Letters to the Editor

Thanks for your help

Editor, the Journal,

Thank you so much to the kind lady who stayed with me when I fell in the street and injured myself March 24. I did not get your name, but your thoughtfulness will remain a blessing to me forever.

Gratefully,

Joey Thompson, Shelton

Kudos to Sheldon

Editor, the Journal,

I would like to chime in behind John Ervin's letter last week in thanking Tim Sheldon for his service to our county and our state.

In 1991, our family moved its fledgling business to Mason County. I can say without any doubt, if not for Tim's assistance, along with his then Economic Development Council associate Jay Hupp, things could have worked differently for our firm.

Additionally, credit also goes to my late friend, Tom Spikes, who as the business banking representative for Heritage Bank, was a major catalyst in our success here in Mason County. Tom, now gone, is not forgotten. His influence on business in this county still has his presence, including fond memories by friends and business clients.

Good luck Tim, you will be missed. You were like a giant circuit-breaker in our snafu state Legislature.

Patrick Burke, American Cushion Industries, Shelton

Owners and camps

Editor, the Journal,

Headline in the March 31 Journal: "City targets camps"

Wait. What?

That headline should read: "City targets property owners." Shelton Police Chief Carole Beason told the City Council that homeless people were, in essence, trespassing on private property. That they were dumping trash, defecating on the ground and starting dangerous fires. It seems to me that all their acts are unlawful. Why tell the council? Why not enforce the law?

The next paragraph states that a proposed ordinance would make the property owner responsible for the cleanup or if they don't, could eventually have a lien placed on their property. Beason said the ordinance "gives us another tool to be able to hold property owners accountable for what is going on on their property." I'm sure that some, if not all of you - the police chief and council members - are parents. Would any of you hold one of your children accountable for what you know another child had done? Beason also said some property owners don't know that people have set up camps on their land and that "there's a lot of trash, a lot of debris, and we also have other crimes being committed on some of the properties." I hope this proposed ordinance won't try to make the property owners accountable for the "other crimes" being committed, or will it be applied differently for those who don't know that crimes are being committed on their property?

At the April 19 business meeting and the May 3 action agenda, the City Council should be discussing how to protect property owners. You know, like enforcing the law. Council member Joe Schmit said "we're not making it illegal to have unhoused people in the city limits, or an organized encampment." He said it needs to be "permitted" and go through a "process" within the city to do it in a "legal way." Is he saying that there is a permit and process within our city rules that can make trespassing legal?

Beason said property owners could make their land "less desirable" to campers by removing trees to create greater visibility. Will the city pay for the logging permit to do this? I don't think so. If the city, churches or any other local groups want to allow homeless encampments on their own properties, that's fine. However, none of them should be held responsible for cleaning up the area. It would be cheaper in the long run to make the offenders do the work. If you don't, they will just stand back out of the way and watch someone else do the job. That will not fix anything.

This state, from the top down, seems to protect the guilty/criminal and punish the law-abiding citizens.

Keith Schouviller, Shelton

Enforce the Constitution

Editor, the Journal,

The U.S. Constitution is a really cool document. It is not stagnant, but a very robust and flexible document. It has incorporated and preserved lessons learned in our history to make all of us, hopefully, a better nation. The Constitution addresses issues and tries to correct and/or manage the issues. Sometimes the issues are corrected and sometimes they are not. The two amendments for and against Prohibition are a specific example that come to mind. In a very American folklore way, the constitutional amendments "close the barn door after the horses get out." Three amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) were added to the Constitution as a direct result of the Civil War. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, addresses all of the folks who in some way or another were "... engaged in Insurrection or rebellion against the same (United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof (United States)." Essentially these words were specifically addressing all of the scum-bucket Confederate traitors who were involved in one way or another in hostilities against the United States. This portion of the amendment wanted to make absolutely clear that those traitors were not allowed to ever play in politics on a state or federal level, or work in the state or federal government positions or ever serve in the United States military. Two examples come to mind, 1) Jefferson Davis, president of the confederacy, was never in politics again. 2) Gen. Robert E. