The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Norm Dicks's use of federal money to the Puget Sound Partnership

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:25:01 PST

Don’t ignore more than 40 years of commitment

Editor, The Times:

The The Seattle Times article “Dicks channeled federal money to Puget Sound project his son ran,” [Local news, seattletimes.com], was part of a story on congressional earmarks from The Washington Post. The story suggests that Rep. Norm Dicks’ support for protecting Puget Sound was motivated by family and self interest. That is simply wrong.

Dicks did not become a supporter of Puget Sound recovery because his son became the executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership. The truth is Dicks has been an ardent champion for Puget Sound before David Dicks was born.

Beginning in 1968, Dicks served on the staff of Sen. Warren G. Magnuson, who led many efforts to protect the Pacific Northwest’s environment. He worked on a key amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act that banned oil supertankers from Puget Sound.

In Congress since 1976, Dicks has made continued protection of Puget Sound a major focus. He supported funding to study contamination in Puget Sound, including Tacoma’s Commencement Bay. That led to his co-sponsoring the original Superfund legislation in 1980, and he worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to direct clean up funds to Superfund “hot spots.”

Dicks was also successful in including Puget Sound as one of the original estuaries designated in the National Estuary Program in 1987.

When Dicks became chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee in 2007, he was able to increase funding for most of the nation’s great waterways — including the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and Puget Sound.

To suggest that Dicks came late to his concern for Puget Sound or that he took advantage of his position in Congress is to ignore over 40 years of commitment and does a great disservice to an exemplary public servant.

— William D. Ruckelshaus, former chairman of the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, Seattle

Animal rights: slavery protection is for animals

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:22:41 PST

Let’s focus on the bigger picture

I myself am a strong supporter in rights for the good treatment of all animals [“Slavery protections for animals? Judge to decide,” Nation and World, seattletimes.com, Feb 6].

However, although I believe that PETA has good intentions in wanting animals (and specifically these five orcas right now) to have rights as well, there is so much human slavery still evident throughout the world today. We, as coherent, altruistic individuals, should focus more on working to find a solution to human enslavement than to set five orcas free.

Would that mean that all animals in all zoos would have to be set free?

The United States has an incredible slave-trafficking rate. We should work on giving each person their individual rights to freedom, and help others become aware of this widespread, global problem.

— Alexandra Devereux, Renton

Komen foundation's mission is to cure cancer

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:21:50 PST

There needs to be more cancer research

I thought the mission of the Komen foundation was curing cancer — so states their logo [“Komen stops all grants to Planned Parenthood,” page one, Feb. 1].

Yet the current flap is all about screening, which is hardly equivalent to curing cancer, especially since X-ray mammography is controversial among scientific investigators and in many cases, if not most, is not going to detect breast cancer early enough to save a life. The hyperventilating critics do not seem informed of this reality.

The last Komen annual report posted to their website shows “research” at 24 percent. Unfortunately no detail is given, but I should guess most of that “research” favors vested interests. Independent cancer expert Ralph Moss, has said that various promising projects languish for lack of funding; these no doubt are not the kind that interest the drug companies.

Organizations sponsoring the foundation should insist on a higher percentage of research, with more true anti-cancer studies selected by independents such as Moss.

— Murray Swanson, Issaquah

Let’s look at Planned Parenthood’s behavior

To my reading, news organizations and Planned Parenthood (PP) trashed one of the most important private organizations in the country fostering care and research for detection, treatment and cure for breast cancer.

The real lesson of history here may be that an organization that purports to be for woman (Planned Parenthood) and their friends in the media may have set back finding a cure for breast cancer by their shortsighted attacks on Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Did any aggrieved PP supporters consider that an organization that principally caters to needs of pre-menopausal women (PP) may not be the ideal place to provide care and prevention for a disease that overwhelmingly affects postmenopausal women?

Did anyone consider that a clear separation of structures/finances by PP for their abortion-related services would end most of the issues raised in Congress? (I believe PP has refused such a clarifying move.)

Corporate sponsors considering support should take heed of Planned Parenthood’s behavior in this matter, and their directors should be wary, less they too are caught in the juggernaut of PP’s public-relations machine should they decide to fund some other worthy cause.

— Joseph W. Mulcahy, Anacortes

The irony behind the tempest

Now that the tempest surrounding the Susan G. Komen foundation has died down, it is interesting to reflect on the irony of it all. The main issue seems to be that Planned Parenthood provides abortions and those who want to defund it consider abortion to be murder.

Without a doubt, Planned Parenthood does provide abortions; 3 percent of its money goes provides abortion services (2009 data). At the same time, it spends 35 percent of its money on contraception services. The irony is that the very best way to eliminate most abortions is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, which is safely and most realistically done by contraception.

Of course, many people feel just as strongly about contraception as they do about abortion. I can see a case for considering abortion the ending of a “life” depending on the age of the fetus and other tangible considerations. However, contraception does not end the “life” of anything. It is just not the same issue.

Why those so obsessed with Planned Parenthood cannot focus on the end result that they profess to want so much and support any effort to achieve it, defies reason.

Perhaps it’s political after all?

— Richard Thompson, Bellevue

Republican loyalty during the presidential primary

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:20:47 PST

There’s so much more that Lance Dickie missed

Lance Dickie in his Feb. 3 column “GOP faithful: It’s your party, you can cry if you want to” [Opinion] didn’t get even half of what is wrong with the current permutation (mutation?) of the Republican Party.

The party’s been taken over by increasingly bigoted, delusional and hypocritical men. The candidates are using increasingly racist and classist rhetoric, evoking stereotypes of poor minorities which only serve to continue and worsen the problems the downtrodden have in trying to get past the biases of hirers to get employment.

They blame President Obama and the federal government for not creating jobs when it is the private sector that needs to do it and companies are still sitting on cash piles.

The strident, hypocritical so-called “pro-life” stance of the candidates further threatens poor women and their children who are already between a rock and a hard place: local governments have already cut back on access to birth control, schools don’t teach anything practical about preventing unwanted pregnancies, and there is little access to health care.

Further, they threaten to end food stamps and other anti-poverty programs that ensure access to the necessities of life; they are also threatening to pass an amendment which would essentially criminalize using birth control, let alone having an abortion or even suffering a miscarriage!

The Republican Party has lost all rationality and it’s the fault of the party faithful.

The rank and file let their party be taken over by these kooks. The few rational moderates left have been utterly gutless and done nothing to check the slide of the party into the abyss. The country needs to have choice and balance in politics, but Republican Party has given us no rational alternative.

— Leslie Jordan, Shoreline

The case for higher fees and taxes

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:19:56 PST

We need to learn to do with less

For some time now, all branches of government have been trying to find another way to separate us from our money [“Cut, reform — then discuss a tax increase,” Opinion, Feb. 8].

Seems like it’s usually through higher fees and taxes. Unlike the common tax payer, when we lose our job or run into financial problems, we have to tough it out, do with less.

When government runs low on money, they just look for new ways to get their hands in our pockets. Doesn’t matter who it hurts out here, they have needs.

— Steve Drake, Seattle

Deaths of Charlie and Braden Powell

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:18:44 PST

The rights of children

The story of the murdered Powell children in this week’s The Seattle Times leads me to the conclusion that the legal rights of children in our society must be expanded [“Grandparents say boys didn’t want to see dad,” page one, Feb. 7].

No agency should be allowed to force children to spend time with any noncustodial parent, or other adult, who the children are uncomfortable spending time with. When the Powell boys told their grandfather that they did not want to visit their father that day, their wishes should have been respected.

Children are not always able to articulate the reasons for their feelings, but that does not mean that their feelings should be disregarded. Children should be given a chance to have a say about what happens in their lives, especially when the adults involved may have serious problems.

— Wynne Schweid, Seattle

It is our job to protect the innocent

I am stunned and broken over the deaths of Charlie and Braden Powell. How is it possible that this is the best protection that the state of Washington could offer those two little boys?

After all the bureaucrats from Utah and Washington are finished making excuses for themselves, there will be two little boys to bury. Children in the custody and under the protection of the state of Washington died an unthinkable death.

We as a society trust in the laws, police, judges, Department of Social and Health Services, etc. to protect the innocent, but that was a mistake in this case.

Our blind faith in justice wasn’t enough to save the lives of Susan Cox-Powells’ children. The failure of Washington state to prevent Josh Powell from murdering his sons should end the careers of all the state workers involved.

We pay the salaries of these people and should demand justice for Charlie and Braden. I don’t want to hear how no one thought it could happen, because that isn’t true. Charlie and Braden knew and were afraid, Chuck and Judy Cox knew and were also afraid.

— Cheryl Parrish, Redmond

Why was he allowed to visit them at home?

As a former Department of Children and Family services social worker, it is hard for me to fathom the court’s allowing visitation at the home. It should have been at a neutral, secure site under the circumstances.

How will DCFS and the court possibly explain this, especially since Powell was to undergo a psychosexual evaluation?

— Andy Thompson, Spokane

Letter from an 8-year-old

I read the newspaper Monday yesterday (I think it was the front page) about that man who killed himself and his kids [“Boys’ death ‘an act of evil,” page one, Jan 6].

I am very sad about that. I think the government should say that the police department should protect all kids that have criminals for moms or dads.

P.S. If they find Susan Powell alive, she’s going to be very sad.

— Samuel Merel Llanillo, age 8, Seattle

Danny Westneat's column on the Catholic Church

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:17:15 PST

This is a matter of conscience

While there is little controversy regarding “contraception” when defined as things like condoms, birth control pills, etc. For Catholics, this is a matter of conscience, and it is a personal matter between them and their Church — not a matter for the federal government to decide [“Little late for this debate, NWWednesday, Feb. 8].

The real rub, though, is that the federal government’s definition of “contraception” extends beyond those medicines and devices that prevent conception, to include medicines that act post-conception.

For those who believe that life begins at conception, these so-called “contraceptives” are actually abortion pills — and as Westneat notes, abortion is still very controversial.

So in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and most practicing Catholics, the Obama administration’s dictates are in fact a mandate to provide certain types of abortions as part of their health plans.

