Letters to the editor for Nov. 5
‘If you don’t stand for something, what will you fall for?’
Remember when we were hyped about “Hamilton” this summer? In it, he asked, “If you don’t stand for something, what will you fall for?”
Today, I ask the state’s public health decision makers this same question.
My family takes COVID-19 seriously. We have been wearing masks in public spaces and eat takeout and avoid inside dining. We make decisions based on science.
Our policy makers no longer seem to use science to guide them.
Last week, our policy makers chose to stand for drinking in bars by expanding by an hour how late people can stay and drink in them. Drinking in bars is documented scientifically to be a medium-high risk activity for spreading COVID to others. Did you see the recent study that of people who got COVID from community spread, a large number of them had eaten in a restaurant in the last 14 days?
Did you see the two huge studies that came out proving COVID is not spread during youth soccer?
But guess what? We can eat in a restaurant with people outside our household and head to a bar and drink until 11 p.m. with other people. But my 15-year-old cannot play in her youth soccer game.
If you want scientifically vetted data on the incredibly low risk of transmission of COVID through outdoor soccer, google “ECNL study soccer” and “Surf study low risk spread.”
Then, you tell me what is ethical and you tell me what do you stand for?
Ryan Hall, Olympia
$30 vehicle tab decision
Every initiative that is proposed to the public must be submitted to the Attorney General’s Office, and it is the AG’s responsibility to approve the ballot title. (The reason is: They have to defend this in any future lawsuit.) The Attorney General failed and then failed a second time to fight for the public when Initiative 976 was challenged.
I put full responsibility on Attorney General Bob Ferguson for the Supreme Court ruling striking down the initiative, mostly because of his total dislike for initiative sponsor Tim Eyman.
So we have an initiative that was approved by a majority of the voters and Bob Ferguson could not or would not take the time to defend it. Mr. Ferguson no longer has my support.
Ken Estes, Olympia
The real court packing
In response the questions raised about “court packing,” Republicans have successfully flipped the script once again. Please flip it back! The only reason court packing is being contemplated by Democrats is because of the court packing, of another kind, that has already occurred by U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and the Republicans.
Refusing to seat President Obama’s nominees, including Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and then rushing through Trump nominees, many rated poorly, including the most hypocritical move, Amy Coney Barrett, is a blatant example of a cynical brand of court packing. To my mind, the most reasonable response to the questions and accusations being raised by Republicans and media pundits is, let’s talk about the court packing that has already occurred over the past four years!
Perhaps this has been said by Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris but I haven’t heard it stated so clearly. Please shine the light back on Trump and McConnell for what they have done.
Michael K. McDonald, Olympia
Will Eyman learn a lesson?
Tim Eyman has yet again had one of his $30 car tab initiatives (I-976) rejected as unconstitutional by the Washington state Supreme Court. It beggars belief that he hasn’t learned anything from his previous failures. Could it be he doesn’t want the initiatives to pass muster, thus killing his golden goose?
Perhaps he’ll finally be silenced as a result of his upcoming campaign finance trial for playing fast and loose with campaign contributions again.
Will Stewart, Olympia