The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Tim Eyman's failure, a success for state finances?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:33:09 PST

Legislators shaking in their boots?

Thank you Prof. James N. Gregory for your informational commentary on Tim Eyman [“Rejection of Eyman empowers reform of state’s finances,” Opinion, guest commentary, Nov. 18].

I had no idea how much power Eyman had over our state government. In the past five years just two of his five amendments passed, and evidently these amendments have caused our legislators to shake in their boots.

Whether I agree or disagree with Eyman, at present this is still a free country and we still have free speech and choice. Evidently we have not elected the right legislators to resolve our tax problems despite the Tim Eymans of the world.

Who can we blame next?

— Malva Anderson, Covington

Keep your day job, Gregory

According to James N. Gregory, “Most state revenue comes from sales tax, meaning that those with small incomes pay a greater percentage of it in taxes than those with large incomes.”

It doesn’t mean that at all, and it is fortunate that Gregory is a professor of history and not of math.

One critical item that he left out was that food is not subject to sales tax.

Since those with small incomes pay a much greater percentage of their income on food, it is very likely that those with very small incomes actually pay a smaller percentage of their income on state sales taxes than those with larger incomes.

The actual percentage of sales tax per income is based on what percentage of one’s income is spent on taxable items. The extreme example would be a person on subsistence income that pays 100 percent of their income on tax-free food and therefore they would pay zero percentage of their income on sales tax.

In that example, every other person that spent any money on a taxable item would pay a greater percentage.

If a person spends a greater portion of their income on taxable items than another person then they pay a greater percentage in taxes than the other person regardless of the amount of the incomes.

This is a math question, not a sociology question.

— Richard C. Shell, Woodinville

Mammograms and new breast-cancer guidelines

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:31:38 PST

Response to Lynne Varner’s ‘second opinion’

Columnist Lynne Varner has poor arguments for criticizing the new guidelines for breast-cancer screening [“Mammograms: a second opinion,” Opinion, Nov. 18].

Saying they fly in the face of conventional wisdom and long-standing consensus is shortsighted.

Guidelines are, and should be, continually adapted in light of new research and statistical findings. Recent estrogen-therapy findings are also not conflicting medical advice, but another example of the revision of guidelines in light of its association with adverse side effects.

Varner doubts a similar correlation for men would exist.

In fact, tests for prostate cancer also recently came under new guidelines because of false positives and the finding that many of the cancer cases that had been treated would have been so slow growing that they never would have been a problem.

If everyone had yearly MRIs, we might discover more cases of brain cancer, but is that the best use of health-care resources? No.

If we want to control health-care costs, we have to look at the statistics to make these decisions.

— Marilynn Gottlieb, Bainbridge Island

A man’s point of view

I find myself appalled at the recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for women to hold off screening for breast cancer until the age of 50 [“Breast-cancer flap gets political,” News, Nov. 19].

Although I am not a woman, the idea that a government-created group recommends lackadaisical preventive health practices truly scares me.

These sorts of practices can easily be carried over into almost any health issue concerning men and women alike. When President Obama gets his health-care reform, there will be a panel like this on every health topic, helping the government look for ways to cut costs and ration care.

Panel decisions like this will not be mere recommendations, but will become dictated terms in health-care plans. This leaves early testing procedures uncovered, forcing patients to choose between parting with profuse amounts of their own cash or gambling with their lives.

— Donald Bricker, Lake Tapps

Don't forget about Sarah Palin 'going rogue'

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:29:52 PST

Former Alaska governor’s memoir released this week

With the recent release of Sarah Palin’s ghostwritten work of fiction, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” I can’t help but note the lost opportunity in naming this missive, and the nonstop chatter about it and her in the media.

Wouldn’t rouge have been better than rogue? Between all those red states and the makeup Such a loss.

All the chatter has led me to coin a new word: Palindrone

Verb:

1. To drone on and on about Sarah Palin

Noun:

1. One who drones on and on about Sarah Palin

2. The sound produced when one drones on and on about Palin

Usage: The Fox palindrone kept palindroning for hours, saturating the news with naught but palindrone.

— David Darrow, Seattle

South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:33 PST

Support for global trade

Editor, The Times:

I write to commend The Seattle Times’ support for the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and for raising awareness among readership on this critical issue affecting our economy and Washington workers.

Among the many stops on his trip, President Obama visited South Korea, a critical trading partner for the U.S. and one with whom we’ve had a free-trade agreement pending congressional approval for more than two years.

This visit presents the perfect opportunity for the president to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. remains open to global trade, and to signal to American workers that we will continue to support them and pursue every opportunity to create jobs and spur innovation in this country.

Our Northwest workers produce some of the very best goods and services in the world — Boeing airplanes, Microsoft information technology and Paccar trucks, to name a few — but 95 percent of our customers are located outside America’s borders. Therefore, trade is an essential, proven economic stimulus that brings the results of American labor to global markets that demand them, sustaining and creating jobs in the process.

America, and Washington state in particular, can ill afford to sit on the sidelines failing to act while our competitors race ahead to engage and open new trade markets. A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce study revealed that we stand to lose 350,000 American jobs should we not enact the trade agreement before implementation of the European Union’s own agreement with South Korea.

America must not be just a participant in the global economy; we must lead it. I will continue to press for policies that ensure we will.

— Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn

Trade agreement: Been there, done that

Yes, trade is good, but not all trade deals are good, so let’s not do the Korea free-trade agreement.

Korea has systematically shut out U.S.-manufactured goods, most notably U.S. automobiles, and this agreement does not change that. The mega-banks, entertainment providers and software industry will be big winners in this deal, but once again American workers will come up short.

The Korea agreement uses the WTO model that the least regulation is the best regulation. It is the same flawed approach that led to the recent global financial crisis created by runaway banks.

Our members of Congress should be working on reforming and improving our trade model before making any more bad deals.

The template for change already exists in the Trade Act (HR 3012), which has been co-sponsored by 127 members of Congress, but not one from Washington state. It’s time to get on board the way forward and stop repeating past mistakes.

— Allan Paulson, SeaTac

We need a new direction, and a new policy

Our country has spent the past 15 years indulging the free-market, free-trade ideology of deregulation and offshoring, of cutting government oversight and coddling investors.

Look what its brought us: Our manufacturing sector is in shambles, our leading export is fraudulent financial services, and the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us struggle.

Even in our state of Washington, companies like Boeing are outsourcing and offshoring faster than you can say, “Oops, the Dreamliner’s off schedule again.”

Do you still think the answer is more of the same?

Come on.

Our country needs a new direction in trade policy. Reps. Adam Smith and Dave Reichert should reject the outdated Korea free-trade agreement, and instead put that great bipartisan spirit to work fixing the mess we’re in.

— Marina Skumanich, Seattle

Finding the balance between pure free trade and protectionism

The trade debate is easily expressed as trade versus protectionism.

If you are against trade, you must be a protectionist. This is a curiously American sentiment, since every other country in the world finds a comfortable spot between those two extremes.

No country in the world is pure free trade or pure protectionism.

It is far more useful for everyone to favor a trade policy that raises our standard of living and strengthens communities we care about. We can all oppose a trade policy that lowers our standard of living or wrecks communities we care about.

From that perspective, we all favor trade, and we need only ask which of the available trade policies will do the best job of raising our standard of living, and helping communities we care about.

Free trade has failed to meet lofty promises made to American workers, families and communities. Adding one more agreement with Korea won’t redeem a trade model that is fundamentally flawed.

— Stan Sorscher, Seattle

Response to Friedman on climate change

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:26:52 PST

Raise your hand if you agree birth control can save the planet!

Editor, The Times:

Thomas Friedman may be right about climate change [“What climate-change deniers believe,” Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 19], but he is missing his most important point.

The most critical issue to reduce CO2, conserve resources and create new energy sources is birth control.

Yes, birth control.

The increase of 2.4 billion people is not sustainable for our Earth, no matter how many other good programs we promote.

— Jean Ferry, Issaquah

The price of quality education

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:13:33 PST

Teaching with computerized lesson plans?

In response to the article “Should teachers put price tags on lesson plans?” [page one, Nov. 15], my first feeling is one of repulsion.

Teachers are paid to teach our children using the knowledge they learned in school, not by plagiarizing what other teachers do. Plagiarizing is the one thing teachers drill into our children’s minds through all the years of schooling.

The article discussed sharing ideas among others, which in my opinion is still OK, but the idea that my children will one day be taught by computerized lesson plans enrages me.

I pay taxes to provide an education for my future children and the children of their children, not to provide school educators an easy way out of their responsibilities of creating interesting ways to provide our future providers with the knowledge to live.

— Brittany Hake, North Bend

Giving students the basics

I would like to comment on The Times editorial “State should join race to reform education” [Opinion, Nov. 15].

The issue of tying teacher pay to student performance is a poor idea, and will not raise academic achievement.

Could we instead be talking more about giving students the basics? Many classrooms do not have up-to-date textbooks or enough money to buy supplies for classroom projects and activities.

This year my district lowered our individual stipends from $350 to $200 to buy classroom supplies, but our classroom sizes went up. Our class sizes are too high. One of my colleagues teaches science to more than 32 students in a room not equipped for science instruction.

How do you propose we fairly measure the worth of an art, music or physical-education teacher? Are there not some subjects where the standardized testing model does not fit?

I teach one high-school class of mostly special-education students. These students historically do not perform well on written standardized tests. Would I be making a smart move to not teach these students anymore? I am pretty sure that my students need me there in that classroom with them.

— Kelly Roger Hayes, Seattle

A note from Bishop Blanchet on charter, Catholic schools

Local K-12 education has been in the press of late. Gov. Chris Gregoire visited a school to help the state win coveted federal grants, local high schools have discussed high-school graduation requirements, Seattle Public Schools is wrestling with new boundaries, and columnists have devoted columns to investigating how poverty affects student performance.

In all this talk about education, it is surprising that no one has mentioned how Catholic schools are an important part of the educational landscape.

Washington’s Catholic school system is the second-largest so-called district in the state, educating more than 30,000 students at a fraction of the cost public schools spend per pupil. While Catholic schools spend less per student, the results are far from inferior. Studies show that Catholic schools are strong academic institutions where students succeed.

While Seattle public high schools argue over whether or not a D is sufficient to get credit, the Catholic high schools in Seattle send 99 percent of their graduates to college, and about 57 percent of them receive scholarships to colleges.

This record of academic success is remarkable.

Many argue that Catholic schools are elite institutions. Not true. Catholic schools are most successful with poor and minority students. A quick glance at the demographics of a sample Catholic high school in Seattle would show that nearly 40 percent of its students receive financial aid.

Catholic schools ensure success regardless of students’ race or income level.

It is good to see education in the news, but it’s time to include all the players, including Catholic schools. This is not a new idea. Forty states have charter movements that include Catholic and private schools. Perhaps it is time for Washington to make sure all its schools have a seat at the policy table.

— Patrick Fennessy, director of admissions and communications,

Bishop Blanchet High School, Seattle

Pharmaceuticals and health-care costs: a large pill to swallow

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:11:28 PST

Is it un-American to have open competition?

It is a sad commentary on the integrity of our pharmaceutical giants, to learn that the cost of prescription drugs has gone up 9 percent during the debate for health-care reform [“Drug prices rise fast before overhaul,” page one, Nov. 16].

It is particularly shameful, that through the other corner of their mouth they proclaimed the drug industry was favorable to health-care reforms and volunteered to shave drug costs by $8 billion to help the reform to succeed. The net effect will raise the nation’s drug bill by $10 billion.

What an egregious act of deceit.