— Mark Ursino, Sammamish

It’s an embarrassing time to be a Catholic

It’s an embarrassing time to be a Catholic. Prominent bishops and conservative (quasi) Catholic politicians like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum decry the Catholic Church being forced to pay for birth control of others, against our apparent collective conscience. How bizarre.

All my life I have paid taxes for wars I did not believe in, executions I do not approve of, political stances not my own — that’s what it means to be part of a social fabric. We constantly must give minimal support to things we personally do not endorse.

If we want to hire people of all faiths and/or none to work alongside us in our hospitals, schools, social service agencies, then we must support them in their reasonable decisions. More importantly, though official Catholic teaching may decry contraception, most good Catholics do not.

Most of us would see loving each other, caring for the poor, speaking out for justice and fostering the other values of Jesus as far more important.

— L. Patrick Carroll, Seattle

Birth control access is a women’s right

A big thank you to Danny Westneat for his Feb. 8 column asking why the U.S. Conference of Bishops — quickly rubber-stamped by Republican presidential hopefuls are launching an assault on birth control coverage under the 2009 national health-insurance law. Birth control, which is practiced, and endorsed by over 98 percent of everybody!

The most twisted part of the church/GOP argument is that mandating that institutions serving the general public be required to cover contraception along with other preventive health care for women is a violation of individual rights and religious freedom!

Excuse me, but the church is no more an individual than is Wal-Mart (recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding).

It is the real, oxygen-breathing humans who have the right to decide, on the basis of their own personal beliefs, whether they will take advantage of this health benefit or not. And make no mistake.

Equal access to birth control is a giant question of individual liberty for women.

— Megan Cornish, Seattle

This is a challenge to women’s freedom and right to equality

Denial of women’s access to contraception is another example in the Catholic Church’s long unresolved history of denial of women’s right to equality with men [“Contraception mandate outrages religious groups,” News, Feb. 4].

Now we learn it is also an opinion voiced by three of the Republican candidates for president. The church and the candidates claim that providing contraception access to women who want control over the number of children they bear is an attack on religious freedom.

In reality it is just another thinly disguised attempt to challenge a women’s freedom and right to equality.

— Paul C. Cooper, Sequim

This is an activity of commerce not religion

When the Catholic Church offers health insurance to it’s employees who may or may not be Catholic, they are in the insurance business and should abide by the regulations governing that industry.

This is an activity of commerce not religion. If they operate in the marketplace, they need to follow the rules of the marketplace. This is not an issue of religious freedom and shame on those who characterize it as such.

— Joan Newcomb, Seattle

Look at the commission’s report on birth control

In response to the article “Contraception mandate outrages religious groups” on Feb. 4, and Danny Westneat’s column on Feb. 8, it may be interesting to add that the only teaching on contraception in the Catholic Church totally disregards the findings of the majority report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control in 1967.

This commission was made up of priests, physicians, theologians, sociologists, and other professionals including the “real professionals” — long-married couples.

It’s sad to think that the laity understands better than the hierarchy that contraception is the most ethical and realistic approach to reducing the abortion rate, and that it is the best way to guarantee women adequate, affordable health care.

— Sheila Giesler, Lynnwood

It is not their job to control reproduction

With all due respect to the Conference of Bishops, and none at all to the Republican Party, why is it that old, pompous men think its their business to control women and their reproductive organs? Have they ever been pregnant? Have they ever been afraid of getting pregnant?

Isn’t it time for men to stop trying to keep women down? This is not about religious freedom. This is about control over women.

— Robert Reed, Seattle

Green infrastructure and the development of LID buildings

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:05:58 PST

This would help restore the health of our streams

Editor, The Times:

Thanks for the Feb. 6 editorial calling for action to implement Low Impact Development (LID) building practices [“Build green infrastructure,” Opinion].

Halting the onslaught of stormwater runoff is the most important action we can take to restore the health of our streams, lakes and Puget Sound. Those of us who monitor streams can attest to the damage done by stormwater runoff from the heavily built environment we have created.

Large volumes of runoff into streams destroy salmon spawning and hatching habitat by scouring out gravel beds or burying them in silt, which smothers embryonic eggs as well as the aquatic flies and other insects that live in the gravels and form the base of the stream food chain.

Toxins carried by runoff from roads, parking lots and yards make the water, itself, poisonous to all the creatures that live in it.

Another major benefit from widespread implementation of LID would be to curtail property damage from flooding — millions of dollars worth over the last decade in my small town alone.

— Mark Phillips, Lake Forest Park

Eliminate pollution at the source

The “Build green infrastructure” editorial confuses stormwater management with pollution control. The containment of stormwater on-site via Low Impact Development (LID) methods reduces the amount of water that flows into the stormwater systems.

However, this water does not pollute the environment. The pollution comes from the roadways where years of improvement by the auto industry to eliminate oil, brake lining and tire residue has greatly reduced this pollution. Reducing the water running over the roads and into the stormwater systems dilutes the concentration of pollutants in the stormwater, but does not eliminate the pollutants.

While LID methods are a worthy goal for stormwater management, they do almost nothing to eliminate pollutants. The elimination of pollutants should be addressed at their source: i.e., continued elimination by the auto industry and others.

— George Toskey, Sammamish

Iran's nuclear and military intentions

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:57:56 PST

There is still a chance for diplomacy

There is still a chance for diplomacy with Iran [“A nuclear Iran would put us over a barrel,” Opinion, Feb. 6]. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told The Washington Post that there is more than a 50-50 chance Israel will attack Iranian nuclear sites next spring.

In response, an Iranian revolutionary guard commander indicated that within the first few weeks of such an attack an estimated 300,000 Americans would be killed. Although his response is more of a bluff, it should make us think harder before the time of no return reaches.

Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has made the uranium-enrichment process a matter of national honor during the last decade, and now he cannot face a humiliation to back off. Iran is feeling the crippling sanctions more than ever. A few weeks ago, the Iranian revolutionary guard threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, where almost 40 percent of the world’s oil passes daily.

The U.S. should provide enough carrots to the regime while allowing it to keep face while suspending uranium enrichment at high levels.

— Amir Ajami, Lynnwood

There can be no peace without justice

I was not surprised to read the usual number of slippery-slope arguments and far-flung conclusions in Wendy Rosen’s recent op-ed regarding Iran’s nuclear and military intentions.

What did however surprise and sadden me is that as director of Seattle’s American Jewish Committee, she considers the violent murder of scientists part of an “encouraging” stealth campaign.

This type of public encouragement to violence is completely at odds with common decency and internationally recognized paths of diplomacy. There can be no peace without justice.

— Alexander Scott, Seattle

Is this worth a war?

According to the Dahaf Institute of Israel, The New York Times and a Program for International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll, in November 2011, only 43 percent of Israelis polled favor military strikes on Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons program. Perhaps the 57 percent who oppose a new war know that Iran is a paper tiger with regards to nuclear weapons.

In January, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commented in the National Journal that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities now would be “premature,” and urged nonmilitary means to convince Iran to cooperate.

An unconfirmed report indicates that Gen. Dempsey, when he recently visited Israel, sternly warned Israeli Mossad chief Tamir Pardo not to launch any unilateral airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The war hawks in London, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C., are risking perhaps a new world war with an enraged Russia and China over the corpse of Iran, or Syria. Why?

For the same old imperial geopolitical reasons that have plunged the world into endless warfare. Only the removal of Barack Obama as president and whipping the Congress to change policies will resolve this crisis.

— James D. Wyrick, Bothell

Look at Israel first

It’s Israel that has Americans over a barrel, not Iran. It’s Israel that has nuclear weapons, not Iran.

We might actually be seen by the rest of the world as reasonable instead of oil-thirsty aggressors if we force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons before we start wars with Israel’s neighbors to prevent them from acquiring nuclear technology.

— Brian Conkle, Seattle

The evaluation of teachers in public schools

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:56:33 PST

This isn’t a realistic way to evaluate teachers

As a former teacher, I would have loved to have my professional evaluations derived from the standardized test scores of my students, if my school existed in a glass bubble [“Bills would reshape how state teachers evaluated,” NWMonday, Feb. 6].

But my evaluators had to consider the external factors that constantly entered my classroom. For example, there are parents who feel they have no obligation to ensure the following: a child eats a balanced meal before attending school, homework assignments are completed, controlled substances are not within the household, truancy is not a problem, books are being read in lieu of playing video games, and manners and respect for a school’s personnel are first taught at home.

As most educators know, there is very little the individual teacher can do to stop the sloppy parenting that plagues the American school system, because politicians don’t want to confront registered voters with the truth.

On a final note, when I started teaching in 1986, my school’s administration consisted of a principal, guidance counselor and a curriculum specialist. When I retired from the same school in 2010, there were at least 10 expensive, quasi-administrative people running the school. And most of their jobs were tied to buffering poor parenting skills, which directly affected the students’ progress.

— Donell Quinitchette, Seattle

This shows real promise to improve teaching

I am a 20-plus-year nationally certified teaching veteran. I am amazed that The Seattle Times is crying foul on legislative blocking of a teacher evaluation bill, when there already is one about to be implemented (Senate Bill 6696).

And I, for one, will welcome this new system, which (finally!) will give me specific research-based feedback on how to improve my teaching.

The “value-added” systems you prefer, which use student test scores as “accountability measures,” are developed by private corporations.

They use complex and proprietary algorithms to create teacher evaluation “scores.”

Thus, teachers never know exactly what criteria they are being evaluated on, how it is weighted, or how to improve their “scores” — or their teaching.

Research has shown that their accuracy and effectiveness in measuring teacher quality is highly questionable.

The biggest benefit seems to be for the corporations who develop and promote them, since they provide great revenue streams of public tax dollars to corporate coffers.

These “accountability” systems have been adopted by credulous politicians in many other states, eager to score Brownie points with equally credulous voters.

We are fortunate to have legislators here who are better informed. Shame on The Seattle Times for not supporting them, or the previously passed (and cheaper) bill, which shows real promise to improve teaching in our state.

