Online-only letters

Tent City

Homelessness a reality

Editor, The Times:

Operation Nightwatch can no longer keep up with the requests for help ["Tent City: pointless," Times, editorial, June 12]. We find shelter for people every night of the year. Some nights in May we hit record numbers of homeless men and women. Thousands more around our county are trying to survive outside as best they can.

Apparently, The Times doesn't care to know the facts and doesn't want to know who these people are. Out of sight, out of mind. So sorry that you feel guilty knowing there are people in tents.

Come down to Nightwatch some night and hand a blanket to a 60-year-old woman who has no place to go. She would be happy to have the relative safety of a tent.

I only wish I subscribed to The Times, so I could cancel my subscription. You really blew this one.

— the Rev. Rick Reynolds, executive director of Operation Nightwatch, Seattle

Tents necessary

The editorial board of The Seattle Times, which began by lauding inhumane sweeps and has now sunk to attacking Tent Cities, seems ignorant of a core reality of Seattle and homelessness: There is nowhere near enough shelter.

Operation Nightwatch turns people away night after night. Shelters and day centers have seen the numbers they serve continue to rise. And when homeless individuals, tired of struggling to survive on their own, come together in orderly, democratic and self-managed encampments, they are blasted by your newspaper as squatters and freeloaders.

You ignore Seattle unemployment rates, Seattle rental vacancy rates, all the indicators of a failing economy and the results of a One Night Count that found more than 2,600 people on the streets on a night when all shelters — even the outdoor ones like Tent City — were at or near capacity. Your mathematics and your morality are fundamentally flawed, and you owe an apology to the many readers you have misled.

— Danina Garcia, vendor outreach coordinator for Real Change News, Seattle

Not pointless

Your [Tent City] editorial just broke my heart. Pointless? When the One Night Count of the Homeless found 2,631 residents of Seattle/King County sleeping outside in the dead of winter on Jan. 25 of this year — an increase from 2007 — despite the best efforts of the Committee to End Homelessness and the large coalition of government agencies, business people, landlords and social-services providers it has brought together to work on this problem?

When the median cost of a home in King County exceeds $400,000? When there is no unsubsidized rental housing that is "affordable" anywhere in the King County for a minimum-wage earner? When the numbers of people turned away from shelters and Operation Nightwatch continue to increase? When condominiums going up in downtown Seattle proudly announce units starting at a million dollars, while homeless people huddle in doorways below?

The tent cities provide safe, self-managed communities for hundreds of people who would otherwise be sleeping on the streets. Tent cities have clearly demonstrated that the primary problem for most people who are experiencing homelessness is that they are homeless — not that they are criminals, drug addicts or mentally ill — and that they are perfectly capable of living in concert with the rest of our communities, if they have affordable housing. There's your point. And it obviously needs to continue being made.

— Mark Dalton, Seattle

Gun free

Nickels' ban a potential lawsuit

In regards to your editorial ["Gun free — proud of it," Times, editorial, June 13]: Gun free and proud of it? Not information I'd typically advertise. (Hey, everyone including felons, the editorial board has no capacity to defend themselves or their families!)

This "ban" is just more political posturing by Mayor Greg Nickels that Seattle police will refuse to enforce. And under the pretext of trespassing on public property? Ha! With the Sonics' legal fees already exceeding $1 million, I'm surprised the mayor would open the city to potential lawsuit so clearly in violation of state law. Well, I guess I'm not that surprised.

— Brent McKinnon, Seattle

Safer solution offered

Mayor Greg Nickels has declared that the public will henceforth be much safer because he has unilaterally decided that even the legally-carried firearms of law-abiding citizens will be banned from city property. It causes me to wonder what he will do if, for example, an enraged player clubs another with a baseball bat at a game in a city park.

Recalling that the previous mayor was seriously injured when assaulted with a bullhorn at a public gathering and an innocent person was killed with a skateboard, should those also not be prohibited on city property? On any given day, there are thousands of legally carried concealed weapons in and around Seattle. I would challenge the mayor to tell us how many of those have ever been used in an illegal manner.