The article revealed this to be a drug industry pattern. After the 2006 passage of the prescription drug program, the drug prices rose substantially. That was after we, the people, lost in the congressional debate with the pharmaceutical industry, which refused to accept the government choosing drug purchases from the lowest bidder.

Is it un-American to have open competition? Must we accept the risk of collusion by drug houses, who set the price as is done in the Middle East oil cartels.

— Jack Ballard, Port Ludlow

Research and development: Show me the money!

What do I want to have happen in this health-care debate? I want everyone at the top — insurance executives, politicians, medical administrators and medical providers — to prove to all of us why health care in this country is so expensive.

How? Show us the money!

Stop repeating the same old distraction lines, the same old chatter designed to keep the American public off point. Show us the financial breakdown for treating a patient for the flu, a broken bone, chronic illness like diabetes, arthritis or cancer.

Why does medical research cost millions of dollars? Since it has been said research and development are the primary reason for the high cost of prescription drugs, why is all the recent news focused on companies raising the price of drugs before health-care reform is finished?

I want to know who is responsible for making those decisions and why.

Here is their opportunity to show everyone in America that they are not jacking up the cost for medical treatment, that they are not working with one another to keep the price of medicine prescriptions, medical supplies and services at a very high fixed price.

And why the insurance corporations would refuse to pay for lifesaving or life-altering treatments. The truth, at least to me, is the government and all the medical service and drugmakers are lying about the cost just like the tobacco companies, Wall Street and banks lied.

— Frank Beverlin, Seattle

In bed with the flu…

As I sit in bed with the flu, I’m compelled to say we need health-insurance reform, just not the type currently proposed by the administration or either house in Congress [“Stage set for health battle in Senate,” page one, Nov. 19].

Just like assurances that adequate supplies of swine-flu vaccine would be available or that Medicare wouldn’t bankrupt our country, these proposals will cost more and deliver less.

You see, I know I’m part of the problem. Like the majority of Americans, I’ve made choices over the course of my career to accept positions that provide outstanding health-insurance coverage.

It has meant passing on some opportunities that were perhaps more exciting or fulfilling, but couldn’t provide what I felt I needed. So I’ve come to rely on my health insurance to cover nearly every dollar of health-care costs for my family.

I have no real idea of the actual costs of our health care. I don’t participate in a health-care marketplace. I don’t ask if tests or medications are required because it doesn’t matter.

Insurance will cover it.

If we want reform that will reduce costs and increase access, we need to allow a wider range of insurance options that are truly insurance, rather than health-care delivery mechanisms.

We need reform that gives those of us covered by great plans incentives to participate in our health care and understand true costs, while reducing cost-shifting within the current structure. None of the proposals currently under consideration do these things, so count me out.

— Jeff Miller, Seattle

Lynne Varner's alternative advice to mammograms

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:23:46 PST

How do you put a price on life?

Editor, The Times:

I read Lynne Varner’s column with regard to mammograms and reflected on the numbers [“Mammograms: a second opinion,” Opinion, Nov. 18].

More than 182,000 women get diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and 40,000 women die of breast cancer every year.

I am appalled at the new guidelines saying mammograms are not as effective for the under-50 age group. I find this outrageous. We have far fewer people dying of H1N1 flu, yet we are all encouraged to get vaccines against it.

It is indeed pricey, and the new advice has consequently put a price limit on how much a woman’s life is worth. I also wonder how fast the health-insurance industry will react in changing its coverage rules for the worst, to reflect the new advice.

— Anne Cochez-Lind, Woodinville

Late detection would cost even more

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against routine screening is both medically and fiscally irresponsible. It appears to be aimed at leaving room for insurance companies to not cover routine mammograms for those under 50, and to not cover them on an annual basis for those between 50 and 74.

I am 48. I do not have any history of breast cancer in my family.

Last month I had a mammogram that discovered a so-called area of concern. The biopsy determined very early-stage breast cancer. There was no palpable lump for this cancer, so without the mammogram it would not have been detected at this stage. My prognosis is excellent: This cancer is curable, because of early detection.

There is no argument against the early detection of breast cancer — it saves lives.

It also saves anxiety, money in terms of treatment, lost wages and additional child-care needs. I have a 10-year-old daughter; imagine the differences in her life if I had waited until 50 to get screened.

This is about money, and if it’s going to be about money, let’s be honest about it. Let’s weigh all the costs of late detection into the equation as well.

— Sahara Pirie, Shoreline

Former Sen. Gorton's take on health-care reform

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:19:50 PST

Efforts, commentary lack sincerity

I have issue with former Sen. Slade Gorton’s guest commentary [“Health-reform proposals will increase premiums,” Opinion, Nov. 16].

For the length of time Sen. Gorton was in office, he did not present any health-care legislation that improved the health-care system. Now Gorton — like many retired politicians from both parties — is in a private industry that has vested interest in the legislation of Congress, and I am sure lobbies for its clients.

According to an editor’s note at the end of the Nov. 16 piece, Gorton is “Of Council” for K&L Gates. When you look at their list of companies, it is the cream of the crop, and as far as health care goes, Gorton is working for the right company.

An article from the same day titled “Front groups target health bill” [News, Nov. 16] helps to define Gorton’s efforts. Shame on former Sen. Gorton to lack the will to improve the system when he had an opportunity, and is now working against reform.

I have not read all 1,800 pages of the bill, and I am sure there are flaws that will need correcting and will be corrected. I am sure there are loopholes that need mending, however, we have to improve the health-care system. It is more painful now, because too many in Congress chose to wait for a huge financial meltdown before being forced to take action.

If Gorton was working pro-bono for a political action committee that focused on real improvements to the American health-care system, then I could at least believe his efforts were sincere.

— Roselee Warren, Seattle

Sen. Karen Keiser and Rep. Eileen Cody weigh in

Former Sen. Slade Gorton’s recent guest commentary in The Seattle Times erroneously argued that the health-care reforms being debated in Congress would raise premiums and hurt families.