— Ann Morgan, Everett

United Nations resolution on Syria

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:55:15 PST

It is time for the U.S. to lead by example

So the United States is expressing outrage at Russia and China for blocking the U.N. resolution calling for Syria’s President Bashar Assad to step down? Seriously? What a pack of hypocrites! [“Why Russia wants U.S., others to keep hands off Syria,” page one, Feb. 8].

For years, the United States has blocked every single U.N. resolution that has been submitted in dealing with Israel and its inhumane and violent measures against Palestinians.

Yes, the treatment of the citizens in Syria is outrageous but the United States needs to lead by example and seek fair humane treatment for all people instead of picking and choosing who is worthy depending on their political motivations.

— Barbara J. Rasaie, Redmond

Inslee's agenda for job creation

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:54:18 PST

There are more important problems

Jay Inslee said Monday that he wants to demand “fundamental reforms” to make state government “more focused on the principal job of the state of Washington, which is job creation.” [“Inslee unveils agenda for jobs,” NWTuesday, Feb. 7].

Then he goes on to suggest the creation of a new Cabinet department apart from the already existing Commerce Department, a whole new bureaucracy, as his initial step in accomplishing his “primary” goal.

The next thing out of his mouth was tax breaks for “new industry” when our Legislature can’t even get its act together to rid us of the old ones.

Jay. This is a Democrat talking to you. Job creation may be one of the jobs of state government, but it certainly is not the principal one. There are a lot more important goals needing serious attention that are central to what makes a great state.

Certainly the education and welfare of its citizenry and dealing with revenues and budget before our credit completely tanks ranks way up there, well before job creation.

— Robert Squaglia, Seattle

What about the marine trades?

I apparently missed the news flash that Puget Sound and other Washington waters no longer has world-class seaports in Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Bremerton, Longview, Vancouver and elsewhere, and that Washington state’s vast maritime industry has apparently been exported overseas, leaving us with only the “key industries such as aerospace, clean energy and agriculture” to power job creation.

Candidate Jay Inslee, are you even aware of the current proposals down in Olympia to start some kind of marine-technology programs at community colleges and our state’s preeminent position in the maritime world?

I respectfully suggest that it would be a good idea, if you want to be our governor, to recognize the huge importance of the marine crafts, marine trade, (not to mention the Navy), and their supporting infrastructures in the Washington economy.

— Lawrence Baum, charter captain, Camano Sail and Power, Camano Island

Teens and their technology use

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:40:23 PST

Teens need their privacy too

Editor, The Times:

I think that teens need to have freedom over their technology use [“The tussle over teens’ tech time,” Business, Jan. 28]. Encouraging parents to closely monitor their teen’s technology use is encouraging a relationship with a low level of trust between parent and child, leading to conflict.

Reading your teen’s texts is unacceptable. Just as you need privacy, so do your children. They need to have their own personal life just as you (as a parent) have your own personal life. I think that as long as they are not hurting themselves or others, they should be allowed the same privacy that adults have.

If there ever is a situation where your teen inflicts hurt or gets hurt then you can have a calm, rational discussion about the issue. Teens need freedom to explore and grow without parents encroaching on that freedom, even if you as a parent don’t agree with all of their decisions.

I think that as long as your children are getting up in the morning, parents don’t get to control how much sleep they get. If the children are staying up all night texting or skyping with a friend, then they’re the ones who have to deal with the effects of that — not parents.

— Arianna Riley, Seattle

Response to letter about Apple's production in China

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:38:00 PST

Americans need to start reading the label

Regarding Darrell Igelmund’s Feb. 4 letter, thanks for your insight as a 25-year-veteran of U.S. manufacturing [“Apple’s workers,” Opinion].

Thankfully, some foreign manufactures have built U.S. factories, thus keeping some money here and creating jobs here. Most, sadly, haven’t.

With the approximately 4-to-1 ratio of goods from China to U.S. versus U.S. to China, there is no “balance of trade.”American consumers need to read the label and start caring about American jobs, and not looking only at the cheapest price.

As long as we only seek out the lowest price (and most times get the lowest quality), we are sending the message to companies that we support having everything made overseas and we don’t care about American jobs or the quality of what we purchase. It’s no wonder China has excess money to loan the U.S. government —it is getting most of the retail money we spend.

I suggest that we all read the labels on the goods in our department, apparel, hardware and other stores. I think most people would be shocked at the huge percentage of products now “Made in China” and other overseas countries. Tell your retailer you want to see their “Made in USA” version of that product you want. (They probably don’t carry any.)

Please read the labels. Please buy “Made in USA,” if you can’t find a “Made in USA” version of what you are seeking — maybe you can live without it. Eventually the companies that have sent their manufacturing jobs overseas will get your message. Eventually we may have quality products and American manufacturing jobs (and all the related material-supplier jobs) once again.

— Paul Brenna, Issaquah

Boys' death: an act of evil

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:14:22 PST

Why was he allowed on a supervised visit?

I am appalled and sickened by these events and by the extreme negligence, once again, both by the Department of Social Health and Services and court systems in the state of Washington! [“Boys’ deaths ‘an act of evil,’ ”page one, Feb. 6].

In the end, we, as citizens, are all implicated in these terrible, yet totally preventable events.

Why does one allow a probable known murderer like Josh Powell “supervised visitation” rights in his own home? This is not a supervised situation.

Not only the children were negligently placed in harm’s way, but also the DSHS worker who took these children on her own to a private home! How can anyone ever have any control of what goes on in someone else’s home? How can this be a “supervised” visit?

The total lack of common sense on the part of the court, DSHS and the grandparents, who forced these children to go to this visit even when they both expressed fear of going there, is stunning and horrific!

We as citizens must demand an overhaul of the court and justice system. Also, the persons who determined the conditions of these “supervised” visits to the home of a parent, who had been denied custody of this own children and who was likely the murderer of the mother of these children, must be held accountable and pay a penalty.

— Carol Meyer, Seattle

This was a tragedy

I take strong exception to Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor’s admonition to “not call this a tragedy.” Yes, it certainly was an act of evil. When is murder not evil?

But it was above all else a tragedy, and nothing can “sanitize” that. Not able to man up and accept at least partial responsibility for their mother’s murder, Powell committed this heinously selfish act.

The murder of three innocents is nothing if not a tragedy — Pastor should be sensitive enough to see that and to choose his words more wisely.

— Stephen Nelson, Seattle

Let’s fight against it

Thanks for putting the word “evil” on the front page with reference to the two innocent boys murdered be their evil father. Let’s acknowledge the existence of evil. Let’s not try to understand it or negotiate with it. Let’s just fight against it.

— John Dukes, Ferndale

Tax breaks for corporations

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:35:43 PST

Close tax exemptions and help save higher education

The stark numbers in “Even unused tax breaks tough for legislators to plug” [NWSunday, Feb. 5] boggled my mind — 452 unprotected exemptions to the tune of $24 billion?

I’m an adjunct instructor at Highline Community College and due to extreme cuts the college has reduced operating costs and staff to the point where I question effectiveness. Yet we’re told to expect more cuts or pay an increased sales tax because as public employees, we’re draining the budget. It seems to me that we need a long-term solution that balances cuts and revenue.

I understand that tax breaks are essential, but 640? We need to constantly evaluate the benefits of these breaks and eliminate those that do not work in the best interest of state residents. Maybe then, our Legislature will remember that higher education is one important piece in the recovery of Washington state.

After all, even tax breaks can’t lure corporations to a state with a woefully undereducated workforce.

— Stephanie Hunter, Auburn

Tanning bed legislation

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:34:44 PST

Why not change the age restrictions for other rules?

Sen. Janea Newbry opposes the state mandating a minimum age to use tanning beds [“Bill would limit salon tans to adults,” NWSaturday, Feb. 4].

She says “If parents aren’t the correct arbiter, then what are we saying as a state?”And she’s concerned with private-sector businesses staying alive. Good points, senator.

My 12-year-old son would like to drive, and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m sure he could pass the test and would be a great driver. How about you introducing a bill to get rid of the minimum age for driving, as long as the parents give their consent?

And I’m sure that he would drink responsibly as well, so while you’re at it, would you also amend that pesky requirement that requires tavern patrons to be 21? That way he could drive his fellow seventh-graders to the local watering hole, and all of them could spend their allowances supporting our private sector.

— Laura Billington, Maple Valley

Politicians and the lives of ordinary Americans

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:33:47 PST

Look back to Rome

The concentration of wealth into an ever smaller portion of the population ensures fewer of the citizens care enough to defend, fight for or support that society [“The lives of ordinary Americans,” Opinion, Feb. 5].

As Rome found many centuries ago, when society exists for or rewards only the few, the select, the elite, it crumbles. Rome fell not as the Visigoths stormed the gates, it fell when there were no more who cared if Rome fell or not.

While Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney proclaim to care about the nation — there is little doubt they do, for it is within the privileged and rewarded class that there are the last vestiges of support left.

Now that is dangerous.

— LeGrande Blount, Covington

Actions speak louder than words

It isn’t necessary to wait for what politicians admit — it’s what they do, or neglect to do, that counts.

— Bob Miller, Seattle

Same-sex marriage meets opposition

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:32:45 PST

This is an attack on personal freedom

I am at a loss to understand what it is about the legitimization of the nearly 20-year relationship with my partner that Pastor Joe Fuiten is so obsessed with [“Nationwide forces likely to have role in challenge at the polls,” page one, Feb. 3].

We have never met Fuiten. We have no intention of ever stepping foot in his church. We love each other, we are loved by all of our friends and family. We have good jobs in which we are respected. We pay taxes.

Hmm, come to think of it, I’m not sure Fuiten pays taxes — his Cedar Park Assembly of God Church certainly doesn’t pay taxes in an exemption due to its status as a “church.” A status conditioned on its mission of spreading the doctrine of Jesus (hence the word, “Christian”), the Jesus who uttered not one word about sexual orientation — whose greatest commandment was to “love one another.”

