Online-only letters

Zip it, Bill

Don't say anything at all

If Bill Clinton can't control his subtle public dissing of Obama he should keep his mouth shut ["Clinton understands Palin appeal," Times, Politics & Government, Sept. 23].

Is hoping McCain wins so Hillary can have a shot at the 2012 election worth four years of a McCain/Palin administration?

He's doing a disservice to just about everyone and everything except the Clintons' unbridled political ambitions.

— Robert Brandes, Fredericksburg, Texas

Stem-cell research

Important in politics

Gov. Christine Gregoire's use of the stem-cell-research issue is valid. It shows she does not allow religious dogma to influence her decisions ["Stick to the election, get past stem cells," editorial, Sept. 23].

Dino Rossi is of the Roman Catholic faith. Good for him, but should the tenets of this one particular religion be the guiding force behind the decision-making of our next governor?

Technological, scientific and medical research are important business at public universities in our state. Environmental and reproductive science are on the table along with stem cells.

We need open-minded, forward-thinking leadership. I'd like to see Gregoire making decisions that affect the business of scientific discovery in Washington state.

— Carey Christensen, Stanwood

Obama for president

The unselfish choice

I disagree with the reader who suggested Americans will lose their paychecks for social-welfare programs if Obama is elected ["Obama endorsement," Northwest Voices, Sept. 23].

Obama's tax plan suggests tax relief for middle-class and working families, which doesn't translate into losing all of one's possessions. Further, programs that restore our nation's infrastructure and improve our education system put the responsibility back where it belongs.

Our nation has not experienced 200 years of pure free-market economic bliss. A third party has intervened to address market failure. The Great Depression brought protection for our money (FDIC) and the era of workers rights forced free-market thinkers to provide a safe working environment, in turn preventing children from being forced into slave labor.

If I had a choice between a candidate who lets greedy corporate types decide my fate and someone who believes this nation deserves better than what free-market thinking types won't do for us, give me Obama because I am for the people, not just myself.

— Diana Dollar, Seattle

Bailout

Why the rush?

Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, it was deemed necessary to rush a complicated bill through Congress to strengthen our anti-terrorist abilities. This was accomplished quickly with relatively little debate and oversight. The result: some long-needed reform at the needless cost of our civil rights and liberties, which we may never recover. If financial reform is rushed through without close scrutiny, what will the cost be and who will pay it?

— Frank Moll, Shoreline

Another Bush mistake

I am writing regarding the article, ["Congress, Bush team agree on some bailout terms," News, Sept. 22] on the issue of the Bush administration's proposal to help prop up our banking system and prevent it from complete collapse.

I am sick and tired of members of political parties talking about letting the free-market find its own path and America not having the money to spend on important issues except when it comes to corporate welfare.

I understand the need for something to be done here.

I am glad there is finally talk of not only helping the banking industry, but also helping the people who got in over their heads with mortgages they could not afford.

The Bush administration is pushing for a "trickle down" solution with no chance to look over its shoulder.

What is also par for the course is the opposition to limit executive compensation for those firms that are being kept alive by this bill. It would be unconscionable to add such a tremendous amount to our already appalling national debt by sustaining corporations that then pass on obscene amounts to those in charge. It is time for everyone, especially those at the top, to tighten their belts. .

I commend Rep. Barney Frank for his efforts to bring some sunlight and sanity to this bailout plan. What could possibly be wrong with oversight, return on the government's investment and a limit on excessive executive compensation?

We cannot have this proposal fast-tracked and rammed down our throats without being able to make sure that it is done right. The Bush administration has a track record of passing legislation quickly with little or no time to discuss its merits.

President Bush has bungled just about everything he has done in office, while dramatically increasing the national debt. We can ill afford to simply accept his proposal without these important changes.

— Russ Kevin Childers, Seattle

Credit expansion is to blame

The article ["$700B financial rescue: Will it work?," Nation & World, Sept. 21] quoted Princeton University economist Alan Blinder as saying the following about the mortgage loan crisis: "It's easy to forget ... that the root cause of all this is declining housing prices."

He completely misconstrued the current situation.

The root cause of this financial meltdown is not falling home prices but rather the inflationary credit expansion engineered by the Federal Reserve over the past several decades along with implicit government backing of mortgages. This artificially lowered interest rates and induced reckless expansion of mortgage lending well beyond the amount of actual savings deposits, thereby inflating the demand for housing.

The housing boom topped out in 2006 when mortgage lenders were forced to restrict their lending after incurring a rash of loan defaults and losing their short-term financing.

The slide in housing prices over the past two years is an inevitable result of excess supply. Prices must fall even further before all the resources that were wastefully diverted to home building through government intervention are redirected to the production of goods that people want and can afford.

Any attempt to prop up housing prices, as professor Blinder suggests be done, will only delay recovery from the current recession.

— Mark G. Warner, Bellevue

McCain's background

POW experience could prevent

rational decision-making

I am writing to express my deep concern that the psychological profile of a long-term POW is not being assessed in terms of Sen. John McCain as a future president.

When one has suffered such trauma, the reactive patterning becomes hard-wired into the nervous system. The psyche can become numb or get locked into a fairly constant state of fight-or-flight vigilance. The emotional state tends to become one of depression and/or rage.

