You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
September 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Shooter should have been prosecuted earlier
In 2004, Aaron Alexis, the D.C. shooter, fired off his gun in Seattle in a fit of anger. [“D.C. killer shot out tires here in 2004,” page one, Sept. 17.]
For some strange and negligent reason, he was not prosecuted. In 2010, he “accidentally” fired a gun in his apartment in Texas. His right to own firearms was not taken away, apparently.
Yesterday, he killed and wounded many people. This is a predictable outcome. We cannot allow people who have extreme anger issues, who have demonstrated their inability to safely handle firearms, to continue to possess them.
We have the D.C. victims’ blood on our hands. Shame.
Pete Rogerson, Seattle
September 4, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Political cartoon made no sense
I just read your political cartoon in Saturday’s newspaper. [Cartoon by Drew Sheneman, Opinion, Aug. 31.]
This has to be the most ludicrous cartoon I’ve ever seen.
You must show positive ID to cash a check or use your debit card.
You must show positive ID to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages.
You must show positive ID to board an airplane.
Yet somehow it’s wrong to require people to show ID to vote for people that will be running the most powerful country in the world, people that may have their finger on the most powerful weapons in the world.
This makes absolutely no sense to me at all!
Randal Kram, Covington
August 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Institute works against labor interests
The research director of the Employment Policies Institute, author of the recent column on sick leave, is part of a conservative organization devoted to keeping wages as low as possible, and benefits nonexistent. [“Guest column: Sick-leave pay not a cure-all,” Opinion, Aug. 20.]
An extremely low percentage of our population make huge amounts of money, yet make contributions to influence our elected representatives to vote to keep wages low, using any means necessary.
I commend The Seattle Times for allowing this column to be printed, thereby allowing the reader to better understand the forces working against all working women, men and children.
Shamefully, this institute is working against our hardworking lower-wage population, rather than attempting to improve the lives of all citizens.
Mark Parrent, Bellevue
August 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Column was misleading
To say that today, “more American workers are excluded from the legal right to form a union than currently have union representation,” as David Rolf stated in his column with Nick Hanauer, is totally misleading. [“Guest column: Seattle leads the chorus for a living wage,” Opinion, Aug. 11.]
The right of any citizen to join or associate with any group such as a union is in our Constitution by the First Amendment.
His interest in raising the minimum wage may be influenced by his position as a union president. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour could double the dues income to his local.
Donald Shuper, Redmond
August 16, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Lifelong clothesline user
Everyone had a clothesline when I was growing up. There were no dryers. The clothes flapped in the breeze, dried in the sun and froze in the winter. [“Clothesline crusaders call laundry flap overblown,” page one, Aug. 14.]
If you have not slept on fresh air- and sun-dried sheets, you are deprived. To this day, my cotton sheets are dried on my Capitol Hill clothesline. They have never seen a dryer, and they never will.
When I was 18, I traveled in Italy. I remember being delighted with the clothes lines crossing narrow streets between the buildings; lines and lines of clothes drying in the sun. There were postcards with pictures of the maze of clothes lines. It was beautiful.
If a homeowners association sees state intervention to prohibit a ban on clotheslines as an intrusion on homeowners’ rights, what about a homeowner’s rights to dry their clothes as they see fit?
Carla Becker, Seattle
July 6, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Florist should follow law, compassion, not religious doctrine
Everyone is aware of the florist who refused to serve a same-sex couple because of her relationship with Jesus Christ. [“Florist seeks fourth recusal,” NW Friday, June 28.]
I fail to see the connection. Tina Turner has a song, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” and so I say, “What’s Jesus Christ Got to Do with It?”
I am a heterosexual male, so I have no dog in this fight. I simply try to maintain an open mind and be tolerant, compassionate and loving to people of all walks of life — just as Jesus of Nazareth did in his times as an example for all of us.
The law of the land here is the Constitution, not a religious text of one faith.
David Gooding, Normandy Park
June 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Supreme Court is out of touch with reality
On Wednesday the Supreme Court overturned Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-4 majority. [“Future of voting-rights law in doubt,” page one, June 26.]
In so doing, the Supreme Court has irreparably disgraced itself. Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that the law was out of date, that the problems of 1965 had been solved and that Congress should write a new section to replace the one struck down.
However, Justice Roberts’ opinion rests on wishful thinking and optimism. I am not convinced that the problems of 1965 have all been solved, and besides, the Voting Rights Act was not addressing the problems of 1965. The act had been re-enacted many times since it was first passed, most recently in 2006. It passed with large majorities in both houses and was signed into law by President Bush.
When it was renewed in 2006, Congress was not just repeating what had been written in 1965. It took into account changes since that time, as the act has always done. Since the act was first passed in 1965, some jurisdictions have passed out of the act’s coverage, and others have been brought into it.
The act confronted trouble where it found it, and where there was no trouble, it sent the rehabilitated jurisdictions on their way, confident that the problem had been solved. Given that many of the problems of 1965 have persisted to the present and that a few more have appeared over the years, the Supreme Court is clearly out of touch with reality.
Michael Epton, Seattle
Voting Rights Act was out of date
Mary Emmick can’t be serious. [“Northwest Voices: Voting Rights Act still needed,” Opinion, June 27.]
The Supreme Court can edit, clarify or interpret laws to ensure constitutionality and maintain applicability in our country, but they are not lawmakers, nor are they elected to make laws.
Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has virtually outlived its need. Would Emmick want unlicensed drivers on our streets? If you don’t possess a license, you should not drive. You are not qualified.
None of our cherished constitutional rights are absolute, nor should they be.
Ronald Bowman, Burien
June 25, 2013 at 7:00 AM
Children should learn to respect identities of self, others
Cheers for the parents and Colorado’s civil-rights division for putting a child’s rights above our right to discriminate. [“Transgender first-grader wins discrimination case,” News, June 24.]
As a past director of an early childhood learning center, I realize the potential challenges of working with the rights of a transgender child and the school community.
Our children are growing up in a different world than we did. It is bigger and more inclusive of differences. One thing I am sure of is that no one can decide for another person the truth of who we are and how we feel about ourselves. That is our inherent right that must be protected, fostered and honored.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful message for children to learn at a young age that it really is what’s inside of us that counts?
Mary Dispenza, Bellevue
Trending with readers