Fuiten said attorneys are working to determine wording of his planned referendum to prevent my partner and I from realizing a legal validation of our long-term commitment. This doesn’t sound at all like what you’d expect of a Christian church when there are so many in need of the basics of life: food, water, shelter. Yet apparently it is perfectly legal for Fuiten and people who are providing the financial means to ignore these things and go after me — hiring lawyers and amassing money using their tax-exempt status on something entirely unrelated.

There will be a lot of attention paid as the anti-rights groups mount their attacks on personal freedom — I would hope that one group keeping an eye on things will be the IRS, as so-called reverends such as Fuiten use their sanctuaries in way that are reminiscent of another frightening group masquerading as a religious entity, the Taliban.

— David R. Noe, Seattle

Army psychiatrist's comments about PTSD and cost of disability benefits

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:31:45 PST

This mindset needs to be removed

The very fact that the Army has on its medical evaluation staff, officers, doctors who are in decision-making positions that affect the retirement of soldiers — while at the same time holding the opinion that they are the nation’s “financial gatekeepers” — is simply unconscionable [“Army doc suspended over PTSD comments,” page one, Feb. 4].

Doctors with such a mindset should be barred from evaluating soldiers for any medical condition affecting their retirement from military service.

As Sen. Patty Murray rightly points out, “Their [the doctor’s] job is only one thing — to determine whether or not the patient has PTSD. And it is Congress’ job to make sure we have the resources to compensate them.”

Madigan Army Medical Center has done the right thing by suspending two of the doctors involved in assessing the PTSD diagnoses of soldiers under consideration for medical retirement.

But the Army needs to go further and purge all of its decision-making boards of officers with such mindsets — and, having served as president of the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center Physical Evaluation Board, I can attest to the fact that there are many.

This article involved only PTSD but it is just as applicable to any disabling medical condition.

— Charles Bickel, Poulsbo

Voting Rights Act for minorities

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:30:19 PST

This act will cost millions and allow for manipulation of election results

The only sure beneficiaries of “Washington Votings Rights Act” are lawyers [“Ensuring voting rights,” Opinion, Feb. 2].

The Seattle Times got it wrong in the editorial supporting the Act moving through the Legislature. The “Election Chaos Act,” as it should be termed, would allow for manipulation of election results in the courts, wouldn’t ensure better representation of minorities, and will cost small cities and school boards millions of dollars.

Attorneys are the only sure winners if the law passes, based on California’s example. Since the California Voting Rights Act passed in 2001, the San Francisco Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (who pushed for passage of the law) has collected over $4 million in fees from California school districts.

And it insults minorities by assuming they vote solely on whether a candidate is similar in race, color or language. Consider Modesto, Calif., where in 2010 a majority Latino district elected a white Republican — who was a longtime resident of the community — instead of a Latino Democrat.

The federal Voting Rights Act was intended to remove race as an issue from elections. This law turns that notion on its head by requiring that race be an issue. America is a melting pot, not a nation of fragmented and suspicious groups.

— Jonathan Bechtle, Freedom Foundation, Olympia

State lawmakers and their views on education reform

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:59:20 PST

Do we really want a one-size-fits-all statewide evaluation system?

Editor, The Times:

In Seattle, we teachers and the district have set in place a progressive teacher-evaluation system [“A lack of courage on education reform,” Opinion, Feb. 5]. It centers on a four-level plan with descriptors of teacher practice across 22 components, clearly showing evaluators and educators what is unsatisfactory and what is exemplary.

Next year in year three of its implementation, student growth, as measured by test scores, will be part of the evaluation process for those of us who teach the tested subjects.

The editorial is misleading in stating that efforts to tie student test scores to teacher evaluations that “have been rejected by the teachers union.” Drawing conclusions from student test scores is a complex topic, and we in Seattle are in the midst of developing a rational accountability system. I am disappointed that The Seattle Times supports a bill creating a one-size-fits-all statewide evaluation system, one that will undermine the groundbreaking work we are doing in Seattle.

— Donna Shy, Seattle

Test results are a better idea

The Seattle Times accuses state Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, and Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, D-Seattle, of lacking courage on education reform. They are the voices of reason in this debate. It takes courage to stand up against Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Medina, and Rep. Eric Pettigrew, D-Seattle, who have gotten a lot of positive media attention in the last year for their simplistic, cheap fixes to very complex problems.

They wrote a “thoughtful bill” allowing charter schools in Washington. These experimental schools would take money away from an already underfunded public system, creating a new system that has only had a 20 percent success rate nationwide. They also suggest a naive plan to hold teachers accountable by using test scores as part of their evaluation.

Ask anyone with a working knowledge of a classroom and they will tell you the many reasons why this will not improve education. Having teachers use test results to inform their instruction is a much better idea. Teachers and administrators have been working for the last two years to develop a new teacher- and principal-evaluation system that will be in place by 2013. Using research, best practices, pilot data and surveys, they are developing a system that will lead to improved teaching, learning and leadership.

It will be a fair and well-thought-out system. This is the correct way to work toward solving a complicated problem.

— Julie Reeder, Seattle

Listen to classroom teachers

The Seattle Times editorial board consistently publishes negative, inaccurate, and now intimidating education editorials including photos of legislators who dare to question charter schools and use of student achievement in teacher evaluations.

These legislators, along with teaching professionals, know charter schools drain limited finances. Fully fund the schools we have rather than gamble on alternatives with few proven results.

Evaluations based on student achievement are unreliable, evaluation of teaching practices are reliable and measurable. Teachers cannot control free will and outside factors. If this were the case, refunds of the child-tax credit could be tied to good behavior, since parents could be held accountable for their kids. Teachers cannot make someone perform any more than a parent can make a child behave.

To write, “the teacher’s union and the Democrats that do their bidding” is ridiculous. These legislators simply take time to listen to classroom teachers. Ask us what we need to succeed, provide proper funding and improvements will follow.

— Gail Bauman, Seattle

State testing is a valuable tool but there are more factors involved

Regarding The Seattle Times editorial board’s comments about teacher evaluations for holding teachers accountable using student-growth measures, state test scores are not the means for achieving this goal. One reason is that test scores show patterns over three to four years. A single test score is not a good measure of a teacher’s effectiveness. Another reason is that all subjects are not tested every year.

Science is only tested in fifth, eighth and 10th grades. Social studies is not tested at all. How will we evaluate a teacher for whom their particular subject is not tested in a given year?

There are many factors that influence student achievement, and therefore, test scores. Support at home, family-income level, and attendance all influence a student’s ability to achieve.

These are factors over which teachers have no control, but which will influence the evaluation of their effectiveness.

If teacher evaluations are connected to test scores, teachers will adapt by teaching to the test, removing broader and deeper exploration of the subject. This could lead, in extreme cases, to cheating. State testing is a valuable tool when used in conjunction with other assessment tools, but as a tool for evaluating teachers, it is the wrong tool.

— Scott and Telly Presho, Brier

Library's decision to block porn

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:55:31 PST

How times have changed

When I was growing up, pornography was illegal — we didn’t stop it, but it was kept it out of the public eye [“Library’s right call on porn ban,” Opinion, Feb. 5]. Things change, of course, and today we find not only that pornography is legal, but that apparently people have a right to view it in our libraries at taxpayer expense. I agree with Danny Westneat that it’s hard to draw lines between issues that are often matters of degree.

When does art become pornography? When does a single cell become a human being? Should the right to bear arms include the right to own an assault weapon? But one can’t always answer such questions by taking the position that “It’s too hard to decide or I don’t trust anyone or any institution to make such a decision, so let’s just allow everything.”

Taxpayer funds should be used for activities that have value for society. The question is “What value does pornography have for society that we as taxpayers should be funding it?”

— Dave Miller, Issaquah

Is the library a safe place for children?

The King County Library system appears to value protecting patron privacy at the cost of patron safety. The library is supposed to be a safe place for our children to go without having to worry about pedophiles and sexual predators. Viewing pornography on a library computer should raise a red flag!

It doesn’t surprise me that King County has taken a policy of protecting patron privacy at the risk of patron safety. In May 2011 Bill Ptacek, director of the county library system stated, “We believe intellectual freedom is the important part, so we got out of the camera business.”

This announcement occurred shortly after a 77-year-old man was assaulted in the Woodmont Library parking lot in Des Moines. The King County Library refused to turn over the videotape involving the Woodmont assault, thus requiring a search warrant.

Parents should think twice about allowing their children to spend unsupervised time in a library where adult media is available. The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) won’t protect our children from an adult patron hyped up and sexually stimulated after viewing raw pornography.

— Bill Bytheway, Renton

We can always move the computers

Libraries can reconfigure their computer bays fairly easily. Banks of computer near the children’s sections could be labeled as being limited with filters so children are not disturbed, and other computer banks can be labeled as unfiltered.

Those that are not near children’s books don’t need to be altered. Why must it always be all or nothing? Easy compromises can protect the children and make computer access unfettered as long as it’s not right near by.

— Miryam Gordon, Seattle

What about plastic screens?

With regard to viewing of questionable material on library computers, the King County Library System puts a plastic screen over each monitor, which allows viewing by the user without anyone standing beside or passing behind the user to see the images. This preserves both the user’s rights and the accidental onlooker’s decency.

— Howard F. Heller, Seattle

Tuition rates affect prepaid students

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:54:19 PST

Think about families

I was disturbed to read the article in the Tuesday Jan. 31 edition of The Seattle Times about proposed differential-tuition rates, and the effect that it will have on families who use the GET program to prepay tuition [“Differing tuition rates could sting those who prepay,” NWTuesday, Jan. 31]. The article characterized the proposal as a “sting,” and State Sen. Jim Kastama called it a “bait and switch.”

Our family will be one of those affected by the proposal. We are contributing almost $71,000 into the GET program in lump-sum and custom-monthly payments over the next 13 years to send our 5-year-old son to college. I thought that this program was backed by the full faith and credit of the state of Washington. I am very upset that there appears to be an effort to devalue our contributions.

Please do all that you can to keep the GET program solvent, and to keep its promise that 100 units will pay for a year of education. Our family cannot afford to make a $71,000 mistake. Our son is depending on us.

