Online-only Letters

Move on from the headline

The real message was in the text

Editor, The Times:

Your editorial criticized MoveOn.org's advertisement about Gen. David Petraeus, but did you actually read the ad or only the headline? [ "MoveOn.org's demeaning attack" Editorial, Sept. 23]. If so, what do you dispute in the text of the ad?

That "every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge has failed." Or that, "the Pentagon has a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on the violence" such as "assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head, not the front."

Do you dispute that "we'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed."

Do you disagree with the assertion that "Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war"? (Incidentally, MoveOn.org has links to various independent articles and reports substantiating the points in their ad.)

As far as the headline, why didn't you point out that Gen. Petraeus has political ambitions? Not only has he expressed interest in running for president, he has been promoted as a potential presidential candidate by such right-wing luminaries as Kathryn Jean Lopez and Bill Kristol.

As a military guy with political ambitions and a spokesman for the Bush administration's failed Iraq policy, political organizations have every right to criticize him and his self-serving spin on our "achieved progress" in Iraq. Why should he be immune from criticism just because he is wearing a fancy uniform and is supposedly a "well-respected" general?

— John Tuttle, Seattle

Focus on the real story

MoveOn.org's "betray us" pun was indeed childish. However, the ad was more than a headline. Underneath the controversial pun was a list of criticisms of the Petraeus report which were substantive, factual and worthy of debate. Your editorial denouncing the ad does not even acknowledge the existence of these criticisms.

The best thing the media can do to make this debate productive is to focus on the content of the report, and the content of its criticisms. What conclusions does the report reach? On what facts were they based? How were those facts gathered? Are MoveOn.org's questions about the validity of the report based on reality? Is the report based on reality?

That is the sort of reporting and editorial writing we need. It requires far more work than playing "Miss Manners" to politicians, but it is far more valuable.

— Paul Cantrell, Minneapolis, Minn.

Liar, liar

Unequal punishment

Jesse MacBeth was sentenced to five months for lying about the war [ "Man gets 5 months for lying about war," Local News, Sept. 22.]

And yet King County Councilwoman Jane Hague lied about her college education [ "Hague takes blame for erroneous claim that she has a college degree"Local News, Sept. 15]., and she won't spend any time in jail.

All the journalists who live in fear of President Bush will find some excuse to see that this slides.

— Leo Shillong, Bellingham

We all make mistakes

Jane Hague contends that she signed a paper prepared by her staff and did not read it carefully enough [ "Hague takes blame for erroneous claim that she has a college degree" Local News, Sept. 15].

How many of us have signed leases, insurance and banking forms, car-rental agreements, repair contracts and other documents without carefully reading them, depending on others to make sure it's correct?

I wish that people would focus on some of the wonderful things she has done for our community, including the fact that she donates her entire salary to charity every year.

Let's move on to something else. Enough is enough.

— Pat Mazure, Mercer Island

Airport security

Merely a work of art

<p> A Massachusetts Institute of Technology student wearing blinking lights walked into the Logan International Airport [ "MIT student claims fake bomb at Logan Airport was art"News, Sept. 24].

The police equated blinking lights with a bomb? To top it off, State Police Maj. Scott Pare said, "She certainly jeopardized her own safety by bringing this to the airport, as well as the safety of everybody around her."

Jeopardized the safety of others? How? Nobody is jeopardized by blinking lights. They are, however, jeopardized by incompetent, reactionary police. I served four years in the U.S. Army, and I have more than 21 years of industry experience with computers and electronics. Blinking lights do not create a threat! Imbeciles with authority are a far greater threat than any cheesy circuit from an Electronics 101 class.

— Brian Miller, Everett

Rules of the air

Regarding "The fashion police: Serious flight risks""The fashion police: Serious flight risks" [Northwest Voices, Sept. 19] from letter writer Dan Edds, airline etiquette dictates that you control your seatback only; not the one in front of you. If the person seated in front of you pushes back their seat to nap, it is their prerogative.

You may not push, jostle or bump them into submission. Your alternative is to use a smaller laptop, purchase a seat in business or first class, read a book, or nap yourself.

And while we're on the subject of laptops and similar devices, please, mute the sound or wear headphones so as not to subject your neighbors to that solitaire card-shuffling noise or the sound track to "Dude, where's my car?" on the red-eye to Chicago.

— M. Karstetter, Kirkland

Inducing fear

I would change the wording in the article regarding the TSA screening policy. [ "TSA taking closer look at travelers' mannerisms" News, Sept. 20].

Instead of "Security screeners look for signs of stress, fear and deception in passengers," I would phrase it "Security screeners hope to induce stress, fear and deception in passengers."

This is more accurate given the current social climate.

— Brian A. Caldwell, Everett

Sex offenders near schools

Let them rehabilitate

I am writing in response to "Mountlake Terrace school on alert over sex offender" [Local News, Sept. 13].

If the offender is present when children are not, then he is not hurting anyone or tempting himself. The school overreacted and took it too far. He is living temporarily with his responsible sponsors, who will assist him. The school singling him out did not aid his recovery.

This is a person, not a thing they can try to get rid of. Sex offenders can change their ways. And it has been almost 12 years since this man's last offense. He is living permanently in Marysville in a halfway house for sex offenders.

Nothing in his conditions upon release stated he could not live temporarily next to a school. When he was released, a standard community alert was issued. He deserved jail and served his time but he will always carry the burden of his past, even 30 years from now. He is now no harm to the school, neighborhood, or community.

— Alexis Hamilton

No second chances

A level-3 sex offender, by definition, is most likely to reoffend. The 22 victims of Timothy McKenna and, now, the tragic murder of 12-year-old Zina Linnik of Tacoma, confirm this reality. This case reveals a profound failure that has embedded a population of predators throughout Washington, who are not only unsupervised, but are allowed open access to our schoolyards and playgrounds, simply because their conviction occurred before 2005.

The people of Washington deserve better. I applaud The Times for publicizing this failed bureaucracy. Please do not relent. Upcoming elections represent a "Perfect Storm" of accountability in Washington state.

— Kelly & Christine Vaughn, Edmonds