[ed. note: We received many letters regarding our election endorsements last issue. Even though this year's election will have taken place by the time this reaches print, we've decided to print some of these letters (and our replies), both for historical interest and for your amusement...

Voting the Lesser of Two Evils

Guys, who gave us Incurious George? Ralph Nader did.

Yes, we do have to vote for the lesser of evils particularly in close races.

Who is going to stick us with David Irons? You deadheads who vote for the Greens. I am a Green but I know that. This is not rocket science, simple numbers. You say Irons will be a disaster but you don't like Sims so you won't vote? Jeeze Louise.

How many times do you have to learn and forget lessons!?! I am a dedicated listener but your performance today was very disappointing.

And yes, Bush's bird flu suggestions are lame but they are something. We need to get working on this issue and to vote it down would be to postpone any action for years. Pharma, as much as I hate them just could save our puny lives.

Grow up. Lesser of evils is sometimes better than sticking your head in the sand.

Maria and Geov, get out more. Smell the flowers, your vision is getting a bit tunneled.

A fan,

--Lincoln in Woodinville

ed. note: see Maria Tomchick's article on Avian flu in this issue.

The Smoking Initiative

Voters in Washington will have an initiative to ban "smoking" in bars and etc. in the state.

Times sure have changed when we get the CORPORATOCRACY working to 'protect the workers.' Notice that indoor workers are being protected from no other pollutant: not chlorine nor auto emissions or paint fumes or plastics or radiation nor anything. Just what bar worker groups have been out there demanding this protection? It's a fraud. Duh.

The American Cancer Society is a prime pusher of this legislation. Have you visited any of Dr. Samuel Epstein's raps on the ACS, and NCI, about their being essentially a part of the cancer causing pesticide/petrochemical/ etc. cartel? Google "Epstein NCI ACS" for heaps of background.

ACS gets funding from parts of the cigarette cartel...the tobacco pesticide providers, the ones who add to the dioxin in typical cigarettes. ACS therefore says ZERO about any such toxins/carcinogens. They prefer to blame a) unpatented natural plants and b) the "dirty" and "rude" victims.

I'm trying to put a blog together of info that I think ought be part of the "smoking" debate. It's at http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com.

Be aware that this "smoking" thing is about another prohibition of another traditionally-used natural plant, what industry did to contaminate it notwithstanding. It's virtually identical to Reefer Madness.

The "smoking" thing is a scapegoating game designed to exculpate some of the most toxic carcinogenic industrial substances, and the industries that use and make them, and their insurers/investors...and not only related to cigarettes, by far. It's about all chlorine/dioxin problems, and corruption of regulatory systems. Big stuff.

--John Jonik, Philadelphia

Promoting Jane Fellner

I have worked with Jane Fellner on many volunteer projects over 12 years in the public schools. She is quite independent. In your commentary, the sole reason you give for voting for Mary Bass is that some of Jane's supporters are not rebellious enough or represent the status quo of years ago. I think your readers should have more open minds, and judge Mary and Jane for what each of them might accomplish in the next four years. I respect both these candidates, but I think Jane has a better chance of facing the deficit problems quickly and getting more money directly to classrooms for failing students. I think she can work collaboratively with Linda Thompson-Black, whom you endorse, and make some more substantial gains for the students.

--Sally James, Seattle

Geov Parrish replies: There were a number of other reasons I endorsed incumbent Mary Bass, some of which I included in our brief endorsement, many of which we didn't have room for. Mary was the first and loudest in her criticisms of Joseph Olchefske's budget deficits, at a time when no other board member would stand up to him. She was the first to hold open community meetings with her constituents, and she's done a good job of representing her heavily African-American Central Area district. (She is African-American; Fellner is white.) Her fiscal acumen (she's a financial analyst in her day job) positions her well to help deal with the district's ongoing debt problems. I like Jane Fellner, and I respect the volunteer work she's done. I like her better than either Linda Thompson-Black or Michael DeBell, both of whom I endorsed. But she's in the wrong race. She chose to run against a good incumbent, and in doing so she has courted the backing of some of the district's most regressive elements. I have to ask: why?

Promoting Richard Berkowitz

To suggest that Lloyd Hara "is smart" and "wants reform" is not to know Lloyd Hara.

It may be that you did not notice he pursued and received the endorsements of both Dino Rossi and the King County Republicans. A progressive he is not and to identify Rich Berkowitz as simply a labor guy is to forget that he has been forging working relationships over 20 years in maritime with both industry and labor. Since the Seaport is the only chance to increase revenue and create jobs at the Port it might just help to have someone with more maritime experience than anyone in the race or anyone presently on the Commission.

Lloyd Hara's promise of redundant "performance audits"--if they produce anything at all--will most likely result in the conclusion that the short-run "benefit" of selling or leasing the Port's valuable waterfront property to developers (or encumbering it with debt) is the path of least resistance. Certainly, following that path is the only way Lloyd Hara can make good on his pledge to cut the levy to zero in four years.

You have failed to serve your readers with this endorsement and should re-consider.

Respectfully Yours,

--Dave Bailey, Campaign Manager, Berkowitz for Port

G.P. replies: I have reconsidered. I'm much more solidly in Lloyd Hara's camp now than when I wrote the endorsements.

But what swayed me was the joint, business-sponsored mailing that promoted as a slate the dreadful Pat Davis, business lackey John Creighton, and your boy Berkowitz. And if Rich is running on a corrupt, Business-As-Usual slate and can't even get Republican endorsements, he must be an exceptionally weak candidate.

We Missed the Suburbs

Your recent endorsement article is a good illustration of what is wrong with many of the "progressives" in the Puget Sound area, based as it was on the notion that Seattle matters, but anything to the south or east of the Seattle city limits isn't worth mentioning. Are more progressive local officeholders ever going to get elected if the large and populated southern region of the county continues to be ignored? (If you are both poor and a suburb dweller, you probably live in South King County.) Am I supposed to just give up working on campaigns here and hang out in the U-District, Fremont, and Capitol Hill with people who already agree with me politically?

The 3rd district has unopposed Republican candidate Kathy Lambert, and I can understand passing that one by, but the 5th, 7th, and 9th districts are being contested by Democrats who are better in every way than their Republican opponents. Whether the council has a Democratic or Republican majority will indeed have an effect on Seattle, even though you have chosen to not pay attention to that fact.

In the 5th district Orin Wells (R) is opposing incumbent Julia Patterson, very much worth re-electing.

In the 7th district newcomer Geni Hawkins got a very creditable 47% in the primary against the very well-known and deeply entrenched Republican Pete von Reichbauer. Since redistricting has made this district very much less Republican than his former district, this is a winnable race for the Democrats.

In the 9th, Shirley Gaunt-Smith will have a much tougher time beating Reagan Dunn, but she was the top votegetter in a three-way primary. Since this is a very heavily Republican district, this should have been worth at least a mention.

--Martha Koester, Seattle

On the Monorail

First off, I am a transportation proponent as much as anyone. It appears like neither of us will be using the system if built. I called the SMP to map out a way to use the Monorail. They were helpful in designing a shuttle then bus then monorail option but the estimated time to get into downtown this way was 1 hour, 40 minutes. I live 5 miles from downtown in the U-District. Unlike you, I will not vote for the Monorail, but will pay for it...dearly.

I sacrificed many of my dreams to afford a home here that would support a family of 5. Our intention was to have two children, but we never expected to have identical twins. So here we are, struggling each day as our property, sales, and car taxes increase year after year. I'm not talking about proportional increases that occur when salaries change or the price of homes/goods increase. That's built into the system already. I'm talking about real percentage increases in the tax burden. While I know it's silly, I have taken the total tax percentage increases (not total dollars) over the last 20 years and extrapolated the trend out to 2080. At our current pace, 100% of all income of every individual will be consumed by taxes by 2076. Crazy? Yes--it will never happen, but I'm not quite sure who will stop it, since any resistance to increasing taxes immediately sets the attack dogs loose on people. It makes people feel like villains or right wing nutzos--just because they simply cannot afford more taxes.