— John Witters, Everett

Komen foundation changes mind about Planned Parenthood

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:52:22 PST

Remember the First Amendment

Thank you for the excellent coverage of the Komen foundation controversy. In the article “Komen does about-face on funding cuts,” [page one, Feb. 4], I quote Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family: “strong-arm tactics employed by pro-abortion allies of Planned Parenthood.” As a longtime ally of Planned Parenthood, I resent her use of the phrase “pro-abortion” to describe myself and other allies.

Very few women in the USA are pro-abortion — they are, more accurately, pro-choice, meaning we allow each woman to have control of her own viable body regarding the nonviable being in her charge. In fact, speaking for the many women I’ve known or read over decades, it is most often a difficult choice, one that heavily weighs the pros and cons of this serious decision. In fact, PP is a caring organization that only used 3 percent of its services for abortions in 2010.

Focus on the Family is an extremist group that is trying to foist its religious beliefs on all American women. I am so thankful that over two centuries ago our forefathers had the wisdom to write into our First Amendment the importance of separation of church and state. If one’s religion does not allow abortion, don’t have one. But don’t “strong-arm” citizens who are pro-choice to share your religious beliefs.

— Janis Krug, Seattle

This was not a bad public-relations move

Enough, already, with this futile attempt to paint the “Komen/Planned Parenthood” dust-up as just a bad PR move, that sullied a previously viable “brand name!” [“Komen for the Cure: from pink to red-faced,” Opinion, Feb. 6]. Such abominable “PR speak” has very little to do with what actually happened, as anyone with even the slightest clue about what has been going on for the last 30 years will easily recognize.

It does not take a leap of the imagination to see that Komen’s original move was a calculated attempt to curry favor with well-heeled right-wing donors, who have most of the money and use that wealth as a pitiless weapon to extract exactly what they want from our society. The rest of us were initially of little concern to Komen in this death struggle for resources, since the transfer of disposable wealth from the vast middle class to the increasingly consolidated oligarchy is almost complete.

No doubt, Komen got its marching orders from some rabidly reactionary tycoon, who saw this as the perfect opportunity to smash one of the last vestiges of liberal civil society.

If consolidation of wealth wasn’t such a ratchet, I’d be more encouraged by the public backlash against this blatant attempt by the 1 percent to impose their despicable cultural vision on the rest of us.

Unfortunately, they and their money will be back, unless we find the will to restrain their economic domination.

— Guy Hoyle-Dodson, Lacey

It will take years to regain the public’s trust

The Komen foundation has reversed its misbegotten decision to withdraw support from Planned Parenthood. That’s a necessary first step in resurrecting its formerly stellar reputation. Now the foundation needs to take the next step: restructure the board so that it will never again pander to political pressure in its decisions.

First, Karen Handel, whose political past and public agenda of eradicating Planned Parenthood should have kept her from being on the board in the first place, must go.

She should do the honorable thing and resign, but absent a resignation, the board should dismiss her. Any other board member who supported the notorious policy change should also resign.

The Komen foundation has been severely tainted by this sad episode, and it will take years of ongoing effort to regain the public’s trust. It’s not enough simply to reverse course in the face of overwhelming public pressure; Komen’s leadership will have to be proactive in defining its future.

There is no room for small-minded political pressure in this effort to save lives, and Susan Komen herself would never have stood for it.

— Roberta Scholz, Edmonds

This just illustrates how broken our health-care system is

The recent events surrounding the Susan G. Komen foundation illustrate how broken our health-care system is. The fact the most vulnerable among us have to rely on the political whims of such organizations or the generosity of donors to Planned Parenthood for basic health-care screening is a travesty.

The U.S. is the only Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country that does not provide health care to all its citizens. All other such nations consider health care to be a right, not a privilege. In no other developed nation do people worry about whether they are one illness or injury from becoming bankrupt, or worse yet, dying because they cannot afford to pay their medical expenses.

Our system ranks lower than others on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes. The solution is extending Medicare to all Americans.

This was the original intent behind Medicare and is long overdue.

— Sallee Carlson, Redmond

Starbucks opens stores in India

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:05:59 PST

This will be a very successful venture

Editor, The Times:

I am referring to the article “Starbucks finally readies passage to India market,” [page one, Jan 31]. It is interesting to note that India is one of the fastest developing countries. No wonder Starbucks is opening 50 locations in New Delhi and Mumbai.

I am sure we will see lot more in coming years. Although the black tea got famous during the British era; but coffee has also been cultivated widely. Himalayan Coffee House that mostly served espresso coffee has been in business for a long time in India.

I am sure Starbucks will also be a very successful venture in India.

Companies that have grown have realized that the only way to flourish is by reaching other communities. Even Microsoft has hired lots of Indians. The new Indian stores and Indian market and restaurants in Redmond and Bellevue is a sure sign of growing Indian population.

Lot of businesses are turning to meet the needs of these communities to achieve their business goals. A few years back, I was buying most of my groceries from Vancouver, Canada. The exchange rate being very good, I would make my trip almost every month. Today, because of the weak exchange rate and nice Indian stores, I hardly cross the border.

— Sarab Singh, editor, Aasra Punjabi English Magazine

Donald Trump endorses Mitt Romney

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:03:37 PST

Any politician who gets a Trump endorsement deserves our pity

It is clear to the most moderately intelligent observer that the GOP has already ceded the 2012 election to President Barack Obama. [“Mitt trumps Newt in nod from Donald,” News, Feb. 3].

The party’s serious candidates, Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Gen. David Petraeus, defer until 2016. This leaves the Republican stage crowded with clowns and losers. Newt Gingrich was rejected by his own party in a previous Congress. Rick Santorum lost his last election by double digits. Donald Trump and Willard Mitt Romney can only be regarded as Marie Antoinettes in gray flannel.

It is sad to see the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower brought down to the level of vaudeville. Any politician who grovels before Trump to get an endorsement deserves our pity, but surely not our vote.

— Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom

State liquor privatization

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:02:15 PST

My concern is for public safety

On Feb. 2, a letter writer wrote concerning Washington’s liquor store privatization. [“War for profits with liquor privatization in Washington,” Northwest Voices, Feb. 2]. She felt that we voted with our pocketbooks instead of our brains and our hearts.

Voting with your heart is a luxury reserved for the irresponsible members of society, who survive on welfare and social programs. Those who work and pay for all those handouts frequently vote with our pocketbooks.

Her claim that higher social and medical costs will increase is without merit since approximately 45 other states do not have state-run liquor stores, and there is no drastic difference in these costs.

She also claims the people who approved this initiative will be responsible for the pain and suffering of people including alcohol abusers, addicts, their families, friends and victims.

I don’t feel at all responsible. It’s not my fault that some people are stupid. That’s why the word “personal” is included in “personal responsibility.”

My sincere concern for public safety, as well as my pocketbook, influenced my support for eliminating the state-run stores. More drunken vagrants will beg for change near the numerous stores that sell liquor rather than on highway exits, which greatly reduces their chance of being hit by a car running into the road to get their money for booze.

— Dennis Doucette, Auburn

Gay marriage bill passes in the Senate

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:01:14 PST

Enough already, there are more important issues for us to focus on

For several weeks now, the residents of Washington state have been repeatedly bombarded by the media with news stories, front-page headlines and multiple editorials promoting/endorsing same-sex marriage. Why? [“Historic vote clears way for same-sex marriage,” Opinion, Feb. 2].

Because it is a “hot button,” contentious, controversial and divisive subject that helps sell their product. And because a couple of vocal, self-serving homosexual state legislators from Seattle (Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Pedersen) have made the subject a single-agenda item this session, putting enormous pressure on their colleagues for political support and seeking the endorsement of a lame-duck governor who, were she up for re-election, likely wouldn’t touch it.

On the scale of issues facing state government, the same-sex marriage matter is trivial. Murray and Pedersen ought to be ashamed of themselves, as they have wasted valuable time and taxpayer resources supplanting the real and important issues facing this state they ought to be addressing and giving top priority to fixing a badly damaged state budget, repairing a crumbling educational system, overhauling a grossly inadequate and unfair tax structure, and a host of other critical issues that demand their attention.

And what have we/they gained from all of this uproar, other than a “feel good” law that really doesn’t change anything? Their efforts have been argued and justified on the basis that same-sex marriage is a “civil right,” is a “good thing for families,” and is “the right thing to do.”

But is it really? The “everything but marriage” law passed in 2009 already provides virtually all of the legal rights, privileges and safeguards to same-sex couples in Washington that opposite-sex married couples benefit from. Making same-sex marriage “legal” effectively changes nothing, but it does provoke a lot of continuing angst.

It is practically a given that the same-sex marriage law will pass this session, but will immediately be challenged by a statewide referendum or initiative that will put the issue to a public vote on the November ballot. Predictably, there are more very nasty battles ahead that will have to be fought instead of doing the state’s business, thus more time and resources wasted. If it then passes because the voters approve, then what?

Put into perspective, even if voters do endorse the law come November and same-sex marriage is affirmed legal in Washington, it is still illegal and therefore meaningless in 43 other states thus far, not to mention in most of the rest of the world. It is a safe bet that same-sex marriage will never — at least in the lifetimes of everyone alive in the USA at the moment — become the accepted “Law of the Land.”

— Bruce Elliot, La Conner

Who is to blame for the federal deficit?

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:00:01 PST

This is just like a train wreak

The article, “Breaking down claims about who grew the federal deficit” [News], created by The Washington Post and included in the Feb. 2 issue of The Seattle Times was a breath of fresh air.

The United States economy, the world’s largest, is like a very large train heading down the tracks with failed breaks when it goes into a recession or depression. It takes a great deal of effort to first stop the train, then getting it started again in the right direction. The huge deficit compounds the problems the Obama administration was, and still is, faced with. It appears the train has finally been stopped and is starting to move in the right direction.

This article clearly shows where to place the blame for the substantial increase in the deficit, an increase many times that created by the Obama administration in its attempts to regenerate the economy. If Congress had eliminated the Bush tax cuts, Obama’s deficit contribution to date would be $363 billion instead of $983 billion vs. the Bush administration and Republican policies which added $5.1 trillion.

