Online-only letters

Farming in India

No greater yields with genetically engineered crops

Editor, The Times:

The New York Times article on the problems facing Indian farming contained information that was somewhat misleading ["Hopes of farm bounty wither on vine in India," Times, News, June 22]. It is true that the overall situation described has increased multinational agricultural companies' pressures on India to introduce genetically engineered crops. But these are not "crops with greater yields" as described in the text, since no crops have been engineered for increased productivity.

True, some crops engineered for other purposes have occasionally resulted in larger yields in some planting circumstances, but most have, in fact, produced lower yields.

A recent report from the U.N. and the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development found no conclusive evidence that genetically modified crops can increase productivity.

Instead, several studies had reportedly found genetically modified soybeans and corn suffer 5 to 10 percent reductions in yield. There were no other genetically modified crops close to commercial use that might increase yields. Genetically modified crops could not play a substantial role in solving key problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger or poverty. Agriculture companies practicing genetic engineering were full participants in setting up the study, but when genetically modified crops were criticized, they stormed out.

In addition, the story failed to mention the role U.S. farm subsidies play in making life more difficult for Indian farmers. Due to these payments to U.S. farms, U.S. wheat is often cheaper to buy in India than wheat grown in India. Such subsidies have been ruled unfair trade measures by the World Trade Organization, but the new farm bill continues them anyway. So much for "free trade."

(The author participated in the negotiation of the U.N.'s protocol regulating transboundary movements of genetically engineered organisms and was a registered participant at four WTO Ministerial meetings.)

— Philip L. Bereano, Seattle

Gregoire's donors

Gov. ethics questionable

Recent stories in both The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer raise serious ethical questions about Gov. Christine Gregoire and her willingness to repay donors with huge government payouts ["When Gregoire won, so did her donors," Times, page one, June 24].

Gregoire should just put a big "for sale" sign in front of the governor's office, because clearly it is. We need a governor who will represent the people, not use her office to pay back wealthy supporters who have given to her campaign.

With Dino Rossi in office, we can stop this corruption and get our state moving in 2008.

— Darlene Watanabe, Duvall

Donations don't reflect voters' needs

If one thing can be said about Gov. Christine Gregoire, it's that she repays her debts. Unfortunately most of us don't have the kind of money it apparently takes to get her attention and support.

She claims she works on behalf of everyone, saying "anybody who wanted to get in that door, got in that door." What she failed to add was that the entrance fee for her door was tens of thousands of dollars. With tribes giving almost $300,000 to the state Democratic Party in the past year and the Teachers' Union contributing $200,000, there is no question that the special treatment these groups receive is expected to continue.

What makes the needs of these special-interest groups more important that the needs of average citizens and families? Gregoire will always remember who got her into office, and, unfortunately, for the majority of us, it wasn't the voters.

— Daniel Ryder, Seattle

Countrywide lawsuit

Bad idea, Gov. Gregoire

Editor, The Times:

What is Gov. Christine Gregoire thinking? At a time when the financial markets are drying up and people are scrambling to refinance for better terms, her office thinks it is a good idea to run the Countrywide Financial company — the largest lender in the United States — out of the state ["Gov. Gregoire accuses Countrywide of discriminatory lending," Times, Local News, June 25].

Her office alleges the company discriminates against minorities, after finding a correlation with certain minorities and less-favorable terms. Countrywide has no way of fighting these allegations, since this could happen for any number of reasons. I find it easier to believe some people do not do a good enough job shopping around. It is a lot harder to believe Countrywide wastes its time coaching employees on how to discriminate against minorities, for which, of course, Gregoire has no evidence.

If you think the Seattle housing market and your life savings has taken a dip in the past year, just wait until Gregoire runs the largest lender out of the state.

— Kevin Morrill, Kirkland

Biased Justice dept.

U.S. government disappoints

As a future lawyer, I am shocked to learn that the U.S. Department of Justice used candidates' political biases to make hiring decisions ["Justice played politics in hiring," Times, page one, June 25]. Presumably, this organization is supposed to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. Sadly, the Justice Department is anything but just.

It is hard enough to attract talented lawyers to the public sector with the compensation at levels far below those of the private sector. When individuals in the government act in such a disgusting way, they make it even harder for someone to proudly serve the government.

I am somewhat of an idealist and I am considering pursuing a career in the government. But news like this is discouraging, to say the least. They very well may have turned me away from public service. And I can bet I am not the only one.

— Paul Febry, University of Washington law student, Kirkland

Stop trying to irk liberals

Now here's a front-page story: During a Republican administration, the Justice Department seems to have discriminated against liberals. Shocker. Like during Democratic administrations, Republicans are hired en masse. Please! That is what "in power" means: You can hire people of your ilk.

Stop "stirring the pot" for no good reason other than to get your more liberal readers even more agitated (like they need any more motivation).

Let's keep the front section of the paper for something that could actually pass as news.

— Mark Ursino, Sammamish

Exxon Valdez case

Ruling unfair

The "Zoo-preme" court has just ruled that the $2.5 billion granted to fishermen and others affected by the Exxon Valdez catastrophe is excessive, but the Exxon's 2007 profits of $40.61 billion is just the "American dream" — a shining example of our wonderful "free-market" system ["Valdez ruling a bitter ending," Times, page one, June 26].

Now, fishermen whose businesses have been virtually destroyed by Exxon will get about $15,000 each, while Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson walks away with a 2007 compensation package of $21.7 million. I say put him in front of a firing squad for his greedy destruction of the planet and the livelihoods of American citizens.

And while we're at it, let's put the Zoo-preme court behind bars as well.