His most misleading claim is that health reform will cause insurance premiums to increase 53 percent for individuals. Without reforms, premiums would likely increase more than 100 percent over the next decade. They’ve already gone up more than 100 percent since 2001.

When health reform is enacted, reduced administrative duplication, increased competition of a public option and payment reforms will help control costs. People will no longer see 20- and 30-percent premium increases a year.

Gorton compared the congressional reform proposal to Premera Blue Cross’ high-deductible individual plan, which provides very poor coverage. Premera’s plan provides no maternity or prescription drug coverage and requires a $2,500 deductible.

Comparing the cost of a limited high-deductable plan to a quality, comprehensive health-care plan is like comparing apples and oranges. An honest comparison would compare similar plans with similar benefits.

Gorton tried to bolster his case by referring to the effects of so-called flawed state reforms in 1993, but the legislation was repealed and never implemented.

Scare tactics have no place at the health-reform discussion table.

— Karen Keiser and Eileen Cody, Olympia

Reforming legislation is not the end-all fix

I agree with Sen. Slade Gorton’s guest commentary saying that just passing hastily crafted legislation will not save money.

For example, doctors have for 10 years advocated for repeal of the Sustained Growth Rate act, which uses a flawed formula that forces pay reductions for Medicare services.

Each year Congress passes a bill to rescind the cuts for the coming year, but they have not addressed the legislation that forces this calculation. These previously calculated cuts are shifted to the next year, and 2010 cuts are scheduled to be more than 20 percent for all medical services. This is in addition to an average 27-percent reduction for cardiology services announced last week by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Cardiovascular services thus face a nearly 50-percent cut in reimbursement, which will be significantly less than our expenses to provide services.

Doctors will be put in the position of having to pay to take care of patients. The Puget Sound area is already one of the lowest-reimbursed areas nationally. It is not well reported that Medicare payments are not uniform across the country, but vary manyfold between different areas.

Congress, the Senate and the American people need to know that it is not possible to bend the cost curve down simply by paying less for services. Hopefully the Senate in their upcoming debates will see that a thoughtful and measured evaluation of possible fixes, and incremental legislation to address them, is more likely to accomplish this than passing an all encompassing health-care-reform legislation.

— Ralph G. Althouse, Seattle

Good news for real-estate markets?

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:18:16 PST

Hoping LID techniques make the cut

I wish I felt more enthusiastic about the news that housing developers are again searching for project sites [“Homebuilders back on hunt for land,” Real Estate, Nov. 15]. With all the hardships of the recession, one consolation has been the possible decrease in surface-water pollution due to slowed development.

The fact is that current development practices are responsible for the degradation of many streams and lakes, and the polluted state of Puget Sound. Residential development typically removes all but a few of the trees on a site so that the maximum number of units can be developed most conveniently.

To handle the resulting stormwater runoff, developers traditionally build underground retention vaults, further disturbing absorbent natural soils, and conveyance systems to deliver the water to the nearest stream.

Relatively new development practices called low-impact development (LID) allow precipitation to filter into the ground where it falls, avoiding the damage caused by large volumes of toxin-laden runoff.

LID techniques are slowly being incorporated into municipal and county land-use regulations, but no thanks to the builders, who generally oppose them, despite evidence, like the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2007 study, that LID techniques are often cheaper than traditional practices.

— Mark Phillips, Lake Forest Park

Being tough on crime will cost you

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:16:59 PST

System is overpriced and under-effective

Concerning Sen. Mike Carrell’s guest commentary in The Seattle Times [“State budget cuts put citizens at risk,” Opinion, Nov. 17], someone should inform Sen. Carrell, as well as other lawmakers, that increasing the get-tough-on- crime atmosphere and the war on drugs has turned the Washington state and American prison systems into one of the most costly, tax-funded industries in America.

More than 60 percent of people in jail in America today are in jail for nonviolent drug-related offenses. To make matters worst, the penalties issued for nonviolent drug-related crimes are often harsher than for violent offenses, and states often opt to release dangerous felons to maintain space for the growing nonviolent criminal population.

Mandatory sentencing guidelines have made drug possession a more harshly punished class of offense than certain assaults or even rape in some cases. Many states now spend more on prisons, funded directly or contracted privately, than on colleges.

The nation needs better-informed lawmakers who want to actually address the nation’s costly and under-effective penal system, rather than politicians looking for quick votes with simple solutions.

— Isaac Harrison, Edmonds

Keeping clam: Ivar's continues to stir debate

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:16:18 PST

Serious breach of professionalism

I have been a fan of Paul Dorpat’s column for many years [“Undersea billboards a hoax,” NWThursday, Nov. 12].

I have had family in Seattle since 1920, and feel a great love for the history of the area. Sadly, I no longer have faith in Dorpat’s credibility.

If he could not bear to reveal the hoax, he should have just kept himself out of it. He had access to historical archives that many people do not have. He abused that privilege and the public’s trust. I will always question his work now, and I feel that as a personal loss.

I like to think of myself as a lighthearted person who enjoys humor and a good joke now and then, but this was a serious breach of professionalism.

— Lori Hardow, Shoreline

My chowder is tainted with lies and deception

As someone who grew up in rural Washington in the ’50s and early ’60s, a highlight of visiting Seattle always included a visit to Ivar’s. We loved his food and the funny songs and rhymes in his ads.

I know integrity has definitely gone out of style in the ad business, and here is the perfect illustration. If this group can’t be trusted to honor Ivar Haglund’s name and integrity, I for one am no longer interested in dining there.

I also have a question for Paul Dorpat: How can I believe your soon-to-be published history of Ivar Haglund, if you participated in an advertising hoax?

Attention Ivar’s: Your food is losing its authentic flavor and recipes, Ivar’s cute little limericks are absent from the menus, the prices keep going up, and now you’ve created a hoax to bring in business.

