Letters to the editor

Dear John letters

I finally realize you have serious commitment issues

Editor, The Times:

Dear John (McCain): It may come as a surprise to receive this letter so many years into your enduring and faithful service to our country. But lately, I'm finding less to love about you, and I'm not sure I can tolerate you consorting with another party to win its affections above mine.

Your pandering to liberals and independents reaches farther than the John I once knew.

You talk in your sleep about "man-made" global warming and "comprehensive" immigration reform. You say you're unwilling to use the means necessary to protect me as an American, much less domestically fuel me as a consumer. You continue to tax me every time you reach out for a new vote.

I realize you take me and my conservative vote for granted. I know you think I have Nobody as a better choice. If you really knew me, you'd realize Nobody might be my best choice: I view my relationship with conservatism and my commitment to this country as long-term and, if necessary, long-suffering.

I'm willing to sacrifice, on the historical promise that bad liberal leadership always directs us back to common sense, accountability and conservative values.

So don't underestimate me. I do not fear the alarms of Barack Obama the Messiah collapsing our efforts in Iraq, or getting chummy with Iran. Nor do I worry about Queen Hillary's insanely expensive promise of health insurance to the masses. You see, my faith in the construct of our democracy is stronger than my worry of electing a U.S. dictator.

If you want my vote, start acting like it by demonstrating true conservative principles. Otherwise, I'll prepare myself for four grueling years of shutting down the congressional switchboard, keeping the next round of leadership in check, as I await the awakening of my countrymen.

Yours to lose,

— Kevin Rabourn, Newcastle

There isn't another man

Is race an issue for Democrats? Barack Obama has captured 97 percent of the black vote and appears destined to secure the Democratic Party's nomination. I count myself among the 3 percent of black Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton. If 97 percent of whites voted for Hillary, Barack and Michelle Obama (and Al Sharpton) would be screaming racism.

I've debated many Obama supporters and, beyond wanting change that is yet to be defined, very few can tell me what Obama voted for in the Senate or how he will change America. It is troubling to me that so many blacks would vote for Obama on faith alone and not have a clue about his voting history.

For me, issues do matter. As an Iraq war veteran, I think Obama will be bad for our military and domestic security. Obama will not unite America, let alone his party.

If Hillary does not win, I will join the growing number of Democrats who will be actively supporting Republican John McCain. At least I know where he stands.

— Kerry Watkins, Lake Stevens

You never want to talk

I can't believe anyone would support John McCain when he says things like "I will be Hamas' worst nightmare," or "There is something wrong with anyone who would sit down with Iran."

When I was a public-school teacher, we were trained in "conflict resolution." Whenever students fought with each other, they were brought together to discuss their grievances with each other. Very often this was in front of a committee of other students, with adult supervision.

The goal was obvious: bring peace between these individuals.

So if McCain were principal of your child's school, I guess he would take sides, or maybe even join the fight and punch out one of the parties involved.

How will your children react to a wannabe president who goes against everything they were taught in school? How can anyone believe that wanting to talk with our enemies to bring about peace is a bad thing?

We've seen the results of George Bush's foreign policy of hatred. How can we go on? I don't understand this bizarre thinking. We must stop the madness!

— Phillip Brugalette, Lake Forest Park

Your friends come first

It's interesting that John McCain now thinks we can learn from France. During his recent visit to our state, McCain cited France in his argument for more nuclear power plants ["McCain tries to ease nuclear-power worries," Local News, May 14] but completely ignored France regarding health care. (France was rated best in the world for health care by the World Health Organization.)

Could it be that McCain is actually being consistent? It seems that what matters most to McCain is making sure his big corporate buddies profit heavily — whether they are private insurance companies or corporations building nuclear power plants.

And using France in your argument is fine, as long as it advances the interests paying for your campaign.

— Steve Nesich, Seattle

Your power is undeniable

John McCain's courageous advocacy for nuclear power ran into the usual barrage of opposition, based on the prejudice against anything "nuclear."

Here in the United States, we are operating almost 100 nuclear power plants with a remarkable safety record over the past 30 years, not to mention the hundreds of nuclear power plants in the rest of the world.

Even the much-maligned Three Mile Island accident cost not one single life and, in the more than three decades since its occurrence, we have yet to detect any adverse health consequences.

Sure, there was Chernobyl, but that accident was more a failure of the Soviet system, not something inherent in nuclear power generation.

The critics say nuclear power plants are too expensive and take too much time to build. Let's face it: The cost of nuclear power plants has been inflated largely by inordinate construction delays caused by unrelenting "interveners" who simply object to nuclear power without regard to the facts.

And in the shopworn argument about nuclear-waste disposal, we should not confuse radioactive waste from nuclear weapons plants (high-level waste, like from Hanford) with low-level wastes from nuclear power plants. These have been dealt with safely all over the world for decades with well-proven disposal techniques.

Is nuclear power entirely risk-free? Of course not, but in comparison with other electric power generation, it is remarkably safe. In assessing nuclear risks, we forget the huge cost in human health and lives of coal mining, the economic and political disaster of our oil dependency, and the grave "greenhouse" pollution.

Balancing our needs for energy and the associated cost leads to non-carbon technologies. Nuclear is perhaps the most realistic solution.

— Wolfgang Mack, Seattle

This is goodbye

We have no future

Have we in the United States lost our minds? We are not only dumb enough to continue creating radioactive waste, but plan to build another 95 nuclear energy plants.

Meanwhile, back at Hanford, where there are 177 tanks of radioactive waste, we have radioactive waste leaking from tanks it has eaten through. It is currently seeping through the ground toward the Columbia River. The Columbia River continues to be polluted with warm water resulting from the cooling process in the plant(s).

There is a plan being proposed to ship the waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This would require transferring the liquid waste to railroad tank cars to transport it on railroads — which can't get through a month without a disaster — through dozens of populated areas.

This is in addition to the storage of spent (10-percent spent) [fuel] rods at each facility.

Now we magnanimously are volunteering to take in radioactive waste from Italy.

Wake up. Nuclear energy is a self-inflicted disaster!

— Frank Newman, Kirkland

Petty request

Do you know "My Way"?

Should Hillary Clinton change her campaign song from Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" to Petty's "Free Falling"?

— Kevin Devitte, Westport, County Mayo, Ireland