Letters to the Editor

Thank you and congratulations for printing Andrew Gumbel's "U.S. media providing distorted view of Mideast conflict" (Aug. 20). I often tune into KBCS radio's "Democracy Now," to catch Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez's report, and I'm flabbergasted that only a minute fraction of the varied perspectives they feature ever make it to the American print media.

How can Americans get a realistic picture of world news when we are fed only one view? How can we possibly evaluate the true effects of U.S. and Israeli policy when the broad story is censored? The complexity of the political dynamics in the Mideast is far, far beyond what we've been told -- news consumers are treated like infants in this country, not allowed to know what "grownups" in many countries of the world can easily read or find on the air waves.

Marty McLaren
Seattle

Focus piece spells out unbiased observations

Congratulations, and thank you to the editors of Focus for selecting and publishing Andrew Gumbel's article.

He spells out clearly and precisely what unbiased observers of U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Middle East have long known, and your headline sums it up nicely: "U.S. media providing distorted view of Mideast conflict".

Jon W. Stewart
U.S. Foreign Service, Ret'd.
Bothell

Column intent to foment anti-Jewish sentiment

In his column Andrew Gumbel claims in a shrill voice that, because of media distortions, Arab Americans are inhibited from expressing their opinions or donating to Islamic and Arab charities, while Jews play the U.S. and Israeli anthems back to back and raise $300 million for victims in Israel.

He goes on with other "examples" of the extent of the influence these media "distortions." The Congress is so pro-Israel because "...politicians more generally understand that to criticize Israel is to risk jeopardizing their future careers." Only at the end of this vile piece does Gumbel come out with the accusation more explicitly, albeit through the mouth of a Jewish radical leftist: "The organized Jewish community has transformed the image of Judaism into a cheering squad for the Israeli government, whatever its policies are." This quotation, which is reminiscent of the age-old Protocols of the Elders of Zion libel, leaves no doubt that Gumbel dislikes Jews, and blames them for the "distorted media" in the U.S.

The P-I displayed poor judgment in printing this column, which is full of distortions, and was designed to foment anti-Jewish sentiment.

Amos Szpiro
Lake Forest Park

ADVISORY BOARDS

Sanctions would be unfair to citizen volunteers

The Municipal League was disappointed in your view that "strong ethics rules" are needed to force the city to expand its recruitment base for unpaid citizen advisory boards and commissions. This is not a question of strong or weak ethics standards but rather of standards appropriate for individuals who don't make decisions but only give advice. The current code threatens these volunteers with major sanctions (prosecution, $10,000 damage liability, and $5,000 fines) for violation of vague and confusing standards such as the poorly defined "appearance of conflict." This is not fair to citizen volunteers no matter how broadly they are recruited. If volunteer advisors are to be fined at all, it must be for intentional violations of clear standards.

The way to ensure balance on advisory boards and commissions is to aggressively recruit members from a broad base. Inappropriate ethics standards will only lead, indeed have already led, to narrowing that base. The way to ensure that volunteers behave ethically is through careful recruiting, clear and appropriate standards, and a requirement that all volunteers receive training on the Seattle Ethics Code.

Steve Marshall, Put Barber, Jill Bowman and Lucy Steers
Municipal League of King County

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Agencies need review boards to screen officers

Your lead editorial "Oversight overdue" in Sunday's P-I should be required reading for every municipality in Washington state. Since the Brame murders in Tacoma everyone with an IQ over the posted speed limit has been asking where and why do these kinds of criminals get employed by police departments. It is clear Washington towns should be using something other than the Rent a Thug Employment bureau as a source for police officers.

More than 35 years ago I heard the late great dean of the University of Washington Law School, George Neff Stevens, state there was dire need for a police review board that was totally impartial from political influence. What kind of a brick wall has to fall on local cities before they do something about the King County Sheriff's Office and the Tacoma Police Department and most of the other police departments here? It is past time to tightly screen and review all police agencies in the state.