Haglund cared about the working class. The current owners of Ivar’s hooked us for some watered-down, tepid, 75-cent chowder based on lies, and now you’re pricing out the working class.

Ha-ha.

There are plenty of good places to eat here that don’t have to lie to sell a good dish of seafood.

— Judith Wilson, Seattle

Haglund didn’t have me fooled for a second

I read with amusement the outraged letter to the editor from Debra Smith, and I really had to laugh [“Like a hair in my favorite clam chowder,” Opinion, Northwest Voices, Nov. 13]. Did anyone, for even one second, believe this hoax?

It was so far-fetched that only someone who has been hiding in a cave for the past 20 years would possibly believe.

Neither I, nor any of my relatives, friends or co-workers thought this was anything but a very good advertising campaign. Kudos to Paul Dorpat for going along with all of this. I’m really, really surprised that people were actually duped.

— Claudia Denholm, Seattle

Paul Dorpat’s part in a good practical joke

My hat is off to Paul Dorpat for not taking himself too seriously to participate in a good practical joke.

They had us going for a few days, and life would be a poorer and a flatter affair if there weren’t folks willing to put extravagant energy into making April fools of the rest of us now and then.

As for Dorpat’s freelance relationship with the paper being under review, shame on The Times for being a sourpuss. So he helped glue your shoes to the floor? Laugh with the rest of us, double his salary and don’t deprive readers of his column.

He’s been giving our region a sense of its own history for more than a quarter century, with readable prose and unparalleled passion. The Times would make itself ridiculous to end its association with Paul Dorpat over this harmless, and actually pretty funny, practical joke.

— Kathleen Frugé-Brown, Maple Valley

Looking at the hoax, from a historian’s perspective

As a middle-school history teacher, I have nothing but praise for Paul Dorpat.

His “Now & Then” column, while sometimes a grim reminder of lost architectural treasures, is a constant reminder of the need to take action to secure the legacy of the remaining Seattle icons.

But his involvement in the Ivar’s hoax provided a different and important lesson to all students of history: Think critically about everything you read.

As Erik Lacitis reported, enough information existed for an alert reader to figure out that the discovery of undersea billboards was a hoax, including the price of chowder and the wrong governor’s name on a forged Department of Fisheries document.

My understanding is that The Seattle Times has launched an investigation into the issue, and is reviewing the status of Dorpat’s relationship to The Times. An important ethical issue worth discussing presents itself here, but it certainly doesn’t nullify Dorpat’s credibility as a historian.

Indeed, I know from a neighbor of his that he was asking folks to look at the evidence carefully — to be good historians.

I think we need to reframe the response. The important question isn’t whether or not to forgive Dorpat or whether or not the newspaper should continue to publish his invaluable column, the question is what is the lesson to be learned?

In this age of instant access to information, this story reminds us to be skeptical. And that is exactly the message I’m sure my history students will discover after we discuss this hoax in class next week and in the years to come.

— Dave Pippin, Seattle

2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics: tickets, travels and travesties

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:09:41 PST

Modeling the games after soccer’s World Cup

Editor, The Times:

Thank you for your series of articles on the Olympics [“Olympic business stays in the ‘family,’ ” page one, Nov. 17].

Unfortunately, it is disheartening to see how the Olympic ticket sales are being managed, and the price gouging occurring within package sales. I think the Vancouver Organizing Committee and the International Olympic Committee can learn a lot from those who organize the World Cup for soccer.

I attended the World Cup in 2006 held in Germany. I was able to obtain nine tickets to three games at their face value through a lottery system. When looking for hotels in the two cities that hosted the games, we found reasonably priced hotels close to the venues with great public transportation.

I had a great time at a reasonable cost.

What I am reading about the Olympics puts a bad taste in my mouth, and really taints my view of these games. I hope something can be done to make the Olympic experience similar to what FIFA creates for World Cup soccer fans.

— Peter Krippner, Seattle

King Street Station sure to be a memorable eyesore

Within 90 days, Seattle will accidentally become host to thousands of Olympic fans, overflowing from Vancouver venues, eager to see what our city has to offer.

Many of them will take the train service from Vancouver to King Street Station, a poorly lit, rundown building with absolutely no amenities, and no connecting bus service — it’s a quarter mile to Metro and two miles to Greyhound. There is no hospitality center with directions to close restaurants or attractions, and here’s the kicker: no coffee — in Seattle, for god’s sake — in a place where people are milling around waiting for late trains.

King Street Station is an embarrassment to Seattle.

If this is the way we present ourselves to our guests, what does that say about us? Our Port of Seattle spares no expense at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but in a time when more and more people are considering the train, here we are with King Street Station, the gateway to Seattle.

— Rick Sullivan, Seattle

The lesser-known vampire who makes people swoon

The recent Seattle Times article “One man rules ticket empire” [page one, Nov. 16] said Sead Dizdarevic is from Yugoslavia?

I was thinking Transylvania, where most blood suckers are purported to have come from.

— Thomas J. Munyon, Marysville

Breast-cancer advice raises more than just eyebrows for many women

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:06:02 PST

Survivor will continue with routine mammograms, despite panel

I am shocked by the new recommendation to reduce breast-cancer screenings by the panel of health experts [“Breast-cancer advice shifts,” page one, Nov. 17]. It is one giant step backward in the fight against breast cancer.

I am one of those women in the 39-to-49 age group whose life was possibly saved by a mammogram.

Early detection caught my breast cancer at the best possible stage, enabling me to have a lumpectomy and radiation treatment. Thanks to the mammogram that I had at the age of 41, I am happy to say I have been cancer-free for eight years.

If it were up to this panel of experts, my cancer would have never been detected. Until we can find a cure for breast cancer, please let us continue to do what we can to ensure women don’t continue dying from this terrible disease.

— Lisa Petite, Black Diamond

Be careful what you wish for, reformers

The article on the government’s breast-cancer advice is a perfect example of what will happen when the federal government takes over health care.

