by Carol Davidek-Waller

Kirkland Courier, April, 2006

To the Editor:

I take issue with Russ Zabel's characterization of the recent non-discrimination bill and state Sen. Bill Finkbiener's tap dance on issue as basic as civil rights (February Courier).

Given the present feverish climate, where diversity has become a way to divide us and old fears hatreds are raked up to pit American against American for political gain, calling this legislation a "gay rights bill" is unnecessarily inflammatory. The legislation simply adds sexual orientation to an already existing non-discrimination bill that includes sex, race and religion.

Several months ago, at a public meeting with state representatives Larry Springer and Toby Nixon, Finkbeiner and Nixon got an earful from a room full of angry voters for blocking legislation that after 30 years finally looked like it would pass.

The legislators' position that Christian book store owners shouldn't be forced to hire lesbians, some of their best friends are gay and that they weren't sure discrimination was really a problem brought howls from the audience.

The good citizens of Kirkland would countenance none of it and likened Nixon and Finkbeiner's excuses to the rhetoric used in the '60s to deny people of color full citizenship.

Finkbeiner's position is more disturbing than the predictable homophobia of his right wing colleagues. In a former incarnation as a Democrat, he supported this legislation; a sensible position that is in line with the U.S. Constitution.

Later that afternoon, Finkbeiner inadvertently gave us an insight into his dilemma. After the passage of McCain-Feingold, which puts strict limits on individual campaign contributions and no limits on soft money, the political parties are in control of most of the cash. They can exert pressure on candidates to follow the party line as never before. Bill caved in to demands from the GOP.

More recently, it wasn't Finkbeiner's heart that changed but his circumstances.

He is running for re-election and facing some stiff competition. Eric Oemig, a software engineer who is young, progressive, energetic and full of fresh, practical ideas, threw his hat in the ring in January. Finkbeiner could either support this legislation or lose the support of voters.

By issue, 70 percent of U.S. voters are liberal, no matter what we call ourselves or what others call us. It's time we made our political parties aware of what we believe and not let them dictate who we are as Americans.

by Mark Hennon

Submitted to Seattle PI, Friday, February 10, 2006

Remember Bush's tax refund checks when he was first elected? That money has long since been spent on gasoline and heating bills that have skyrocketed under his care.

Now his proposed federal budget will take more money from folks and give it to -- the rich.

We need to vote the Rip-off Republicans out of office.

by Robert Horn

The Seattle Times, Tuesday, January 17, 2006

I too applaud Sen. Finkbeiner on his recent commitment to vote for legislation protecting the rights of gay Washingtonions but I don’t think it’s appropriate to lionize him as a “gutsy senator” as you did in your recent editorial.  If he was gutsy, he would have told his Republican Party handlers in the other Washington to take a hike last year and voted in those rights as his was the single vote that could have done this.  It’s hard to understand why the Times would be so laudatory of his character when the only real reason we have for his reversal of position last year was his submission to the mean-spirited polarization of the electorate favored by his new party.  With a serious challenge in his home district, Sen. Finkbeiner suddenly “get’s religion”.

by Steve Chilcoat

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

“Senator rediscovers backbone”, that is the ironic title I would have chosen for Susan Paynter’s Friday column instead of “Senator’s reversal on gay rights is a matter of heart”.  While I am very happy that Senator Finkbeiner will support the anti-discrimination legislation this session, Paynter’s assertion that this is not a savvy political maneuver doesn’t seem to match with the facts.

Before last year’s vote Finkbeiner claimed to support this legislation, even voting for it on occasion. Yet last year when he was in the Senate Republican leadership position he switched positions and voted against the bill. Finkbeiner had an opportunity to actually show leadership. He could have not only voted for the bill; he could have changed the votes of other like minded Republicans and made this a bipartisan issue whose support was based on fairness, rather than keeping this a politicized divisive issue.

Finkbeiner’s resumption of support for this legislation is to be applauded regardless of its motivation. But, his motivation certainly smells of politics to me. Before last year he was careful to support something he knew would not pass; thus appeasing those in the 45th district without having to face internal Republican pressure. Last year, when he could have made a difference in a real vote, he chose to suddenly switch his position and kill the bill. This year, facing a very credible re-election challenge from Democrat Eric Oemig, he reverses again and claims to have “seen the light” and will support this legislation.

