Letters to the editor — May 22

• Published May 22, 2008

• Comments (0)

The conference had nothing to do with any specific religion. The Dalai Lama was asked to speak on the subject of compassion not Buddhism. Christianity wasn’t mentioned specifically either because the conference wasn’t about religion.

What are the Christians afraid of? I watched the event on UWTV, and the Dalai Lama did not speak of Buddha as a god. He doesn’t presume to be God himself.

How can Jesus be the bringer of compassion and the Christians be so compassionless toward other beliefs? There’s only one God. What is wrong with different ways of worshipping?

Jody Greene, Olympia

Once-secure pensions are disappearing

In the May 11 edition of The Washington Post, an article describes how deficits are affecting the budget that provides pensions and health benefits to public retirees across the country. I urge all working people in this country to find this article and read it.

We hear, especially now with the presidential campaign in full swing, about the American way, what’s right and wrong and so on. Let me ask a question. Is it the American way or the right way to have hard-working, tax-paying citizens threatened with pension loss and loss of health benefits when they reach a retirement age? Is this the example that is being set for the future parents and leaders of our country?

Well, this disease of pension cutbacks or total loss started in the private industry years ago, and anyone who worked in the public sector thought they were safe. Just like a disease, it has spread and will get only worse, unless people unite and take charge of the situation.

Unless we want to be the next country making sneakers for 30 cents an hour, wake up! Hold your elected officials responsible. Arrange meetings with them and voice concerns. If you and co-workers are not union members, join one and let your voice be heard. Remember, your job, your future, your family. There are things to be done.

Dan Delaney, president, Return Eastern Airline Pensions

Take a risk, pin hope on a promising unknown

I am puzzled by Daniel A. Alexander’s letter, titled “No good choice for next president.” He says that a President Clinton or a President McCain would mean “more of the same,” and give us slim hope for an improved future.

That makes sense to me.

Then he implies that a President Obama gives no hope either; since he is an unknown, we don’t know what he’d do. He says Obama “might do good, but who knows?”

Isn’t something new always unknown? If we want something different, doesn’t that mean taking a chance on something that only might be good? I know that change can be intimidating, but I think that if I don’t risk choosing change then I, like Alexander, am forced to expect more of the same.

This time, I am willing to take a risk and pin my hope on a promising unknown.

Joslyn Trivett, Olympia