The same panel of experts that will be setting standards for the type and frequency of preventive health-care services that insurance plans would be required to cover under the proposed health-care reform legislation has already decided that mammograms for the most part are not cost-effective.

They claim that the number of deaths saved are not worth the costs of overall testing, i.e. “screening in women ages 39 to 49 reduces the risk of death by 15 percent, or only one cancer death prevented for every 1,904 women who are screened.”

The crux of the article is that mammograms will be rationed for many women of different ages, and that is contrary to what most medical doctors believe should happen.

Is this not the start of a panel of experts coming between you and your doctor? While some reform may be warranted, before anyone supports the current health-care reform legislation as proposed, be careful what you ask for.

— Wayne Jensen, Kirkland

Light-rail service: Just in time for the holidays?

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:24:17 PST

Big bargain; $2.75 fares are far too low

Editor, The Times:

I am so glad to hear light- rail service will get you from downtown at Westlake Center to the airport with only minimal walking in just 36 minutes [“Ready for holidays: Airport light rail,” page one, Nov. 14]. Wow. That should help decrease the single-occupancy vehicles on the freeway to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

It all sounds good, however, The Times reported the adult fare as $2.75 per person.

If you take a taxi from downtown Seattle to the airport, I believe there is a fixed rate of about $35 or more. And while I love a bargain as much as the next person, I cannot help feel that this tax-supported service shouldn’t be self-supporting as well as competitive.

Therefore, I would suggest the fare be closer to $10, maybe even a bit more. That is still a bargain, but it might produce a profit that could pay for more services on the route — replacing those cheap windshields, for instance.

Or, who knows. It could even generate enough revenue to extend light rail to the Eastside or elsewhere.

— Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah

They’re canceling my beloved bus 194

So, Metro Transit is going to cancel the popular 194 downtown-to-airport express bus to help fulfill Sound Transit’s ridership projections for its new, soon-to-be inaugurated light-rail airport service.

Let’s run the numbers: In February, locals (including lots of airport employees) and visitors now paying $1.75, which is less with a monthly pass, for the 194 will get nicked $2.75 for the airport-to-Westlake trip. That’s a 57 percent increase, a surefire demand suppressant.

But wait, there’s more: Light rail will increase the scheduled downtown trip time to 36 minutes from 32 minutes on the 194. Add, say, 10 minutes to schlep one’s stuff a quarter mile through the parking garage to the light-rail station — instead of the convenient 194 stop at the south end of the airport’s arrivals concourse — and that’s a 44 percent uptick in trip time.

Impressive.

Finally, per The Seattle Times story, that buses are more susceptible to traffic delays. Fair enough, but then again a bus can drive around a stalled vehicle or a fender bender, unlike the light rail, where a glitch or minor mishap shuts down the entire line.

I ride the 194, and will miss its economy and convenience. Tell me, how many hundred buses could we have acquired and put into immediate congestion-easing service instead of a train for which Sound Transit cheerfully forecasts 4,000 daily riders in 21 years?

— Dave Carlstrom, Seattle

Light rail will only reduce commuters’ options

At the end of the Nov. 14 article celebrating light-rail service to Sea-Tac, we learn that bus route 194 will be cut in February.

Route 194 is a popular route that serves not only Sea-Tac, but Federal Way. The Federal Way transit station is a vital transfer point for many destinations in the south Sound area, including Auburn and Tacoma. Presumably, the plan is to force riders onto light rail to boost ridership numbers, and help pay for it’s staggering cost.

It is ironic — and a testament to our local government’s absolute incompetence — that light rail is actually reducing public transportation options in this area.

— Gregg Rice, Seattle

In other transportation news...Licata’s red-light cameras

While I am very much in favor of increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists, I am very much opposed to Nick Licata’s proposal to increase red-light cameras as an alternative to a business or head tax [“Licata eyes traffic-ticket revenue to make up for ‘head tax,’ ” NWSaturday, Nov. 14]. There are other, less-invasive means of taxation with a direct link to traffic safety.

I recently drove through Lynnwood, a city that uses traffic cameras extensively. I was surprised at my gut reaction. Even though I am a conscientious driver, I felt unnerved each time I passed through an intersection under the watchful eye of a camera.

I do not want my city to adopt Lynnwood’s dragnet attitude toward catching traffic violations with cameras. I’m OK with select intersections that have been studied and identified as problem areas, but installing multiple surveillance cameras projects a presumption of guilt even to those who should have nothing to fear.

We need to consider what we give up when we trade our privacy rights for revenue.

The because-we-can approach to monitoring the public with surveillance cameras, aka Big Brother, erodes both the quality of life and civic responsibility — hidden costs we need to spotlight.

— Ted Lockery, Seattle

Unions, labor and the Democrats

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:18:57 PST

Oh, labor gets it, all right

The editors of The Times again showed their corporate bias [“State’s labor leaders just don’t get it,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 15].

Labor does get it. It gets that the financial crisis in this nation was not caused by them, but by greedy financiers and corporations. It gets that newspapers and other corporations are going out of business because the business model doesn’t work — but somehow that is labor’s fault.

Labor gets that corporations want to break the unions so they can pay their employees dirt wages and cut benefits. It also gets that the only way to keep Congress from selling completely out to the insurance, military-industrial complex and bank industries is to maintain a lobbying presence in both the state and the national governments.

The taxpayers (labor) have shown a willingness to sacrifice in this economic crisis, which I have yet to see from Goldman Sachs.

— Stephen Waite, Everett

Why so anti-union, Seattle?

I’ll never forget standing on the picket lines in front of The Seattle Times when its workers went on strike. The editorial about labor and Democrats shows that management’s anti-union attitudes haven’t changed since then.

