vote Republican, but the total will not change.

Speaking of weasel-wording, wait until the presidential campaign really gets hot! Expect to hear all kinds of proposals for groups of people to get "free" medical care and lots of other "free" stuff. Such promises are made, of course, because politicians know there are lots of naive voters who believe such drivel and vote accordingly. Others know it's [drivel], but aren't above selling their vote if they personally will benefit at someone else's expense.

Here's a novel idea: What if politicians came up with ways to actually reduce costs, say for education or medical care, instead of just redistributing it?

Oops! I'm dreaming again!

— Gary T. McGavran, Bellevue

Discovery Park

If you aren't riding a 14-carat-gold bus you aren't rolling here

Tim Ceis can say all he wants about how the Discovery Park neighborhood would be "isolated" and therefore it is unsuitable for affordable housing [ "City may demolish housing at park"Local News, Sept. 20], but in the end, 26 homes will remain and will be occupied by high-end homeowners/users, and the park will be used by predominantly middle- and upper-class users. So to expunge any opportunity for affordable housing in the park demonstrates one more time the war in Seattle against the have-nots.

This is the penultimate example of the social realities of Seattle. If you're not well off, the expectation is that you are either forced out of Seattle, or if you are still here you are expected to live in anonymity, marginalized into some public-housing project in either an area that has traditionally hosted low-income populations, and/or in an area that has not been deemed desirable (yet) by the more well-off population; i.e. the haves, the mayor, the City Council, and their planners.

His claim about there not being bus service to the area is a bunch of garbage. This is more of this canned bureaucratic conception about what the dynamics and lifestyles of those considered inferior entail. What about the high-end residents/users? Are they exempted from having to use bus service?

It's OK for the wealthier majority to live in natural "isolation," but low-income people need to be around others? What? More of their kind? Isn't that the sentiment of this situation? Such a double standard and a repugnant one at that!

— Elizabeth Campbell, Seattle

Jane Hague scandal

All in a day's work

John Overleese is right! [ "Look for the good, not the drama" Northwest Voices, Sept. 26.] What harm is driving just an eensy bit over the legal limit compared to the heroic hard work and tireless efforts of Jane Hague's, attending art receptions and whatnot?

I mean, geez, let the woman relax a little! Commuting is hard enough sober. I should know!

— Michael Konkol, Brier