— David Nordfors, Seattle

University presidents upset about higher-education cutbacks

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:58:44 PST

Why is it the federal government’s job?

I feel it boldly disingenuous for The Seattle Times to sponsor a forum of well-paid university presidents to bemoan the underfunding of higher education, [“University presidents lament cuts, brain drain,” page one, Feb. 2].

If my memory serves it was The Seattle Times editorial board that stood at the center of the opposition to Washington establishing a state-income tax specifically to support higher-education funding.

The prevailing argument at the time was that we need to keep a business friendly tax atmosphere in Washington to attract skilled workers. Because the moneyed interests in Washington don’t want to be taxed to educate our kids. So let other states educate our work force. The result is now being felt by our residents and young people who want to obtain an education in Washington.

They will have to pay double the tuition or more. I differ with President Michael Young that President Barack Obama was wrong to comment on this inadequacy in funding. If states reduce fulfilling their obligation to higher education, why should the federal government cover the gap?

— Thom McClure, Seattle

Bruce Ramsey's column about the Sounder North train

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:57:29 PST

Sounder North needs more parking options

I am responding to Bruce Ramsey’s column, “Sounding off on Sounder North” [Opinion, Feb. 1]. Ramsey suggests that the Sounder North route is not cost-effective and riders should instead take the many available buses.

Ramsey’s analysis is flawed. It assumes that the number of Sounder North riders is static, there is extra capacity on the bus routes, and there are no other impacts, positive or negative, of the choices riders make. Those are all false premises. The issue is that the Sounder North is underutilized, not because there is insufficient potential ridership but because Sound Transit provides inadequate parking for Sounder riders, and they are turned away.

Trains entail high fixed costs, but low-operational costs. Adding riders costs next to nothing — just a space to park. Each additional rider brings in revenue without adding to congestion. Increasing bus ridership crowds buses, eventually requiring more vehicles, and fills up express lanes. At worst, it forces cars onto the roadways all the way to Seattle.

For the benefit of the would-be train riders, the current highway drivers and bus riders, and the local business people, Sound Transit should ensure that Sounders are used more, not less.

— Rachel Nugent, Edmonds

This is an unwise expenditure of taxpayer funds

If the figures Bruce Ramsey reports are correct, then the subsidy of Sounder North, over and above that received by the express-bus system, comes to around $17,000 per rail patron per year. While, no doubt, the train has an amenity value, in a time of fiscal austerity, this is pretty clearly an unwise expenditure of taxpayer funds.

— Donald F. Padelford, Seattle

Health mandate to include birth control

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:55:25 PST

This is a great step forward for the health of all women

The Obama administration recently ruled that health insurance plans must include contraception among the preventive services available to women without deductibles or co-pays under the new health-care law [“Contraception mandate outrages religious groups,” Health, seattletimes.com, Feb. 3].

This decision does not force doctors to prescribe contraception, or a woman to use it. Instead, it makes contraception affordable for many women who otherwise would not be able to afford it. As a nurse, I know this is a great step forward for the health of all women.

Despite the fact that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception, some in the religious community are demanding that the current exemption for churches and religious organizations be expanded to include colleges, hospitals and social service agencies. This would be a disastrous decision for women’s health.

This issue goes to the heart of the personal-health decisions a woman makes with her doctor and care team, not her employer. As a Catholic, my grandmother died giving birth to her eighth child in so many years, and my mother had 10 pregnancies within less than 12 years. With birth control, their pregnancies could have been spaced so as to minimize the extreme physical, emotional, financial and psychological toll placed upon our family.

As a nurse, I know the decision not to expand the exception was the right one — as a matter of public health, respect for individual conscience and simple fairness to Washington women and their families.

This politicalizing from the pulpit, however, is one of the reasons why I struggle with my Catholic faith.

— Mary McNaughton, registered nurse, Everett

This is a threat to our fundamental freedoms

The recent news about the Health and Human Services mandate gives one something to, shall we say, pause over. I find this move very interesting. For those of us who are disturbed by this mandate, the issue is not simply abortion; it is that our government, while arguing that it is defending a woman’s right to choose, this mandate is going to deny that same right of conscience to those of us, men and women, who believe that all life is sacred, from conception to natural death..

The government, according to our founding documents, lacks the legitimacy, or the power to do what is being threatened by the Health and Human Services Mandate. It does not have the competency to do so.

The disagreement between us in this matter is about much more than just the life issues. We disagree on fundamental Constitutional, democratic principles. The right of conscience applies to all moral, political and social justice issues, not just the life issues. That is why this is, and will continue to be, a legitimate debate, not a forgone conclusion.

This is not just a mandate, it is a mortal threat to fundamental freedoms. You give government this kind of power and you no longer live in a democracy.

— Daniel J. Doyle, Edmonds

Susan G. Komen foundation stops funding to Planned Parenthood

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:12:42 PST

The money will still be used for women’s health

Editor, The Times:

I see from The Seattle Times’ front-page article that Sen. Patty Murray is up in arms about Susan G. Komen’s decision — claiming disappointment that politics comes between women and their health-care needs [“Komen stops all grants to Planned Parenthood,” page one, Feb. 1].

What? Does Murray think that, because the money is not going to Planned Parenthood, that Komen won’t make sure it is used to enhance health care for women? The money will be used for that purpose, we can be sure.

Too bad Murray isn’t as concerned about the health of the babies Planned Parenthood helps kill.

— John Darrow, Fall City

This is another example of right-wing politics

Disturbing as it is, the Susan G. Komen foundation withdrawal from funding mammograms should come as no surprise since their new head has a far-right, intolerant view of the health needs of women.

What is surprising is that so many people have bought into the myth that this huge profitable business with its massively successful pink campaign is a proponent of women’s health.

I am a proud supporter of Planned Parenthood and am appalled that right-wing politics has again compromised the health of women.

— Nancy Pennington, Seattle

This is a shameful display of buckling under political pressure

Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” The Susan G. Komen foundation has been supported by people of all walks of if life, regardless of political or religious persuasion or ethnic background etc.

Wait until the message of the foundation’s mindless decision of “convicting before the facts are in” sinks in with the supporting public!

What a shameful display of buckling under political pressure without proof!

— Ruth R. Quiban, Seattle

The money isn’t gone, it’s just behind a different door

Susan G. Komen reportedly stops its grant to Planned Parenthood. The Seattle Times reports that Sen. Patty Murry is disappointed that politics comes between women and health care. But we know anytime a powerful lobbying group is being gifted hundreds of thousands for some altruistic purpose, you can bet politics is already between the money and the consumer.

Not to worry. The way this works is that when one organization, such as Planned Parenthood, no longer qualifies for grant money, there is still a very good chance the same money will be available to other organizations for the same purpose.

It’s not gone, Patty. It’s just behind a different door.

— Daniel Pryor, Bothell

Are charter schools the best solution?

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:09:10 PST

State law and implementation matter

With respect to my UW colleague, Wayne Au misreads the evidence on charter-school research [“The false promise of charter schools,” Opinion, Jan. 31].

Au is correct that charter-school performance varies from state to state. This is necessarily true given that states have taken very different approaches to charter law and implementation.

But despite Au’s assertions, the charter record for urban and low-income kids is actually quite good and consistent.

There are inappropriate conclusions throughout Au’s commentary. For example, he dismisses Knowledge Is Power Program’s results on the assertion that some students leave. All of the recent KIPP studies have accounted for student turnover and still show unprecedented results for low-income students. Au also fails to cite strong charter results in New York City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Denver and many other cities.

It’s tempting to get pulled into the drama of selective studies to support one’s point. But to inform policy, it’s essential to look at the body of evidence from rigorous studies. When that’s done it’s clear that low-income kids benefit nationally from charters. And in some cities, it’s by impressive margins.

Even the CREDO study that Au cites shows that low-income/urban kids benefit from charters. CRPE commissioned a meta-analysis (a review of all rigorous studies) from Julian Betts, one of the top evaluation experts in the country. Betts found that charter schools tend to outperform district schools, particularly for low-income students.

In the end, the record on charter-school outcomes points to an important conclusion: state law and implementation matter.

Done right, charters can overcome most of the out-of-school factors Au cites, something that has rarely been achieved before in public education.

— Robin Lake, associate director, Center on Reinventing Public Education

Charter schools are not a fix for our education system

Wayne Au is correct — “charter schools are not a fix” for the challenges in the education system. In addition to not delivering improvements they also undermine already-in-place teaching standards and certification processes. Charter schools are nothing short of a full-frontal attack of our public-school teachers’ collective standards and rights.

In addition, there are grave discrepancies with public schools in their buildings and grounds. Charter facilities often are ill-suited for a broad educational experience.

Yes, some are good, but not enough.

— John A Richards, Tacoma

There are different rules for charter schools

Professor Wayne Au’s op-ed is right on — there is much about charter schools that the public doesn’t understand.

Charter-school boards lack public accountability. They can hire teaching staff with no credentials, they do not have to accept students with disabilities or health and behavior concerns. Of course this changes the whole educational picture, and makes comparing public schools and charter schools a farce.

Public schools accept every student. Students with serious health concerns, even those with life-threatening concerns, walk in our doors. School staff (nurse, counselor, psychologist) along with parents and medical-care providers make an Individual Health Plan, which that provides treatment and emergency care for that student so he/she is safe and healthy at school and can learn.

Charter schools take needed funding from public schools, yet do not have to play by the same rules.

What’s wrong with this picture?

— Mary Kathryn Myers, Kent

Mother protests porn viewing at library

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:07:37 PST

Protecting our public

Regarding the mother who protested the viewing of pornography on the library computers in the public areas of the library, I support you. [“Mother challenges viewing of Internet porn at library, NWWednesday, Feb. 1.]

Unless people like you speak up, we cede the public spaces and life of the city to the lowest common denominator.

The library administration should “man up” to its responsibilities for providing a safe and acceptable public environment for all citizens. We do not allow public urination even though some have claimed it was an act of self expression, or a protest against the lack of public restrooms, or many another specious argument. Society has a legitimate interest in providing and maintaining a safe and welcoming environment in public common areas.