As one worker represented by the Washington State Labor Council, I say hurrah for rethinking labor’s relationship with this sellout party. It’s a move long overdue. The last legislative session, controlled by Democrats, delivered tax breaks to big business while slashing human services that help people survive hard times.

It’s also dishonest for The Times to scapegoat the International Association of Machinists for Boeing’s move to South Carolina. The aerospace giant has been leaving this state for years, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded perks. Its CEOs want a submissive work force willing to labor for peanuts. Boeing will have difficulty finding this permanently. I wouldn’t be surprised if its South Carolina site unionizes once again a few years down the road.

Of course, the laws will have to change to make unionizing easier. Hopefully, labor leaders won’t wait for Democrats to pass such laws. In the 1930s, unions won strengthened rights and expanded ranks through old-fashioned methods of organizing and strikes. This is how labor will rise again in today’s hard times.

— Linda Averill, Seattle

Taking issue with capital punishment, U.S. law

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:11:52 PST

Leonard Pitts a confused, conflicted man?

I applaud Leonard Pitts’ honesty, sincerity and candor in his column “Life and death not black and white” [Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 15].

A self-proclaimed staunch opponent of capital punishment, because the power of life and death is too awesome to be left in human hands, Pitts nevertheless acknowledges satisfaction in the executions of John Allen Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh.

Pitts refers to his own fractured logic in condemning capital punishment to protect human life, while at the same time defending abortion rights. He acknowledges that he can’t square his opposing and contradictory belief systems.

His mind toils in confusion.

Attempting moral equivalency with the right, Pitts then refers to the logic of the classic conservative position of opposing abortion, while supporting capital punishment as equally fractured.

The principle underlying the classic conservative position is to protect innocent human life. Murderers such John Allen Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh are not innocent. The unborn are. Pitts ignores or misses this part of the argument, I believe purposefully.

I take comfort that confused, conflicted and therefore indecisive, inconsistent and ultimately ineffectual men such as Pitts are employed as columnists, rather than in mightier professions where decisions must actually be made based on principle and law.

— John Hafen, Woodinville

Sept. 11 terrorists a major breech of security

Another of many examples of the disastrous incompetence of the Obama administration comes with an announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder [“The rule of law,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 14]. Five of those involved in the 9/11 hijackings will be tried in civilian court in New York, where they will be afforded free lawyers and health care forever, as guests of the U.S. while they await trial.

These guys are not citizens and should be tried by military tribunal.

This will cost the U.S. millions upon millions of dollars, take years, create a security nightmare for New York, and give the jihadist’s a free forum to spew their hatred for all things Western and the U.S. in particular.

No good will come of this, and much of it is geared toward the desire of some to make the U.S. out to be the bad guy. This decision is disgraceful, and while Obama will surely contribute it to the attorney general, the president hired Holder and he moves things in the direction he wants them to go.

These evil men may actually walk free on our streets one day because of this.

— Scott Stoppelman, La Conner

No poetic justice in New York trial

The editors of The Times praise the decision to try 9/11 suspects in federal court, claiming it proves that the rule of law prevails. I wish that were true.

In reality, the Obama administration will give suspects their day in court only in cases where it is sure of winning a conviction. As with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has reportedly confessed to plotting the 9/11 attacks.

In cases where the evidence is weaker or tainted by torture, suspects will be tried before military commissions. When even a military commission can’t guarantee convictions, the government will continue to imprison suspects without trial.

The procedure is different in each case, but the outcome — imprisonment or death — is always the same. Contrast this to the genuine rule of law, where trial by jury is constant, but the outcome depends on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The rule of law is not something that can be invoked selectively, only when it suits the prosecution.

This may be good public relations, but it isn’t justice. And when we defend justice for those the government calls terrorists, we defend it for ourselves.

— Warren Jones, Seattle

Finding her place in the health-care debate

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:24:44 PST

Critical care denied to half the population

Editor, The Times:

I would like to know one thing: Where are women in health-care reform [“Catholics lean hard on House health bill,” News, Nov. 12]?

I was horrified that the Stupak/Pitts amendment was recently passed in the House of Representatives. I am a staunch supporter of health-care reform, but because of this amendment, the House bill in its current form violates the underlying principle of health-care reform as articulated by President Obama that no one would lose the benefits they currently have.

This amendment essentially bans private insurance plans in the exchange from covering abortion, which will leave millions of women without access to the care they had before reform. Abortion is legal and provides critical health care for women of every race, class and background.

One in every three women has an abortion by age 45.

We are striving to create a health-care system that is more equitable, but in the process critical health care has been denied to half our population. This reform process has been hijacked by the far right in Congress.

It’s despicable, discriminatory and needs to be stopped.

— Clarissa Lord Brundage, Seattle

What rights are you after?

In Ellen Goodman’s syndicated column “The false choice: health reform or reproductive rights”[Opinion, Nov. 13], she railed against any health-care reform that did not include paying for abortions.

It was also typically heavy on euphemisms and light on plain talk.

She went on and on about women losing reproductive health, reproductive rights and reproductive care.

What she really means, but won’t come out and say, is, “we want to kill our offspring, but we want the taxpayers to pay for it.”

Whatever happens with health-care reform, women will retain the legal right to kill their unborn, they just might have to pay for it themselves.

— Doug Hjellen, Mill Creek

A different kind of reform: education

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:23:33 PST

Catchy titles won’t improve classrooms

The Seattle Times could not be more wrong in its advocacy for teacher pay pegged to student performance [“State should join race to reform education,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 15].

The uncomfortable truth about our supposedly failing schools isn’t that educators are somehow not motivated, trained, guided, mandated, paid or worked enough. It’s that students, parents and our society at large — including the media — see education as somehow wholly separate and distinct, a purview only of teachers, support staff and administrators.

Students fail because they do not do the work, because parents are unwilling or unable to make them do the work, and because our culture no longer instills values that are essential for success at school, such as work ethic, personal accountability, persistence, resourcefulness, innovation and pride.