Anyway, my Monorail contribution is $1200.00/year. This is more than any other household bill we pay (including power, natural gas, insurance, telephone, etc.). Many Monorail supporters actually get angry with me when I talk about it--almost as if the more you pay in the tax--the more evil you are. I work two jobs and pay plenty of taxes. We have a car for our teen so he can get to school in the morning and home in the afternoon. I have a hybrid that I drive because I am in recycled paper product sales with 10 to 15 stops a day around town. My wife drives a van because she is in hospice care and travels to homes of the elderly throughout the day. She provides transportation and carries medical supplies for them. For some reason we do not qualify for any exemptions on the van. In addition we have an economy Ford pickup which I drive about once or twice a year to the public compost. This is a real burden on our family. You may say "sell all your cars," but why? Why don't you sell your books--or your computer--or your art--or your "whatever" is important to you. People shouldn't be penalized in random ways like this. Monorail should probably be supported by a sales tax in King County. This makes more sense than taxing me disproportionately because I invested in a quality (read--expensive) hybrid car rather than a smog spewing clunker which pays little or no Monorail tax. Why, why, why is this city out to get me?

--Chris, Seattle

Until that change comes, we shouldn't have to just put up and shut up, which is what we'd be doing by voting to kill the Monorail. In fact, giving up on what we want is as bad as supporting the screwed-up government we have right now.

Also On the Monorail

Before I get into the reason for writing, I want to thank you and Geov very much for your wonderful research and Saturday morning program on KEXP; it is one of my best sources for "what is really going on," and please continue. I want to suggest in your website and notice about the Saturday broadcast, that you include that KEXP archives their programs for two weeks; 8:30 AM on Saturday may not be a good listening time for many, as it isn't for me, but to have it available for the following two weeks presents other options.

I am writing about your comments on favoring the Monorail, principally for West Seattle residents. Here is one who lives at the north end of Lincoln Park, doesn't want to own a car, and rides Metro all the time. I catch my #54 bus right across the street and literally I am downtown within 25 minutes. That is hard to beat even driving a car--and even faster on the express bus. I have come into town from Ballard, Lake City, Shoreline, etc. and rarely beat the 25 minutes from West Seattle. For me to take the proposed Monorail from West Seattle, I would have to catch a bus to the Monorail terminal and wait for the connection. Hence, I would stay with Metro.

Needless to say, I am voting against the Monorail.

With much love,

Tom Toomey, West Seattle

Hang in there. If the Monorail is approved, it might find enough money to be extended southward to where you live, providing you and thousands of other people with a 15-20 minute ride to work regardless of weather and traffic. That'd be nice, huh?

Not About the Election

As the world doubles in population--during the next decade, and both China and India struggle to become industrial nations, do you think we will use less oil? In a world using more petroleum than ever, what do you think would be the result of even a 10 percent decline in the supply of oil? What is the energy source that will sustain our civilization as the supply of oil declines? Why is it not being developed right now? Are we going to wait until after the oil is gone to think about it? Or is the problem that there is no alternative energy source, and the next ten years are too horrible to think about?

The real problem we face is not unjust wars, or the corrupt government that oppresses its own people--as well as the rest of the world. The emergency is that we are using up the energy source that has allowed us to become demigods in only 150 years. This is the underlying issue that is the cause of all our belligerent and self-destructive national policies.

And until we, as a progressive movement, can face this future--we will find ourselves fighting windmills. With each day that passes, there is less chance of avoiding the cataclysm. Do you think the human race will save itself?

--Kurt, Seattle