There has been no evidence presented that McCain engaged in a deep and successful course of psychological treatment to address the many ramifications of this ordeal. To imagine he was strong enough not to require intensive treatment is naive at best. Anyone going through that level of crisis would have surely been seriously traumatized.

McCain is being glorified for the suffering he endured without the understanding of its emotional, psychological, spiritual and even physical repercussions.

This should disqualify McCain from the possibility of holding this extraordinarily demanding position.

Especially in these crucial and volatile times, we need a president who has the patience, maturity, conscience, clarity and peace of mind to make deep, logical and conscious choices in times of high stress.

— Johanna Courtleigh, M.A., Portland, Ore.

Assisted Suicide

Not in line with physicians' values

The story about doctors split on assisted suicide, ["Doctors divided on assisted suicide," News, Sept. 22], unfortunately misrepresents the position of the vast majority of physicians.

The Washington State Medical Association's informal survey of its members was never intended to represent a scientific survey nor accurately gauge opinion. That's why the WSMA has a careful process to develop policy based on delegates from every county and major specialty society. That process has consistently rejected assisted suicide and endorsed providing real medical care at the end of life so that no one should have to feel pressured to choose suicide for fear of not receiving good medical care.

Most doctors realize that assisted suicide is simply bad medicine.

Take your own poll: Ask your own doctor what he or she thinks. Do they want to be involved in taking your life or would they rather stand by you and give you the best medical care they possibly can?

I think you will find that they overwhelmingly honor their Hippocratic oath and will be there for you and give you care worthy of your trust.

— Shane Macaulay, M.D., Bellevue

Would benefit no one

Carol Ostrom reports, "promoting a suicide attempt" is "a felony under state law" ["Doctors divided on assisted suicide," News, Sept. 22]. Initiative I-1000 would protect doctors from prosecution for doing exactly that.

This makes me wonder why "promoting a suicide attempt" is a crime in the first place.

I suspect it's because family members have been known to promote suicide for a spouse or parent to ease their own inconvenience in caring for a sick relative as well as speed the disbursement of their inheritance. Likewise, I would guess that some doctors could see "promoting a suicide attempt" as an easy way out of their own personal difficulties and inconvenience in caring for a dying patient.

Doctors pledging the Oath of Hippocrates in their medical training promise to "give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel."

I-1000 would contradict this oath and confuse the physician's role for both patients and doctors. Is a doctor supposed to facilitate medical healing and comfort, or killing?

To continue to immunize against such confusion, I prescribe voting against I-1000.

— Robert J. Cihak, M.D., Brier

Provide better health care instead

I was present at the WSMA (Washington State Medical Association) annual meeting last year when Dr. Thomas Preston was questioned by physicians about the validity of the survey purporting a divided opinion among physicians on the issue of assisted suicide. Only about 500 of the 9,500 WSMA members responded to the survey.

One of the physicians opposing assisted suicide testified that the survey was done on the Internet and she attempted numerous times to register her opposition, but the computer program did not allow her to record her opinion. Representatives from all of Washington's counties voted at the end of the 2007 annual meeting and the vote was overwhelmingly against assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is a dangerous solution to problems with end-of-life care in our country.

Depressed Oregonians are given suicide medicine without referral to psychologists to treat their depression.

Hemlock Society founder Derek Humphries stated that the driving motivation behind assisted suicide is saving health-care money, not alleviating suffering. Our senior citizens will risk pressure from greedy heirs, greedy insurance companies and doctors wanting to look thrifty by subtly encouraging suicide.

The solution is focusing on improving care at the end of life, not just making death occur more quickly.

— Idar Eric Rommen, M.D., Snohomish

Not right for America

As a 15-year-old American girl, I find it heartbreaking that our society is debating whether or not to make murder legal. That this is even an issue shows we have lost our morals and standards over the past century.

I am grieved that doctors are OK with "helping someone to commit suicide".

The doctor's oath clearly states: "I will ... abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one ... " Do doctors really mean this? Since when is suicide — assisted or unassisted, acceptable?

I highly commend the doctors who have decided that assisted suicide is wrong.

I am strongly opposed to physician-assisted suicide and I am eager to see American physicians stand up for what is right.

— Erin Oostra, Mill Creek

Transportation and politics

Don't belong together

Monday's article, ["Transit seeks a lift from Obama", News, Sept. 22], illustrates the worst that can happen when transportation proposals become political issues.

Because proponents of Sound Transit's light rail aim to override opposition by exploiting association with Obama; campaign dollars have focused not on providing compelling reasons for Proposition 1 but on utilizing "the people who don't need convincing, the people who are young, who vote for Obama."

Voters who do not require convincing should not make significant transportation decisions, nor should the initiative process allow proponents to pass legislation the public may not understand.

Capitalizing on Obama disrespects the citizens who felt enough civic responsibility to vote a similar measure down in the 2007 election.

Practical issues lurk beneath this political furor. What safeguard ensures that shifts in the work force and residential communities will not render Proposition 1 obsolete before it nears completion in 2023? The issues Proposition 1 seeks to address — carbon footprint and traffic congestion, cannot wait this long.

Now is not the time to spend billions of dollars on an uncertain light-rail future: It is time for carpools and buses that will make changes today.

— Adele Thornton, Seattle