I ask you, doesn’t this look like pure politics?

by Lynn Norwood

Submitted to Seattle Times, Monday, January 16, 2006

It seems most analysts are saying that Judge Alito will be confirmed and that opposition, including the filibuster option, is unwarranted. In fact the whole process is being discussed as if it were a well rehearsed and socially constrained tea party; members participate knowing in advance the tea will be poured, the sweets passed, and the status quo preserved.  It takes on  Alice-in-Wonderland overtones, however, when one realizes that the court is narrowly divided and the replacement of Justice O’Connor with Judge Alito will far from maintain the status quo but will potentially (and Judge Alito’s records leave little doubt about his personal philosophy) overturn or dismantle Roe v Wade. Does undermining the status of 50% of the population not warrant protest?  In the current economic climate, where single-earner families make 72% less in discretionary income than their counterparts in the 1970’s, the implications of eroding Roe v Wade are enormous and pervasive.  (“The rapid disappearance of America's middle class” by Floyd J. McKay, Seattle Times 1/11/06). The stakes are high and protests should be loud, for the record if nothing else—before the tea is poured and the sweets passed.

by Robert Horn

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, November 25, 2005

Vice President Cheney’s latest diatribe against his war critics is sad. Regardless of what is a “lie”, what is clear is that the Iraq War was bred by a small cabal seeking a quick, vainglorious win over a serious problem facing the United States and the world. It has turned out much worse, a tragic mistake with enormous cost to the American people (particularly our brave young soldiers) and to our values.

Like the child whose fantasy world has been impeded by reality, “liar, liar, pants on fire” won’t get the job done.

by Terry Thorsos

The Seattle Times, Sunday, Nov 13, 2005

President Bush said earlier this week, "Any activity we do is within the law. We do not torture." He doesn't say so directly, but he implies that anything legal is OK.

When it comes to human rights, legality is not enough. Ask slaves who were owned "legally." Ask those who suffered "legal" genocide in many times and places. Ask members of minority religions who were persecuted "legally" (Christians across many centuries & countries, members of the Bahá'í Faith, and Quakers, among many others). Ask yourself.

Let us not hide behind the law. Let us stand up for what is right.

by Lincoln Potter

Saturday, November 5, 2005

Like it or not, Greater King County is the economic heart of our great state. From bridges linking rural road capillaries in Dusty WA or the cheek-to-jowl, 70-mile-an-hour I-90 and I-5 arteries of the county itself, restrict that flow and the heart begins to die.

The collapse of a vein like the viaduct or the 520 bridge could easily overload those arteries and turn that healthy throb into a clogged struggle for survival. There’s no emergency bypass surgery for an economic heart - we’d be watching helplessly as it develops an infarction, an economic necrosis.

We may be mad as hell about gas prices -- who isn’t? -- but if our crumbling infrastructure chases the jobs and the customers out of Washington, we won’t be able to afford gas whatever the price. Maybe 9 cents a gallon is a reasonable price to pay to keep that heart beating away. Let’s vote a thumping NO on initiative 912 in November.

by Mark Hennon

Sunday, October 30, 2005

The 912 initiative is a Republican effort to paralyze the state and stop Gov. Gregoire from getting anything done. Longtime Republican Brett Bader started the NoNewGasTax web site, which hides the names of many donors from public disclosure. (Public Disclosure Commission C3 forms 100127390 and 100127391 show $24,260 on May 4 and $19,233 on May 5 as "Contributions Internet"--with no names, amounts or any other details.) This is clearly illegal.

912 is helped by many who have an ideology of privatizing everything--including "free-market solutions" to environmental problems. The net result of 912 would be bridges and roads in chaos with no money to fix them--and then the big corporations would offer to build new ones and charge everybody tolls for the rest of our lives. This has already been attempted with some success in California (Riverside Freeway) and Colorado (toll road E470 to the Denver airport).

