Letters to the Editor

Normally, I'd never question the motivation of a man who voluntarily throws himself into combat and then performs heroically. John Kerry earned Silver and Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts. Impressive accomplishments. But what he did after that is what bothers me.

After maneuvering an early release from Vietnam, and an early discharge from the Navy to (admittedly) pursue his political career, he literally threw his medals back at his government. In a public protest of the war, Kerry threw them over the Capitol fence during a staged media event. Now, over 30 years later, he wants them back. We frequently see Democratic pundits discuss John Kerry "the war hero" and invoke his war record as an effort to "one up" George Bush. To that end, and for political expediency, it's OK now and even advantageous for him to be seen in uniform receiving medals from long ago, when at the time he wanted nothing to do with it. Seems rather disingenuous to me.

So, I urge caution in how one compares Kerry's service with the president's. There are about 1.2 million Reserve Component members in our armed forces today, and countless former members -- and they all vote. Democrats should be careful about suggesting George Bush's service in the Guard (and therefore everyone else's) was something less noble than Kerry's service. That tactic just might backfire, especially since Kerry's post-war conduct was something less than honorable.

Dennis Hunsinger
Langley

Senator's efforts are no service to Guard, regular military

As one who has two nephews serving in Iraq, one in the National Guard and the other regular Army, I am outraged at Sen. Patty Murray's persistent efforts to drive a wedge between these two fine groups whose members are facing danger daily in the service of their country. Her complaints about treatment of the Guard members, apparently in an effort to cull votes from their families, are bound to hurt morale and create friction between soldiers who will be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder, thereby increasing danger to them all.

Murray's proposal requiring the government to make up any difference between a federal employee's pay and what they are making in the Guard (and what about Guards who are not federal employees?) would create situations in which two soldiers of comparable rank and duties could be drawing substantially different pay. How's that for a blow to morale and comradeship? For shame, senator. Whose side are you on in the war against terror?

Ken Anderson
Richland

Guilt by association works for GOP as well as Dems

I read that some of my fellow Vietnam veterans are eager to distribute a photograph showing John Kerry and Jane Fonda seated several rows apart in the same large audience 34 years ago.

I hope that, if the Seattle Post-Intelligencer runs this photograph (as boring as it is), you will also run, right next to it, the photograph of Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's secretary of defense, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. If it's guilt by association you want, how's that?

As I tell my old platoon mates, our problem in Vietnam -- America's problem -- was not Jane Fonda. It was Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, etc., etc.

Steve Clements
Seattle

TODAY'S LANGUAGE

Bush's campaign manager had ulterior motive

I went to school back in the Dark Ages, when English grammar was still part of the curriculum. So I was galled to read that Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, has said, "The time for Mr. Bush to lay low is almost over."

My schoolmarms insisted that "lay" is a transitive verb, as in "hens lay eggs." People don't lay low; they lie low.

But I suspect there was a reason why Mehlman didn't want to use the words "lie" and "Bush" in the same sentence.

Ronald W. Angel
Bellevue

CHILDREN'S HEALTH

Washington children can't afford Medicaid premiums

Access to health care for poor children in our state is at risk. Recent changes in the state's Medicaid program and the program's plan to introduce premiums for Medicaid kids mean that many children have already lost coverage and many more are at risk for losing coverage.

In November alone, 10,000 children "dropped off" the Medicaid rolls. It is estimated that if premiums are imposed on top of the administrative changes already in place, the number of uninsured children in Washington will more than double. The result will be tens of thousands of children without access to important preventive services, including immunizations. Vaccine preventable diseases such as whooping cough that already cause severe illness in infants across our state will spread and will place all children, not just poor children, at risk. Having more uninsured children will also mean sicker kids with more emergency department visits and more inpatient hospitalizations.

Urgent action is needed to preserve access to healthcare for these children. We urge your readers to contact their state senators and representatives and ask them to eliminate Medicaid premiums for kids in the state budget. For more information on how to contact your legislators, go to www.leg.wa.gov or call the Washington State Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000.

Elinor Graham, M.D.

Diana Lindner, M.D.

Heather Lynch, M.D.

Gail Shapiro, M.D.
Steering Committee, Puget Sound Women's Pediatric Society

RECYCLING

Pacific Northwest far ahead of the rest of the country

It's not OK for Seattle to send trash to Oregon or even the Third World ("Toss out those myths about recycling," Thursday). Thankfully Seattle is finally catching up with the rest of the country. Olympia has a very successful program that, of course, greatly reduced trash, truck miles (through fewer trash pickups) and toxicity levels of our fill.

Also, new industries are now possible using the huge amounts of quality, free raw material. At Schnitzer Metals and several other large metal firms in Portland, recycling has always been big business. They pay by the pound for metal trash and work in conjunction with curbside efforts. They also produce some of the highest quality metals for industry available.

Seattle citizens are informed and usually capable of determining their own needs. Unsolicited environmental policy advice offered from the East Coast serves as little more than an amusing reminder of what the Northwest stands for and what we have accomplished outside the status quo of the rest of the country.

John Leclerc
Olympia

MAGNUSON PARK

Sports complex too large, too bright for lake's neighbors

Those "new wetland habitat areas" proposed for Magnuson Park would indeed cover more territory than the existing natural wetlands ("Let there be less light, Kirkland says," Wednesday). But the manmade wetlands would be a year-round lagoon, not the more typical seasonal wetlands.

Right now the park hosts 170 species of birds, small mammals and amphibians. A permanent lagoon would attract new inhabitants -- creatures such as Canada geese, mosquitoes and bullfrogs, which would devour the native tree frogs now living in the park.

Besides, most "constructed" wetlands are doomed to fail. Nationwide statistics indicate that only 20 percent of "constructed" wetlands successfully carry out their replacement purpose. The figures for success in King County are an even more dismal 12 1/2 percent.

The footprint of the proposed Magnuson sports complex is larger than Safeco Field. Its glow would light up the sky for miles, not as "a little circle of light" as a Parks Department spokeswoman claimed in Wednesday's article.

These are compelling reasons why the Magnuson plan would be a disaster and the City Council should vote against it.

Peggy J. Printz
Seattle

PROPERTY TAXES

Supermajority requirement levels the playing field

I am puzzled by the unqualified support for eliminating the supermajority requirement for tax levies that I have seen recently in the P-I's Editorial and Letters to the Editor sections. Most tax levies are paid for by property taxes. Many voters do not own property and therefore do not pay property taxes. It seems grossly unfair for a person who does not have to pay a tax to have the ability to subject another person to that tax.

Yet, in a vote where 50 percent or more of the voters favor the tax levy but less than 50 percent of those voters are property owners, that is exactly what would happen. Ideally, only taxpayers subject to a tax levy should be eligible to vote on it. That is probably not feasible in our voting system as it currently exists.

What is feasible is a system that levels the playing field by requiring a 60 percent supermajority. I suspect that the legislators who authored the current supermajority requirement were trying to do just that. A simple majority should be considered when all voters are subject to paying for the tax levy. In all other instances, the supermajority requirement needs to be met.

Leo Schilling
Bainbridge Island

Add P-I Opinion headlines to