Harry Foster
Edmonds

INITIATIVE 933

'Pay or waive' system would cost big bucks

I am very concerned about Initiative 933. I-933 would jeopardize property rights and neighborhoods. It would effectively outlaw the basic zoning laws that keep neighborhoods strong and protect everyone's property values.

If it is enacted, the very communities and environment that we are trying to protect and enhance will be at risk. You have to ask yourself whose interests are being served by this initiative.

Do we want scarce government resources that we need to go to education, health care and solving our traffic problems to instead go toward paying for certain people to follow the laws that the rest of us must follow? Why shouldn't we all abide by these laws?

I-933 will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by creating a "pay or waive" system that makes local communities decide whether to waive laws for special interests or force taxpayers to pay them to follow the sensible rules that apply to the rest of us.

Remember to think about what makes our communities special. Please don't throw all this away. Why do you think the League of Women Voters, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce oppose I-933? Vote no on I-933.

Joan Lieberman-Brill
Bellevue

PRIMARY ELECTIONS

Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for private contests

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed that political parties have sole discretion in deciding who will run for public office under their banner ("Appeals court refuses to reinstate 'top-two' primary in Washington," Tuesday.) Why then must taxpayers continue to pay for these private beauty contests?

We must either eliminate primary elections, force the major parties to pay their part of the cost for holding a primary, or make all political contests non-partisan and reinstate the Top Two as Judge Raymond Fisher suggested.

Gregory Gadow
Seattle

Campaigns should be publicly financed

Once again the P-I Editorial Board has provided simplistic, and naïve, alternatives to the blanket primary: non-partisan primaries or even IRV. To what end?

Sure the founders of this country would be surprised by the influence of political parties. But they would be appalled by the influence of special interest groups and their money that have all but taken over our political system.

Ask yourself if these alternatives really improve the viability of choices for voters in the primary and general elections. Do they translate into new ideas and better representation? Even members of minor parties tell me that these "feel good" alternatives will have little effect on their political viability and may (in the case of the non-partisan primaries) give voters even less information than they get now about a candidate.

A real alternative? Follow in the footsteps of Arizona and Maine with the public financing of campaigns. Competition in primaries increased 67 percent -- giving politically disenfranchised candidates of all different parties the resources to compete against incumbents and their backers.

How about costs? In the long run it will save taxpayers billions. The reality is that the millions spent by special interest groups to influence elections translates into billions in tax breaks and budget items.

It's time to quit nibbling around the edges of political reform and hoping things will change. What I propose has been tried and tested. My hope is that it will return our political system to the representative government our founders truly envisioned.

Jim Kastama
State Senator, 25th District

Chairman, Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee

Instant runoff voting on Pierce County ballot

In Pierce County voters will get a chance to replace the pick-a-party primary with instant runoff voting. It will be listed as Amendment 3 on the ballot. Instant runoff voting would meet the constitutional challenges that blanket primary and top-two primary did not. It is time to get over the idea we can have the blanket primary or top-two as voting systems. By passing Amendment 3 first in Pierce County and then statewide, we can have a voting system gives us back our freedom to choose candidates and issues.

The proposed amendment to the Pierce County Charter will allow parties to control who appears on the ballot with the party name, while providing a level playing field for independents and third parties to more effectively compete in the voting process. As a result, IRV meets the freedom of association test in the state constitution.

If passed in Pierce County, this amendment will allow voters to vote for any candidate or party. Voters in California and Vermont who use this system have liked it. Voters who have used the pick-a-party system do not. It is not time to get over the pick-a-party primary. It is time, however, to eliminate it.

Mike Venuto
Commissioner, Pierce County Charter Review Commission

IRV takes advantage of big turnouts in November

The Grange ought to look into instant runoff voting as an alternative to the pick a party primary that nobody likes. IRV allows all candidates to appear on the same ballot but even better it allows voters to express their true feelings by picking a first, second and third choice. Losers will be eliminated and their votes distributed by the voters next choice until somebody has a majority.

We could eliminate the cost of the primary as well and have just one election in November when there is maximum turnout.

Dan Goldstein
Port Townsend

Soundoff (Read 2 comments)
Tell us what's on your mind.

Add P-I Opinion headlines to