The library leaves it up to the viewer to choose to use viewing privacy shields. That is a duplicitous dodge since the primary purpose of the screens is to allow the private viewer freedom from embarrassment at being seen watching porno. Better they screen off an area reserved for porno and restrict it to ages 18 and above, as we do for strip joints.

If the adult patron doesn’t use the privacy shields to keep his porno viewing private, he can hardly protest embarrassment at being moved to the over-18 viewing area.

The library reflects a lazy view of its public duty, and an unwillingness to do what adults like this mother has done — confront uncomfortable problems rather than pass the buck. It has a duty to provide a nonthreatening sexually safe environment every much as binding on it as an employer who must provide a workplace free of sexual harassment and threatening behavior.

At the very least, it should be paying for the psychological counseling this girl may now require.

— Paul Post, Seattle

We need to protect our children

I still feel sick to my stomach and sick at heart after reading Wednesday’s article by Erik Lacitis featuring the experience of the Seattle mom and her 10-year-old daughter who saw images of Internet porn being viewed at the Lakewood branch of the Seattle Public Library.

Why is the of viewing of pornography in a public place even allowed under “constitutionally protected material”?

There is no going back to 10-year-old innocence for this child. Our priority of extreme individual rights has allowed great harm.

If a child’s toy causes injury, or worse, it is immediately taken off the market yet we allow public porn to cause great harm to a child. Why the disconnect?

It is a no brainer in every sense of the word! Pornography in private is having an enormously damaging effect on individuals, families and society but surely we can care for and protect our children and others in public places.

— Jeanette Krantz, Tukwila

Is this really covered under the First Amendment?

I’m all in favor of free speech, and I admire the Seattle Public Library’s commitment to the First Amendment. But surely we can all agree that there are sensible limits to expression that won’t endanger anyone’s fundamental rights.

Does the First Amendment guarantee a person’s right to shriek “Fire!” in a crowded theater? Does the First Amendment guarantee the right of students to swear at teachers during class? Does the First Amendment guarantee the right of dirty old men to watch porno in the public library?

Of course not.

Like Maria Howe, I, too, was shocked to walk past screens full of porno at my local library branch — really crude, disgusting stuff, within view of the nearby children reading “Curious George.”

When I complained to library staff, I, too, was told that the men were simply enjoying their free-speech rights.

I was flabbergasted.

According to the article, library spokeswoman Andra Addison says library has installed “privacy screens” on its computers. I can attest that they don’t work.

Addison says the library might move the computers to a more discreet location. Might I suggest a dark closet in the basement?

— Ben Stocking, Seattle

Why is porn any different from bars and strip clubs?

Bars and strip clubs can’t be built within half a mile of a school or church, but an individual can watch porn publicly in a library?

Our leaders need to step up and take a stand for society’s rights.

— Terry Slaton, Federal Way

Marriage equality for same-sex couples editorial

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:05:49 PST

This is a pro-family campaign

Washington state is ready to offer marriage equality for LGBT and straight couples — in both name and in practice [“Lawmakers — step up for same-sex marriage,” Opinion, Jan. 31].

Marriage is about respect, dignity, love and commitment. This is the ultimate pro-family campaign.

As families across the state struggle to hold and find jobs, and to keep their families warm and safe, we can take this step to make sure that all families are protected and included in our social and economic systems.

The foundation of marriage helps build stable families. All couples in loving and committed relationships should be given the opportunity to create stronger and more successful families through civil marriage.

We want to be very clear: We are asking for civil marriage. If lesbian and gay marriages are legalized, churches still would not be required to perform them just as the First Amendment protects. Lesbian and gay couples who marry in civil ceremonies would be recognized by the state.

The respect, protection and commitment that marriage represents should be available to all loving couples in Washington.

Though we come from different parts of Washington state, we are united in ensuring that all Washingtonians can build a loving family, which is recognized under the law, with the person of our choosing.

There is growing support across the state to strengthen families and give all couples the chance to show their love and commitment through civil marriage — including the name. Across Washington state and the nation, the majority of citizens now support marriage equality.

Now is the time for marriage equality in Washington state!

— Brandon Arkell, Seattle

The state should support traditional marriage

I believe it is a compassionate instinct to fight against discrimination. However, it is not discrimination to say a father cannot be a biological mother, a mother cannot be a biological father, and a child cannot be a child without a biological mother and father.

This is the natural order, not discrimination. Religion aside, because it takes a couple decades to raise children into adulthood, throughout the centuries marriage has been best understood as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. Everyone can have a best friend.

Marriage is something more. I don’t think the state needs to give special recognition and help to those who declare publicly that they have a best friend other than what can be perhaps better stated in a living will or other legal documents.

It does make sense for the state to give special recognition and help to married couples who raise families because of the common good of having a next generation and the considerable sacrifices involved with this vocation.

It is in the state’s best interest to support traditional marriage because kids are better off growing up in households with the rich guidance and perspective of both a mother and a father. I believe the state would be better off spending more time on helping single parents and supporting adoption services for married couples who cannot have children.

— Frank Schuster, pastor, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta Parish, Woodinville

Marriage equality is about families

By the time our 1-year-old daughter is old enough to talk about marriage equality, I sincerely hope my husband and I will be able to tell her that our family’s second-class citizenship is a relic of a bygone era. The psychological harm caused by second-class status is not readily understood by people who have not walked in our shoes, which allows them to trivialize it.

All we are asking from the state is civil equality for our family, nothing more or less. Those who oppose our civil equality have passionate opinions, but otherwise they have no personal stake in the passage or failure of marriage-equality legislation. My marriage, regardless of its civil status, has absolutely no bearing on anyone else’s marriage, family security, or livelihood.

So let this be clear: Marriage equality is about my family and thousands of families like mine. Why should my daughter suffer second-class citizenship just because some people are uncomfortable with her family structure?

— David Simonton, Seattle

Apple's decision not to build in the U.S.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:04:34 PST

It is the U.S. consumer’s fault, not Apple’s

Although I agree with the sentiments expressed in Jon Talton’s piece criticizing Steve Jobs for not building Apple’s iPad in the U.S., the fact is, Jobs would have been fired if he did [“Yes, we can bring those jobs back here,” Business, Jan. 29].

As a 25-year manufacturing veteran, I can tell you that world prices are set by the cost of manufacturing them in Asia ... nowhere else. If Jobs built the iPad in the U.S., he would have priced it at $1200 instead of $750, and yes, he would have sold a lot of them.

But six months later, Samsung (Korea) would have had a look-alike for $500; the huge price difference would cause Apple to lose market share; and Jobs would have been fired.

The culprit here is the U.S. consumer. They have shown time and time again that price sells. Witness the incredible rise of Kia and Hyundai automobiles.

While we are all whining about the loss of U.S. jobs, we continue to buy up every car they can build.

— Darrell Igelmund, Newcastle

We need worker safety

“Behind sleek iPad lurks gritty facts” [News, Jan. 26], was an eye opening article. It detailed the failure of the Apple Corporation to ensure decent working conditions and worker safety in its supplier factories in China. The article focused on a tragic accident that occurred last May in Chengdu, China. An explosion took the lives of four workers and injured 18.

Apple, despite some serious efforts, has not been successful in demanding worker safety, even as it reaps billions of dollars in profit from its outsourced products. Nor is it able insist on modern working environments.

The best it can do is to tolerate sweatshop labor. One wonders why.

— Judy Coskey, Seattle

The Seattle Times' support for higher education

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:03:04 PST

We need more opportunities for students

The Seattle Times has taken a position in support of higher education. I agree with every word. [“Losing kids on the path to prosperity,” Opinion, Jan. 29.]

I am a proud parent of a student attending the University of Washington. When she was wait-listed her freshman year because of too few openings, I was angry that higher education was not adequately funded, especially after years of listening to high-school guidance counselors focusing on college preparation.

If the pressure is on students for higher achievement, then we must make opportunities available for them if they are willing to work. My daughter worked hard, but her teachers in the Lake Washington School District worked hard also on her behalf.

It is disheartening as a parent and as a public schoolteacher to read The Times position themselves opposed to K-12 funding [“Getting a handle on unfunded mandates,” Opinion, Feb. 1]. I wonder if the authors of these published opinions understand that the majority our higher-education scholars are prepared by public schools.

We need quality in these classrooms in the earliest grades to ensure students are ready to pursue college degrees. Quality continues to be good teachers and small class sizes. Everyone knows this. I refuse give up the idea that Washington students can have what they deserve.

— Laurie Giddings, Kirkland

We need to hear from teachers

We have heard from Seattle Times editors, Microsoft, education specialists, politicians, one student, etc.

Please, may we hear from teachers. They are the everyday experts. We need to hear from them, but no names, please. They have enough problems without being in trouble with parents, school board members, principals and opinion experts.

After we hear from teachers, it might be the principals’ turn.

We must hear from the people who are with our kids every day.

— Virginia Olsen, SeaTac

Senate passes same-sex marriage bill

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:24:52 PST

Marriage equality is a long overdue civil right

Editor, The Times:

This is an exciting time in Washington state, and in the life of our vibrant congregation [“Historic vote clears way for same-sex marriage,” page one, Feb. 2]. We appreciate elected officials in our state Legislature and on the Metropolitan King County Council who have taken a stand on the side of love, equality and justice. We are proud to be a congregation that has done similarly by unanimously endorsing marriage equality.

Marriage equality is a long overdue civil right. It eliminates another form of second-class citizenship. We look forward to offering our church as a venue to spiritually and legally officiate weddings for all couples who commit their love to one another. And we welcome a full diversity of families.

When confronted with an ethical or moral dilemma, many ask: “What would Jesus do?” On the issue of marriage equality, the majority of our representatives have done what we believe Jesus would have done. For that we are proud and grateful.

We remain steadfast in our stance on the side of love and justice.

— Peg Morgan, reverend, Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Seattle

Marriage is my right as a citizen

As a woman who is lesbian, I am grateful to the Senate for having passed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage. It just seems right that I am able to marry the person I love, since that is the basis for marriage.

