Letters to the Editor

PLANET EARTH

---

Too many journalists lack critical thinking

P-I columnist Joel Connelly warns us to take heed ("Deniers of global warming harm us," July 11). He glibly sets the tone for a new global warming Gestapo to corner "talk" and criminalize "non-believers." This threatening trend by journalists worldwide terrifies me more than the fact of global warming. While the Earth may indeed be warming today, we are entering a chilling decline in intelligence the Earth hasn't been seen since the days of Copernicus, when public hanging was for non-believers of "Earth as the center of the solar system." The proof was irrefutable, stones fall to the Earth, not to the sun!

Too many journalists are short on critical thinking and seem to forget that science is bigger than themselves, that there is more to learn, and much more to learn from (scientific) history. They dishonestly declare "near global scientific consensus of human causes of climate change" and fail to note most of these are bureaucrats and pseudo-scientists whose financial livelihoods thrive on (their) proof.

And mocking scientists who associate solar activity with Earth's climate is pitiful journalism, even for Connelly. The fact of interglacial periods is far superior evidence than terrestrial backyard thermometers. The real understanding of the sun's influence is still only decades old and there are plenty of unanswered questions about its effects on the Earth's atmosphere. This reminds me of the activist vegetarians who claimed to save animals, yet wore leather shoes. People who disregard the sun's influence on heating the planet should therefore not wear hats or sunscreen.

Robert T. Milligan
Issaquah

It should be out of style to harm the environment

Thank you for Joel Connelly's column addressing the delay in curbing global warming! It is disturbing to see the apathy and "push back" even by educated people. We are given life and some time on Earth, regardless of belief system, and then younger generations take over. We're stewards of our communal home for a while, whatever else we may believe. I'd like to see it be out-of-style to harm the environment, frowned on by everybody, considered illiterate, and not funny.

For religious people, let's question how you can "love thy neighbor" while trashing the planet for profit before handing it over to younger generations. I think most people want to do the right thing. I think we need more education, with emphasis on how warming affects us and solutions that are available to us. How many people realize that we have no way -- no technology -- to release the accumulation in our atmosphere?

Next time we look at a fish tank or terrarium, we need to see ourselves in one, and ask "what are we doing here?" Perhaps public demand can push businesses and government into action. Our Seattle Public Utilities newsletter (which comes with the invoice) states that it takes 80 to 100 years for one aluminum can to decompose. A recycling business puts it back in the store as a new can in as little as six weeks. Yet nobody seems to know this. Maybe SPU news should be published more widely. I'm told that aluminum is precious and limited, which is further incentive to recycle.

Using recycled glass to make new glass products requires 40 percent less energy than making it from all new materials. It can be recycled endlessly, and it supports our local recycling businesses. Do people know that buying a fluorescent light with the energy star is a highly effective way to help? Why are stores pushing plastic throwaway bags at every shopper? Why aren't customers bringing their own bags?

Why are we all confused about what we can and can't recycle? I know very well educated people who still toss recyclables into the garbage, pour herbicides on the lawn, use obsolete recycle guidelines and take 30-minute hot showers. I hope the press will offer more frequent updates on this crisis facing all life on the planet Earth.

Emily Easton
Seattle

WORKING WOMEN

---

Motherhood's skills mix well in marketplace

Next time you publish an article expressing how challenging it is to balance work and motherhood, place it right next to an article about outsourcing our technical jobs and importing highly educated workers because we don't have enough qualified people to fill the positions. Does anybody else see the irony?

In my own journey to mix motherhood and the marketplace, I meet many stay-at-home mothers leading PTA's and planning church programs with organization, leadership and marketing skills that would impress any business owner. Why do words like job-sharing, part-time and telecommuting carry the connotation that the applicant is not committed to the success of the company?

Technology changes quickly and often, but strengths such as professionalism, judgment, loyalty and problem-solving shine long after the new employee is integrated into the workplace. Of course, no employer is required to offer employment situations that would tempt a sidelined parent back into the office -- but if you are having trouble finding good workers, maybe it is something to consider. I think you will be delightfully surprised.

Molly D. Hackett
Kent

JIM DIERS

---

Mayor should admit error and invite him to return

In the excellent July 6 P-I reports on the status of Seattle neighborhoods, we learn that our mayor is still singing his Jim Diers ditty: "I'm going to wash that man right out of my hair" to no effect.

Barely into his first term, Greg Nickels fired Diers, Neighborhoods Department director, whose groundbreaking leadership had been acclaimed by three previous mayors.

Both the mayor and Tim Ceis, his consigliore, are still vainly trying to justify the Diers dismissal (was it a patronage ploy or the rubout of a possible future contender?). Meanwhile, as the P-I reports, the city's neighborhood activity has declined and fractured.

And what about Diers' career? It has bloomed, with a book on community organizing, teaching stints at the University of Washington and constant lecturing on the "Seattle Way" of community organizing, across the U.S. and around the globe.

Egocentric politicians are loath to admit errors of any size. However, Mayor Nickels, I suggest you are long overdue in admitting the humongous Diers goof. Invite him back to City Hall; he's more skilled than ever. You'll make many of your fellow Seattleites cheer.

Lyle Mercer
Seattle

IRAQ

---

American lives shouldn't be more highly valued

Over the past few months many have argued fervently that the U.S. needs to pull out of Iraq immediately. In fact I believe the P-I Editorial Board is pushing this viewpoint. And yet when one considers the near unanimous viewpoints of foreign policy and military experts, most agree that Iraq will erupt into chaos and mass murder once the USA does pull out.

Now in response, the common response from the left is "well we don't really care about Iraqi lives once we pull out of Iraq, so long as American military lives are not at risk." Many liberals have made that specific point and are proud of it.

An interesting viewpoint indeed, considering that liberals would also have us believe they are concerned about human rights. Yet in truth the "let's pull out now" viewpoint shares many disturbing traits with the most horrific genocides in modern history. Both make the argument that one group of human beings deserve to live while another group may not. In past cases that argument has been based on race, other times it has been based on religion or tribes; in Soviet Russia it was based on ideology and atheism. Today's case is based on citizenship; in particular, U.S. citizenship.

If you are a citizen of the United States, apparently you deserve to live more than if you happen to be an Iraqi citizen, or a Syrian citizen, or any other Middle East citizenship. If you are a non-U.S. citizen in Iraq, then apparently a great many U.S. citizens do not care if you live or die. "We don't care if your country erupts into chaos and claims millions of Iraqi lives once the USA pulls out. All we care about is that our troops, our American lives, come home safely. And if that means your Iraqi brothers and children are sacrificed, hey fine. Because we don't care." Quite an argument indeed, liberals. Now tell me again how terrible Bush and Cheney are?

Phil Caldwell
Woodway

TRANSIT

---

Too high a daily price for Sound Transit

OK, the new cost of the Sound Transit light rail project has been lowered to about $30 billion. Let's assume this money will pay for the cost to build and operate the system for 30 years. Someone is free to correct my math, but I just ran some numbers and they look like this:

$30 billion over 30 years is $1 billion a year.

For simplicity, let's say there are 250 commuting workdays a year, so the cost is $4 million per day for capital and operating costs.

The system would thus have to have a million riders a day to keep the cost down to $4 per ride.

Odds are, given the "track" record of light rail, ridership will be under 10,000 per day.

That means the cost of one trip for each of 10,000 passengers per day will be around $400.

Personally, I wouldn't pay that much, but if we approve the Sound Transit package, we will indeed be doing just that.

Chuck Pilcher
Kirkland