— Rob Moitoza, Seattle

King County budget cap

Public safety spending small

On June 24, you published a letter from Bill Kirlin-Hackett ["Apple and blueberry pie," Times, Northwest Voices] challenging my June 21 letter. He said that "health and human services amounts to [only] about $46 million of that general fund."

What he didn't say is that those services also received about $476 million from the Health and Human Services budget and from various parts of the Special Revenue Funds budget, a total amount significantly higher than that spent on public safety, which is funded entirely from the General Fund.

Kirlin-Hackett should look at the entire budget pie rather than limiting himself to how only one slice of that pie is divided into bites.

The point of my letter, that only about 10 percent of the county's budget is spent on public safety, stands.

— Bruce Booker, Covington

Meeting energy needs

We have choices

I can hardly believe that you entertained the laughable statements presented by letter writer Michael O'Byrne on Tuesday, June 24 ["Meeting energy needs," Times, Northwest Voices]. I refer specifically to O'Byrne's declaration that conservation and alternative energy contribute less than 10 percent of our energy needs and, therefore, "there is no choice but to expand the use of existing sources of energy" of "coal, oil, natural gas, hydropower and nuclear."

Wow, how does this man make it through the day? When he is out of milk, does he have no choice but to skip breakfast? If his car is low on gas, does he have no choice but to walk? If his pen runs out of ink, how does he finish his work?

To make the obvious point, our energy future depends on changing the relatively small present contributions to conservation and alternative energy. Drill all you want and see where it gets us. When the oil runs out, will we have "no choice" but to stop moving entirely?

Honestly, it's embarrassing to even have to write this letter.

— Suzanne Tomassi, Seattle

Dog rescuers

Couple stealing dogs, not saving them

I read your article "Couple fighting for lives of dogs they rescued" in yesterday's newspaper [Times, page one, June 25]. Are you nuts?

These two goofballs, Jim and Kim Giuntoli, are going around stealing dogs off the street and then taking them miles from their home neighborhoods to dump them at county-taxpayer expense.

There is a golden rule here: If it ain't yours, don't touch it. And if it bites you, it's your own damn fault.

I once had a golden retriever that began wandering whenever he could escape out the front door. He usually didn't go far, just a block or two, and he would always come back in an hour or so.

But there were these nutcases on the next block over, just like Jim and Kim, who would trick the poor animal into their home with table scraps and then lock him up. They were "rescuing" him. If I didn't come pounding on their door within a day, they would take him up to the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) in Lynnwood. I would then have to go all the way up there and fight to get him back.

The headline should have read: "Dog thieves dump poor pups on county taxpayers." Your article should have encouraged people to have their dogs chipped for easy identification. Jim and Kim should spend a few nights in the county jail for larceny.

I just feel sorry for all the little children who have lost their pets due to "do-gooder" psychopaths like the Giuntolis.

— Art Valla, Kenmore

Gaffe of the week

Black is right

What The Seattle Times calls "The gaffe of the week" [Times, editorial, June 25] is, in truth, a shrewd political punch. Looks to me like the Times' despicable urge to be politically correct has trumped its search for truth — again. Charlie Black, who is "one of McCain's most trusted advisers," said "a terrorist attack would benefit the Republican nominee." The hellish thing about this is that he is so right.

The American public would fall for it again, just as they did after 9/11. We all remember how Bush's popularity surged after 9/11. And if it happened again, God forbid, the GOP war party, with its obscene military-industrial complex, would be the beneficiary.

We all know this. Why doesn't the Times? Bush has shown us once again, you can never overestimate the gullibility of the American electorate. And, alas, The Seattle Times shows us what happens when being politically correct is more important than speaking the truth. George Orwell would be proud. The rest of us can only grieve.

— Jeff Douthwaite, Seattle

Ill-advised and false as it was, McCain adviser Charlie Black's comment that a new terrorist attack would benefit McCain's campaign was not "the gaffe of the week." That honor belongs to Sen. Barack Obama, who recently said that the McCain campaign would come after him because he's black.

McCain, whose adopted daughter Bridget is a dark-skinned East Indian, has never raised the issue of race against Obama and never will. It is, indeed, Obama and his supporters who have attempted to inject race into the campaign by portraying every criticism of Obama's policies as code-worded racial politics and every vote against Obama as racist. Obama is practicing the old politics of smears and innuendo, not the purified new politics to which he pays lip service.

I would hope that The Times would hold Obama as accountable for his own comments as it does McCain for the comments of others.

— Stephen Triesch, Shoreline

Voting priorities

Put the war first

I'm writing this letter to express my confidence in Sen. Barack Obama to bring change to our country. As a veteran of the Iraq War, I am enthusiastic about keeping the war at the forefront of the election debates. With our troops and their families making so many sacrifices, it is simply inappropriate to discuss gas prices as if they are more important than this disastrous war. Besides, all of our domestic problems are linked to this war financially.

As Republicans claim to be the party that supports the troops, they are also the party that opposed the GI bill. They are also the party that refuses to apologize for sending men and women to fight a war under false pretenses.

Obama has been standing up for our military and for our veterans. It's time we elect a president who doesn't start a war unless it is absolutely vital to our safety. It's time we elect a president who doesn't think a college education is too big a gift for military service. It's time we elect a president who considers all the routes to peace before floating the idea of war with Iran.

The economy, health care and education are important issues. Gas prices, energy independence and the environment are important issues. But to make these issues voting priorities ahead of the war is a slap in the face to every man and woman fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a slap in the face to the millions of killed and injured Iraqis. It is a slap in the face to our country's reputation.

Stop slapping our veterans in the face and vote for Obama.

— Rich Blake, Iraq War veteran, Seattle