The NoNewGasTax people have refused to disclose any names of those who contributed their initial $43,493 of financing in May. My bet is the money comes from Republicans who want to privatize our roads and bridges.

by Lynn Norwood

The Seattle Times, Sunday, October 23, 2005

Judith Miller needs to leave "we the people" out of this. In a bizarre twist, moral integrity is once again perverted in the name of the people. The Oct. 16 articles by and about Judith Miller reveal many interesting facts and innuendoes that give us a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the men, women and politics involved.

But please continue to leave "we the people" out of it; nothing in this sordid tale was done for us.

The people were not served when Miller protected a man who undermined our national security, the people were not served when the newspaper withheld information in order to protect its reporter, and finally the people were not served when the story became about the reporter.

Joseph Wilson was the whistle-blower, his wife's exposure the retribution, and now we the people need to know who was working against us and why.

by Susan Keller

Submitted to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Thursday, September 8, 2005

I am writing to take issue with the headline ‘Barbara Bush sees plus side to storm evacuation’. In general, I would think that a newspaper headline would broadly inform the reader about the content of the article to follow. In this case Barbara Bush, Former First Lady and Mother of current President, was touring the Houston relocation camp for survivors of the New Orleans disaster. She was quoted as saying they ‘were underprivileged anyway’ and commenting that ‘what I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas’. All had been through devastation; many may have lost loved ones or pets. A sense of place, jobs, possessions and community were shattered, yet these comments only reflect a pervasive ignorance and prejudice.

The headline was a rosy, inaccurate assessment from someone who is woefully out of touch. In keeping with the trajectory of this headline, would events before the Emancipation Proclamation be ‘Free Housing and the other benefits of Slavery’? You gave the Bush Dynasty another pass.

by Steve Chilcoat

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Evolutionary intelligent design is bunk. It is no more science than astrology. It should not be a part of any science program.

For those without scientific background let me provide a few pointers to discriminate between evidence and fact based natural science and pseudo-sciences such as intelligent design:

• If a revolutionary new theory of natural science is proposed by politicians, it should be viewed with great skepticism.
• If a revolutionary new theory of natural science is proposed by religious figures, it should be viewed with great skepticism.
• If a revolutionary new theory of natural science is proposed without revolutionary new evidence, it should be viewed with great skepticism.
• If magic or super-natural processes must be invoked as a part of a revolutionary new theory of natural science, that theory is unquestionably bunk.

The science of evolution is validated with each new piece of fossil evidence, and validated with corroborative results from the sciences of genetics, DNA analysis, and laboratory chemistry. The fundamental concepts of evolution are unquestionably correct. Details might get redefined, and deeper understanding of the natural processes will occur; but the underlying base correctness will not be changed.

For those who want to understand the extraordinary sophistication of evolutionary science and want some appreciation of the huge body of evidence that supports this science I recommend, the book "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

by Tom Conlon

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Monday, August 15, 2005

My congressman, Dave Reichert, of the 8th congressional district which includes much of the Eastside suburbs, sent me a glossy mailer on social security last week. In this mailer, representative Reichert says “It [Social Security] must address the shortfall that begins in 2018”. Representative Reichert is mistaken. There is no shortfall in 2018. Way back in the Reagan administration, social security taxes were raised precisely to anticipate the large number of retiring baby boomers. Because of that responsible action, for the last 20 years social security has been accumulating a surplus and investing the surplus in US government bonds. Because of this investment, there is no shortfall until the year 2042.

It disappoints me that my congressman, representative Reichert, is attempting to mislead his constituents with fear mongering and stating that social security will have a shortfall a full 24 years before there is one. Would a congressman who wants to honestly contribute to a solution for this very important issue be attempting to ignore the last 20 years of surplus that we have all already been paying for to anticipate the retirement of the baby boomers? Shame on you representative Reichert.

by Mark Hennon

The King County Journal, Thursday, July 28, 2005

My car can't swim. Heck, it can't even make it through a 2-foot-deep puddle without stalling. So it's worth it to pay a bit more for gasoline to get the 520 bridge fixed or replaced. Gas has gone up so far anyway because of the Iraq invasion that a few cents more is not much difference.

Every homeowner knows that a few bucks in maintenance saves hundreds and even thousands in repair costs. It's the same for the bridges and the roads -- and keeping them running smooth will save money on gas mileage, tires and alignments.