No amount of reform, schemes, new programs with catchy titles like Race to the Top, or snake oil will ever substitute for joint and honest effort among everyone.

But, of course, scapegoating others, rejecting shared responsibility and trumpeting meaningless solutions like paying teachers for better test scores will always win out in today’s culture over hard work.

— Peter Szalai, Coupeville

Advice from a retired teacher

I am a retired high-school teacher, and I believe we need charter schools [“Washington in race for federal education funds,” page one, Nov. 13]. Performance-based pay is a different story; teaching is not like producing a certain quantity of something.

You cannot, in good conscience, blame the teachers union for our dysfunctional school system. Administrators hire teachers and determine who teaches what, and what is being taught. Administrators and the school boards set policies. Teachers and unions have little say in that matter.

I have taught subjects I was not qualified to teach, because my principal told me to. For example, I once taught four Spanish classes for four weeks. I do not speak Spanish, but it did not matter because the school needed a class manager. Fortunately my compensation was not based on student performance.

The Times’ editorial asked for changes and not at the haste of a tortoise.

At my school, we moved within a 10-year period from one major change to another: six-period days to four-period days, back to six-period days. Mainstreaming special education and ESL students was another part of the many experiments we were asked to support. With new administrators came new ideas we were expected to support. Compensation based on student performance will only work if we have willing students, no drug and alcohol problems, 100 percent parent support, and teachers teaching what they are qualified to teach.

School boards and administrators run the schools. Teachers have very little say, and the all-powerful union is really only a paper tiger.

— Jim Behrend, Bainbridge

Federal education funds? Good luck

“Washington in race for federal education funds” discussed our minimal chances of obtaining any of President Obama’s educational cash, the largest amount ever thrown at education.

Our lack of charter schools is seen as a disadvantage, and bringing in charter schools — a quasi requirement — is out of the question, with strong opposition from the state teachers union.

Then the article mentioned two other requirements, a system that identifies and rewards effective teachers and principals, and evaluates their performance in part on how much students improve.

Both are opposed by the state’s teachers union.

From this article, and others previously in The Seattle Times, it seems obvious that the Washington state teachers union bosses care about their members and their members’ dues first and the students second.

It is as obvious that these same union monopolies should be broken up as corporate monopolies were in the U.S. a hundred years ago. Democrats again are in the middle, with the union bosses financing the election of Democrats on one side, and the actual voters with kids struggling in substandard schools on the other.

It is time for our Democrats to stop blathering about improving schools, and do something about it. It seems Obama is.

— Theodore M. Wight, Seattle

War in Afghanistan

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:22:10 PST

Response to David Broder: using the fear card

In David Broder’s column “Afghanistan: the cost of indecision” [Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 15] we are told we must send more troops to Afghanistan because if not, nuclear weapons would fall into the most dangerous hands.

This is called playing the fear card.

In Vietnam we were told about the domino effect, that all of Southeast Asia could fall to communism if we did not fight, and we would be imperiled. Wrong.

In Iraq, we were told about weapons of mass destruction. Wrong.

There are two realities: One is that the longer we stay in Afghanistan with a large foot print, the more moderate Muslims we push toward sympathizing with extremists. The other sad reality is that the fear card often works, and that is why Broder is playing it.

— Robert Colbert, Seattle

Saving the Afghan women

What should be our mission in Afghanistan [“Taliban gain a foothold in Afghan north,” News, Nov. 15]? To save American lives by preventing another al-Qaida attack. Period.

The 9/11 attacks were fostered on Afghan soil. The threat has greatly diminished but is not 100 percent removed. Until it is, we should reserve the right to protect ourselves by keeping a couple of military bases in Afghanistan from which to preemptively strike at known al-Qaida terrorists by armed drones, jets, helicopters and covert operations.

Turn the rest of the country back over to the Afghans, who seem to be stuck in the 14th century. That is unfortunate but it is not our problem. The corrupt Karzai regime is not worth the life of one American soldier.

It seems to be the men of Afghanistan who have created many, if not all, of the problems. Because of that, it is the women who are suffering. They are the future and could use our help.

For any woman who wants to be educated, we could build a safe haven for them modeled on Baghdad’s secure “green zone.” There they could learn to read and write at a minimum, with the option of pursuing higher studies, perhaps even in the United States.

We have given these women hope. It would be criminal to take that hope away.

— Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island

Voice in the wilderness: Bruce Ramsey

Bruce Ramsey’s Veterans Day column “The nation owes its soldiers a war worthy of their blood” [Opinion, Nov. 11] was like a voice in the wilderness on a day so weighed down by yellow ribbons and slogans such as “Support our troops.”

Ramsey asked direct and pertinent questions about what we owe these men and women who sign up to defend this nation and its Constitution, and whom we have let down time after time, war after war. He makes us question the insanity we call the war in Afghanistan, which is actually an occupation.

I take issue with only one thing, the headline of Ramsey’s column, “The nation owes its soldiers a war worthy of their blood.” Can any war truly be worthy of any soldier’s blood?

— Leonard Eiger, North Bend

Dick Cheney was right?

Dick Cheney was right.

What word would better describe President Obama’s lack of actions than “dithering”? For many weeks we’ve been hearing about how the president was close to making a decision on troop level increases for Afghanistan — you know, the right war that we were supposed to be fighting instead of Iraq?

Now we hear he’s trying to mix and match from among the proposals his staff has prepared for him [“Gates: Obama picking best ideas among many options,” Seattletimes.com, Politics and Government, Nov. 12].

In the meantime, our brave fighting men and women are being killed for lack of numbers to take the fight to the enemy.

In another example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, this president, like Jimmy Carter before him, seems determined to micromanage things to the point of ineffectiveness. How curious that he does not show this same level of caution and meticulousness as he cajoles Congress into passing his agenda for socialized medicine.

Last I checked he was supposed to be the commander in chief, not the surgeon general.

— Les Iwamasa, Seattle