Nickels has assumed the typical liberal knee-jerk solution to problem solving. It's akin to the recent plan to eliminate graffiti by drastically restricting the availability of spray paint. We can readily see that that hasn't been very effective. True, the Seattle Center shooter had a legally issued concealed weapon permit. Unfortunately, the county sheriff had no authority to deny such a permit because confidentiality rulings prohibited his office from learning that the applicant had lied about his history of mental problems and drug addiction.

Few would argue that personal medical records should be closely guarded from those without a legitimate need to see them, but this should not also deny duly authorized officials from accessing them when issuing weapons permits, or any other license that might affect public safety. If the mayor were not so inclined toward political posturing, and political correctness, he would better serve the public by demanding that the law enforcement community be allowed to check the medical and legal status of concealed-weapon applicants. But, given the political climate in Seattle, that will happen two days after an iceberg floats past Alki Point!

— Lee Fowble, Edmonds

Sophists vs. science

Ceccarelli's argument flawed

Leah Ceccarelli makes several glaring errors in an attempt to "defend" her idea of science ["Defenders of science shouldn't let the sophists carry the day," Times, guest columnist, June 16].

First of all, she says that skepticism about global warming is "fading away." Even if this were correct, true science should always be open to challenges and criticisms. New evidence might suddenly appear that could revive the skepticism. The problem is that global warming "science" is so heavily politicized. And even if global warming is human-caused, how do we know that warming the Earth, back to the levels of the dinosaur era, would be so bad?

Secondly, regarding intelligent design, Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

If Darwin were alive today, he would regard the intelligent-design movement as a legitimate challenge to his theory. Darwin's modern disciples are not so open-minded, as Ceccarelli makes perfectly clear.

In fact, Ceccarelli is so amazingly closed-minded, that she actually ponders not even responding to the challenges put forward by intelligent-design advocates. Wow, the overweening arrogance! We are not worthy of you, oh great Ceccarelli! Please have mercy upon us poor, ignorant, humble peasants who doubt evolution!

Then, Ceccarelli tries to throw in AIDS skepticism in order to try to bolster her weak argument. Global-warming skepticism and intelligent design have legitimate points, but in a cheap rhetorical trick Ceccarelli tries to lump them together with an obviously false one. Nice try, Ceccarelli.

— Tim Clark, Mountlake Terrace

Ceccarelli is right

I want to thank Leah Ceccarelli for exposing the state of America's scientific community. The role of science was once to collect facts so that the elected could use them to propose policies, which the people democratically support or reject. Not for Ceccarelli.

She says that scientists have an obligation to add rhetoric to impose their political solutions for their challenges so that stupid people can't inconveniently exercise their democratic sentiments. Ceccarelli isn't alone. She joins a list of usual suspects, and new ones, who demand we stop global warming today. This is called a "cascade."

At first, a few kooks encourage others to jump off a political cliff. Soon a coalition forms, as some learn they can grab powers that are democratically and constitutionally unattainable. And then the jumping starts. That's what they call consensus. The rhetoric-free truth is that groups of scientists worldwide prioritize our planet's challenges and solutions so that policymakers can use the best science to solve real problems. While climate change is acknowledged as a concern, ending the use of fossil fuels and aggressive carbon reduction is universally listed as the 11th or 12th priority.

That's because reducing our carbon footprint impacts the environment the least (1/100th of 1 degree for $5 trillion), while education, health care, jobs for the masses, improvements in worldwide development, better use of clean water, minimizing the acreage for farming, streamlining roads for cars and improving mass transit where appropriate, provide the best scientifically supported results for plants, animals, mankind and Mother Earth combined.

— Alfred Petermann, Bellevue

Elephant at wedding

Tradition ridiculous in U.S.