If you don't want to pay the extra tax, cut down on your driving. At least, when you do drive here, you won't have craters in the roads and the washboard highways that states which run cut-rate maintenance suffer.

by Lynn Norwood

The Seattle Times, Friday, June 10, 2005

The fact that the share of income earned by the top 0.1% more than doubled while the bottom 90% fell is not surprising but predictable. What is baffling is that a large portion of the bottom 90% are supporting an administration that gives tax breaks to the wealthy and places responsibility for maintaining a strong and vibrant nation on the backs of the working poor and middle class.

At a time when opportunity for growth and mobility are rapidly dissolving, where health care costs are rising, and where pensions plans are diminishing, this administration supports undermining Social Security-the only safety net available to many Americans. Furthermore, there has been little mention of the larger problems we will face with Medicare.

We are a weak nation without the services that taxation provides. Without a strong public health care system, who will we run to in the event of a bio-terrorist attack? Without funding for research, where will the innovations come from? With the deficit out of control, the country at war, and education under funded, why would the priority of this administration be tax cuts for the super-rich?

And why do we tolerate it?

by Steve Chilcoat

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Wednesday, March 23, 2005

When pristine areas such as ANWR are set aside from development, there is not a clause in the fine print that states the area will be protected until a valuable natural resource can be exploited. These protected areas are set aside because valuable natural resources may be discovered and exploitation must never be allowed in the very few remaining pristine areas.

It is a tragedy that the ethics and morality of the current Republican majority is too low to understand this simple idea.

by Steve Chilcoat

George Bush continues to tell us that we are in a war on terror. In a war, exposing a covert CIA operation is an act of treason. Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and Dick Cheney are guilty of just such an offense. I assume that since George Bush is protecting them with all of his political will that he is at a minimum an accessory to this treason, if not a direct participant.

After the lies and fabricated intelligence, I think it is safe to say that the 2000 military deaths, the 100,000 Iraqi deaths, the tens of thousands of lives ruined with maimed bodies and permanent psychological damage, the news reporters that have been targeted by U.S. troops, the torture, and side-stepping of the Geneva Conventions, that our government does not represent the will of the people. Our government is not currently a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Our government does not represent the high standards that most of us believe the United States should represent. Our government is engaged in an illegal war of the sort we used to attribute to the Soviet Union during the cold war era.

It is time for the US Congress and Senate to reject their partisan party politics and place patriotism and the good of the country above their misplaced loyalty. Impeach this president. Impeachment would assure that all of these ruined lives would not be in vain. Impeachment would draw a line for all future politicians that this country will not allow its leaders to conduct illegal and immoral acts of aggression.

by Steve Chilcoat

The large number of signatures on Initiative 912 designed to kill the much needed transportation projects doesn't surprise me too much. The politics of greed advocated by conservative talk radio and like minded individuals is really about continuing to allow our infrastructure decay and nothing about real economic impact.

I was curious and wanted to get an idea of the real impact of a $0.03 increase of the price of gas. So, Saturday, July 9, I drove down the main thoroughfare of Woodinville around noon. There are a half dozen or so gas stations, all major brands, all in close proximity to one another, and all equally accessible. The price of a gallon of unleaded regular varied from $2.38 to $2.50 a gallon. Clearly, if the market will support this size of price variation the $0.03 tax is way under the radar in terms of the real impact of even how people select which gas to buy. In fact, on one corner there was a station selling gas for $2.38 and just across the street a station was selling gas for $2.50. I drove by the $2.50 gas had all of the pumps full and the $2.38 gas didn't have anyone at the pumps.

I recognize that this is a highly unscientific sample, but I think the message is clear. If people won't even go across the street to save $0.12 per gallon then $0.03 is not even worth talking about. If you add this to the volatility of gas prices and the certainty that we will see additional huge increases from oil companies the gas tax becomes even less relevant.

The other impact I was interested in was my own gas bill. Last month my household bought around 130 gallons of gas. So, a $0.03 cent increase would have increased my bill by a whopping $3.90, basically 1 latte. Hardly a budget buster!

I hope that by next fall there will be enough people that will take a rational look at this economically inconsequential tax and tell the purveyors of the politics of greed that the cost of not making improvements to our transportation infrastructure is much larger than the impact of the gas tax.

Vote this absurd initiative down.