Marriage equality exemplifies the natural evolution of a valued tradition. Expanding marriage to take shape according to the understanding of each generation has been the history of marriage in our country.

Recall what interracial couples faced in their struggle for the right to marry. Marriage is my right as a citizen. It is not a religious rite.

Churches can continue to hold their cherished rites around marriage. My right to marry the woman I love will not alter, hinder, diminish or attack the sacredness of marriage. On the contrary, there will be one more married couple committed to the principles and values held near and dear to all of us.

— Mary Catherine Dispenza, Bellevue

Susan G. Komen foundation cancels women's health funding

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:20:26 PST

This is a sad day for women everywhere

The recent decision by the Susan G. Komen foundation to stop funding for Planned Parenthood has stopped me in my tracks [“Komen stops all grants to Planned Parenthood,” page one, Feb. 1].

For over 20 years, Komen was the gold plate for women’s fight for breast cancer prevention, awareness and race for the cure; an organization to help us as women.

My mother has been a breast cancer survivor for 23 years. I lost a dear friend at the age of 55 after a five-year battle. My neighbor is in remission.

Breast cancer, as we all know, doesn’t discriminate. There is not a person alive who hasn’t been touched by this and if there was one foundation that gave us hope it was Komen.

Once more women’s health is under attack and Komen has joined the race. Now that their political biases have been aired, I will never donate again. I will not walk or sponsor or wear their colors. This was a sad day for women everywhere.

Shame on Komen for turning an organization that helped women into another political wheel to divide the nation and spread distrust.

— Sandi Lynden, Kent

The pink ribbon has turned black

Shame on Susan Komen. Since when do you get to say what is right or not right for any woman and her choice? I have never had nor would have an abortion — but it’s not my decision to tell you or any other woman what they can or cannot do with their body. Many of us fought hard for that right.

Planned Parenthood has been around for years and has helped thousands of women. No one is ever turned away for lack of funds.

I had my first exam there when I was newly married to a military man and we had no money. It was a very positive experience. And I have always support them and you.

Now you make me choose and therefore I will no longer support the Susan G. Komen Foundation in any way. So who loses here? We all know it will be the very people Komen wanted to help, and once again women and their right to make their own decisions regarding their body.

This is a sad day; the pink ribbon has turned black.

— Nancy Beaumont, Edmonds

The decision to stop funding is ironic

The decision of the Susan G. Komen foundation to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s breast screening and referral services is ironic. What better way to reduce the impact of breast cancer than to expand access to care, at locations that women frequent and trust?

And their reasoning to deny funds based on a current “investigation” is even more questionable given that the investigation is being called for by a longtime foe of a woman’s right to choose, and backed by a prominent right-to-life group.

I think it’s time for Komen to “investigate” its board and their administration instead.

— Brian Giddens, Seattle

Planned Parenthood was not the best organization for the funding

I take issue with our Sen. Patty Murray who is quoted as saying the investigation into the use of $487 million tax dollars from government grants and reimbursements to Planned Parenthood is “shameful.”

Let’s consider the facts: eleven states have eliminated or decreased funding to PP and redirected resources to other health-care providers; four states are investigating PP for overpricing and/or improperly billing drugs that are being reimbursed from tax dollars; PP has admitted firing or retraining staff who didn’t report underage sexual abuse; PP has not been forthcoming with document requests.

Even former employees, including a former clinic director, have volunteered to testify regarding abuses. I admire the Susan G. Komen staff for shifting their breast cancer screening dollars away from an organization that is under state and federal investigation when there are other options.

— Margie Guppy, Tacoma

Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste site

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:17:50 PST

This is just another burden on the American taxpayer

The residents near Yucca Mountain don’t want nuclear waste stored there. The residents of the Tri-Cities don’t want nuclear waste stored at Hanford. [“Yucca Mountain,” Northwest Voices, Jan. 31].

Sounds like a clear case of “Not In My Back Yard.” They are both half right: There is no safe haven for nuclear waste, waste that must be kept isolated from all living things for hundreds of thousands of years.

Nuclear energy makes no sense for anyone other than the privately run utility companies, who profit from them. Besides the waste issue, there is the ever-present danger of a meltdown like what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the later of which is still leaking radioactive waste. It also costs more energy to produce nuclear power than energy derived from it, which is why all nuclear-power plants require government subsidies. Without them, they couldn’t afford to operate. And then there’s the billions of gallons of water required to cool the reactors.

Also, not one insurance company will insure nuclear power, which is why we have the Price Anderson Act, and more on us, on the American taxpayer, if there is an accident. Add to the insanity the danger of terrorists obtaining enough nuclear fission to build a dirty bomb, and even more burden on the American taxpayer to guard them.

— Christopher Anderson, Seattle

Nevada should not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste

Why should Nevada accept becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste from other states? The point shouldn’t be to find someplace out of our backyard to stash the trash; the point should be to stop making it.

Otherwise, nuclear companies’ stockholders should be made to eat it.

— Chris Nielsen, Shoreline

Guaranteed Education Tuition program hurts prepaid students

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:16:14 PST

State should honor its agreement

Regarding “Differing tuition rates could sting those who prepay,” [NWTuesday, Jan. 31], those who prepaid entered into an agreement with the state GET program in good faith.

Why would they enter into such a program if they suspected that the program would not honor the terms of the agreement?

The GET program should honor the terms of its agreement with those who have already prepaid and increase the fees for those who purchase the GET credits in the future.

— David Rudo, Seattle

How government is failing its students

That members of the Washington state Legislature are even considering reneging on the “guaranteed” portion of the GET (Guaranteed Education Tuition) program due to their own inability to properly fund public education in this state is ludicrous.

As well is the decision by The Seattle Times to bury this story in section B7, below the horoscopes and Daily Jumble.

Or is it simply the embarrassment the editors felt of a state government that not only fails to adequately meet the educational needs of its students, but, as State Sen. Jim Kastama so succinctly put it, engages in a “potential bait and switch."

— Susan M. Dolland, Federal Way

UW President Michael Young's anger over tuition

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:14:36 PST

A president cannot act that way

I was appalled to see that the new University of Washington president, Michael Young, used such intemperate language in his opinion of President Obama’s proposal to control tuition costs. [“Obama: Cut college costs or aid at risk,” News, Jan. 28.]

Young, in an article from The New York Times, reprinted in The Seattle Times, called the plan, “nonsense on stilts.”

It is exactly this type of sneering dismissal of any idea that has marked the congressional roadblock for years.

Why cannot our “leaders,” who, by the way, cost lots of taxpayer and tuition money, learn basic manners?

Young, as the president of a great university, of which I am a graduate, needs to show a bit more intellectual concupiscence for a better, more civil society.

— Jan Jarvis, Seattle

Private vs. public sector workers

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:13:21 PST

Why are both sectors earning so little?

In response to Andrew Taylor’s article in The Seattle Times regarding private sector versus federal-worker compensation [“Earnings of many federal workers top private sector,” News, Jan. 31].

The question should not be why federal workers are earning slightly higher wages than private-sector workers, but why private-sector workers are earning so little, and further, why wages in both sectors are so low.

Private-sector workers faced with diminishing paychecks and benefits should march to their corporate headquarters and demand to know why they have continued to cut wages and benefits at the same time they are reaping large profits and paying hefty bonuses to CEO’s who’s only job appears to be finding new ways to cut jobs and close offices.

The only thing that has given public-sector workers a slight, albeit fleeting, edge has been the balancing influence of labor unions. While all unions have diminished over the years it is the private-sector unions that have suffered most. Workers of large corporations have no one on their side to help remind their employers that the workforce is an integral partner in production.

To the corporation the workforce is merely another expendable factor within the line of production. We hear in the news the daily sob stories of huge corporations as they come crying to their workers saying, “We’re so very dreadfully sorry but we must make some difficult sacrifices if we are to be a player in the global marketplace.”

What this ultimately means is that they need us to work for under $5 per hour with no benefits, no overtime and no pension. Unfortunately for the working class that has been the trend for a couple of decades now. First they cut wages bit by bit, then benefits, then the whole job.

Public-sector unions are hanging by a thread. Once they’re gone there’ll be no stopping a quick cascade to the very bottom. Both public and private workers will be clinging to scraps of the same busted raft at the bottom of the falls with no way of getting back up.

— Greg McBrady, Seattle

The accidental oil spill angers fishermen

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:11:41 PST

We need to do something about this injustice

“Government harassment of dedicated environmentalist” should have been the front-page headline [“2 ounces and a ton of trouble,” NWWednesday, Feb. 1].

With all the pollution clogging our airways, water and arteries because of the lax regulation of industry, why slap $250 fines on a fishing boat owner for 2 ounces of oil?

Simple answer: Pressure by industry on politicians and government agencies to harass anyone who stands up to them, as Pete Knutson has been doing for decades. Why isn’t the Coast Guard going after cruise ships? Why isn’t the Department of Ecology fining anyone who drives a Hummer?

— Tom Ballard, Seattle

Oil spills happen all the time

It’s not surprising Pete Knutson was irritable about the response to his accidental spill of 2 ounces of hydraulic oil.

I’ve been around fishermen most of my life and they are an irritable group when anyone intrudes in their lives. Small spills like this happen in the marine environment — most are so small they dissipate before they can be reported or just aren’t noticed.

And most people, including commercial mariners, are conscientious about preventing spills. The issue with the Loki incident, I think, is the sheer mass of the response by both the state Department of Ecology and USCG to this small, accidental spill.

Wouldn’t it make sense for the state at least to modify our law to allow for a limited response to spills of less than 16 ounces — you know, the size of a grande latte?

Then we’d save all the fuel burned by those full-sized Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Coast Guard pickup trucks sitting at the top of the dock with their engines running while the investigators were down at the boat writing up the spill.

— Douglas Pratt, Seattle

Treat the environmentalist Knutson like Boeing!

Pete Knutson has to take responsibility for the oil spill, even if it truly was accidental. But why treat him different from Boeing or the cited hydraulic oil spill?

Given the lesser impact 32 ounces would have over 768,000 ounces, why would Knutson be treated differently than Boeing?

— Art Pederson, Seattle