I found the story and photo "Washington, D.C., nuptials: He got dream wedding, Asian elephant and all" [Times, News, June 16] very disturbing. I know that different cultures have different rituals, however, what is done in India with elephants should remain in India or this tradition should disappear there, too.

Bringing this elephant, Minnie, from Connecticut to Washington, D.C., so the groom can ride her with his nephew to meet his bride is unconscionable. It's no longer a wedding, but more like a circus. Letting Minnie munch "on carrots and marshmallows" does not make it right.

How insensitive is this young man to exploit this beautiful intelligent pachyderm for his enjoyment and to impress his bride and wedding guests.

I am surprised there is not a law to prevent this type of exhibition. This ridiculous tradition must stop in the United States. Not only it is troubling, but it is also dangerous. Minnie could rebel. Hopefully, authorities in D.C. will prevent Minnie from coming back in the fall.

Elephants do not belong in D.C.'s weddings, or any other weddings in the United States, period!

(An exception in D.C.: I accept fake elephants representing a certain political party!)

— Claudine Erlandson, Shoreline

Clinton's impeachment

Reasons need clarifying

Misunderstanding about the Clinton impeachment continues.

On June 12, reader Linsay Reece-Evans of Everett ["Telling Lies," Times, Northwest Voices] said President Clinton was impeached for "lying about his relationship with an intern." That is, lying about having sex in the Oval Office.

Wrong. President Clinton was impeached for perjury (lying while under oath) and obstruction of justice. Lying under oath is a crime for all of us, even the president. The president is different only in that the punishment is determined by the impeachment court instead of the laws of the nation and the states.

— Ron Hebron, Lake Forest Park

BCC program

Times kudos

I was thrilled to see the editorial on my former students and their accomplishment in leading the way for the developmentally-disabled community ["Developing potential at Bellevue Community College," Times, editorial, June 13].

What must be also acknowledged is the visionary who was responsible for the development and implementation of the Venture Program at BCC. Cynthia Johnson, of the Aging and Disability Services Commission on People with Disabilities, had the vision for this population and dedicated her career to seeing this through to completion. She has since left the college and can be reached at www.ReThinkHigherEd.com. She is working to set up similar programs at other schools. As an educator, I believe she has a program relevant in today's society.

With an increasing population of unique learners, community colleges should begin to look at serving the adult learner with large ranges of abilities.

— Linda Smith, Snoqualmie

Gay marriage

Won't weaken, but strengthen families

During our current climate of never-ending war, deteriorating economy and general sense of hopelessness, I was heartened by the story of gay couples finally being able to wed in California ["Same-sex couples begin to say 'I do,'" Times, page one, June 14].

I am a straight, middle-aged woman who is thrilled that my dear gay friends in California can finally marry and experience the same automatic securities that we heterosexuals have been privileged to for so long: one's spouse being acknowledged as a legal partner through thick and thin.

To those who may disagree, I would like to point out that gay couples simply want what we all desire: to know that our family's are recognized and legally protected. Gay marriage doesn't weaken or threaten families, it strengthens them. We all want security.

— Drury May, Seattle

Rich CEOs

Proposed wage amendment

Every time I read about some CEO who earns millions (whether or not his company is in the black) while the employees at the bottom are having trouble making ends meet, I get livid ["CEO pay: Still perking along," Times, Business, June 15]. We are long overdue for the Ben and Jerry (of ice cream fame) Amendment: The highest-paid employee in a company can earn no more than 10 times the lowest-paid employee.

— Barbara K. Vaughan, Bainbridge Island

WASL testing

Test government officials

In the article "Grads: WASL daunted some, motivated others" [Times, page one, June 16] the following appeared:

"Everyone should be able to do math and read at that level," Lynnwood High senior David Le said.

I agree. Why haven't we insisted that all teachers, educational bureaucrats, legislators and the governor take all three sections of the WASL? Would they all pass? Maybe we should make anyone running for office take the tests.

I wonder what the outcome would be.

— Dick Swenson, Walla Walla