Online only Letters

Obama's campaign

It's OK and rather common to change political stance

Editor, The Times:

Here we go again: the flip-flop ["Obama's long march to the center," Times, syndicated column, June 29]. Used so effectively by the media to defeat Sen. John Kerry in 2004, here it comes again in the hope it will have the same effect on Sen. Barack Obama. Yes, Obama did change his mind on a number of issues as both he and his campaign have matured. Good!

Most galling was syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer's criticism of Obama for refining his stance on meeting with the president of Iran. His own May 26 column called on Obama to do exactly that. Does that mean that Krauthammer was for Obama changing his position before he was against it?

Krauthammer thinks Obama is a flip-flopper, but he doesn't mention the shifting positions of Sen. John McCain in an effort to motivate his base, from tax cuts for the rich he once called "irresponsible" but now supports, to religious leaders he once branded as "agents of intolerance," but from whom he now seeks a blessing.

From his changed stance on campaign finance reform, on ethanol, on Roe vs. Wade, on teaching intelligent design to torture and Guantánamo Bay, McCain has hardly been a model of consistency.

So what? The last thing this nation needs is another stubborn and resolute president who "sticks to his guns" no matter what. Look how well that has worked out these past seven years.

— John Whittaker, Vashon Island

Gun ruling

Update gun-application process

"This is a win for all civil rights." That's what gun-rights advocate Dave Workman said about the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ["Gun ruling will intensify debate here," page one, June 27].

I am not well read on the this subject — this is strictly a matter of the heart for me. I know people who own guns, but I will never own one. In fact, I'm all for responsible, law-abiding citizens' right to "use arms in defense of hearth and home."

My problem is how do we know who is responsible? Who is law-abiding? Who is mentally ill? And how about the civil rights of Pam Waechter, who was killed at her workplace by a mentally ill man who was able to obtain guns in Washington state? To use a phrase of a fellow juror who sat with me and 10 others in the mistrial of gunman Naveed Haq: "That's the outrage."

I heard weeks of testimony about Haq. He is on numerous drugs to stabilize his brain that is not functioning properly. He is schizophrenic.

He spent 10 days in a mental hospital, and not that many months later, went to a gun shop in the Tri-Cities, filled out an application for a firearm, self-reported that he was not mentally ill and three days later was given the thumbs up to come pick up his guns. He bought ammunition, too. Boxes and boxes of ammunition. He used one of the guns and some of the bullets to kill Ms. Waechter and wound five other women in July 2006.

Everything must change with the application system. Mental-health providers need a reporting system that protects the patient as well as the public. An extensive network of information needs to be available during the application process. I don't know how to do this or what it should look like. The only thing I know is that Waechter and the five women who encountered Haq on that day at the Jewish Federation in July 2006 weren't the first — and won't be the last — whose lives are permanently altered by a gun purchased by a person who is not responsible, law-abiding or mentally stable. That is the outrage.

— Debbie Hancock, Bellevue

Majority interpreted correctly

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's finding with regards to the Second Amendment, anti-right to self-defense Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. said, "I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us about their respect for precedent."

No, Sen. Feinstein, Roberts and Alito showed outstanding respect for precedent. In fact, as opposed to deciding how you thought they should rule, their decisions were based on true respect for the law of the land.

That is the mark of a true justice — decisions based on interpreting the law and not on personal or political advocacy or agenda.

— Dusty Baker, Waldport, Ore.

Bill Gates

Good riddance

All this front-page coverage of Bill Gates' departure with headlines such as "goodbye," "tears," "tales of dreams come true" and the congratulations for the amazing empire he built, well, just gag me with a "Blue screen of death" ["Gates looks toward leap into a different world," page one, June 29].

I'm crying for all the technology that never saw the light of day because of a monopoly that didn't want any competitors. I weep for all the people, companies and governments subjected to threats and intimidation. I shed big tears for what could have been had Microsoft participated in a shared and open environment, allowing competing applications to interoperate with Microsoft software. Sadly, Microsoft seems unable or unwilling to cooperate with others unless forced by the government or litigation.

I find solace in that they have not managed to destroy Linux. Apache is the dominant Web server, Apple's Mac is hugely popular and, most of all, the company doesn't have a clue of how to compete with the remarkable Google search engine. It is simply uncanny. It is stunning how often the desired results from a Google search appear on the first page.

How can a company that makes more than $600,000 profit for every employee per year have stock that has remained flat for so long? Because it is a monopoly, and when you own the operating system market and seemingly can't improve on it, you have nowhere to go.

— Gary Virene, Seattle

Cindy McCain

Petty Borowitz attack

I propose a new word for the Dictionary of Modern American Usage: "Boor-o-wit," as in Andy Borowitz. In a self-indulgent wallow more redolent of schoolyard bully than political wit, syndicated columnist Borowitz devoted his recent column to variations on the theme of the "Cindy McCain robot" ["The Cindy McCain robot, with humanlike speech," syndicated column, June 28].

A personal attack on any candidate's spouse based not on actions, but on her appearance as she shares the podium with her husband is petty meanness disguised as satire. Let's look for some facts.

Cindy McCain graduated from college as a special-needs teacher. Upon the death of her father, she took over the management of his brewery distributorship and, as chair of that firm, has doubled its worth. She devotes much of her time and personal wealth to children's causes. She doesn't just serve on the board of such organizations as HALO Trust, which provides funding to clear land mines and provide water and food to war-ravaged countries, or Operation Smile, devoted to corrective facial surgery for children, but travels widely to become personally involved.

After raising the McCains' other children, she found their adoptive youngest daughter, then severely disfigured, in an orphanage in Bangladesh, and brought her home for multiple, successful surgeries. Mrs. McCain has had two back surgeries and talks freely about having become addicted to pain killers, saying talking about it is part of the recovery process.

There's much more, but no doubt Borowitz will be able to find plenty of meat in the above to feed his delusions of satirical virtuosity.

— Avonne McLaughlin, Camano Island

Tips on tipping

Let's copy Europe

Sunday's front-page article about tourists visiting our city mentions that the visitors, when omitting a tip, may not be parsimonious but may simply be unaware of our custom of "optional" gratuities ["Tourists flock here, but grip wallets tightly," page one, June 29]. Very true. But let me elaborate on that a bit.

In Europe (and, I suspect, other parts of the world), waiting tables is considered to be an honorable profession and not just a job. A waiter or waitress would never have the audacity to introduce himself or herself to a customer, much less ask to be addressed by their first name or address the customer by his or her first name.

They take much pride in their jobs and like to exhibit their memory, computational skills, knowledge of proper place settings and expertise in culinary arts and refreshments.

To give a waiter in some areas of Europe a gratuity would be considered an insult. An over-the-top example, but relevant nevertheless: Think of taking out your wallet at the end of a visit to the doctor and handing him or her a $20 bill as a "tip."

Also, in Europe a price posted for a menu item or an item in a shop is what you pay for. The sales tax is already included (in Europe they call it a value-added tax, or VAT). The receipt, however, reflects the total price as well as the VAT paid for the item.

Here, we end up paying much more than the amount on the menu indicates. On top of the meal, in the United States we pay a sales tax and then a gratuity. The actual price is closer to one-third more than that listed on the menu. Imagine the aversion of a European who has not been exposed to this custom. In some ways he or she will feel like they have been conned.

Wouldn't it be nice if in this country we paid only the posted price, and the sales taxes and all the other taxes and fees were already included? Utility and telephone bills drive me nuts on this score. However, when I think of the gas that I buy for my car, all fees and taxes are already included in the posted price. We need to rethink how we price our products and make it simpler — we're already doing it for gasoline. Let's do it for everything.

— Erwin Molnar, Bellevue

Oil and gas consumption

Explore ANWR now

Gas prices are nearing or exceeding five dollars per gallon. OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) holds us in their mercy. Oil companies could produce less expensive petroleum products, but environmentalists have conned the U.S. Congress into banning oil exploration in one of the most promising oil fields in the world.

Environmentalists claim that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would be harmed, using photos from areas that would remain untouched to illustrate their point. ANWR consists of 17.5 million acres in the northern region of Alaska. Less than 2,000 acres, or half of one percent, would be explored.

Also, oil exploration would be on the barren wasteland of the coastal plain. There, winter lasts nine months, with temperatures reaching 110 degrees below zero. Three months in midwinter are dark 24 hours a day. The coastal area is a flat, permanently frozen land. The pristine landscapes would remain off-limits.

Oil exploration on the coastal plain is supported by 75 percent of Alaskan citizens. We already have a pipeline from Alaska to the continental United States. Congress needs to protect our economy by opening the scant 2,000 acres to oil exploration. Democrats have tied up our resources, catering to the extreme fringe of environmentalism. We need change and common sense. We need a Republican Congress.

— Roger Hancock, Auburn

Evangelical Christianity

Dobson doesn't reside on the lunatic-fringe

I read Ron Judd's column from June 29 ["Don't worry, Bill: We're here to help you adjust," News, staff column). As an evangelical Christian, I was mildly offended by Mr. Judd's references to Rev. James Dobson and evangelicals in general, calling him a "lunatic-fringe evangelist who believes in the Bible right down to pillars of salt and talking snakes."

I realize Judd is attempting to extract something humorous from the situation, but he has merely displayed his ignorance of, and insensitivity to, the evangelical Christian movement.

First of all, Dobson has never been considered a "lunatic-fringe evangelist," either inside or outside the evangelical Christian movement. He is a well-respected doctor of psychology who has repeatedly pointed out the moral decline rampant in our society, and has been lionized for it.

Secondly, there are many of us who believe in the Bible, "right down to pillars of salt and talking snakes." If Judd took the time to examine the Bible's claims and compare them to the reality of the manuscript and archaeological evidence, he would find overwhelming confirmation of its narrative.

Why, then, is it so implausible for an all-knowing, all-powerful God to perform such miracles as turning a person into a pillar of salt or permitting an animal to speak to humans?

Would The Times or Judd dare refer to the Dalai Lama or leaders of other faiths in the same manner? I doubt it, since to do so would violate the current sacred code of diversity and tolerance, which seems to apply to all people and groups except evangelical Christians.

I am reminded of an anecdote which I believe dates from the election of Richard Nixon as president in 1972. One person turns to another and says, "I don't know how Nixon got elected; no one I know voted for him!"

Perhaps Mr. Judd needs to venture outside his circle of like-thinking friends and experience life from a viewpoint that differs from his preconceived notions. Maybe then he'll have some respect for others of different traditions.

— Ed Gronenthal, Renton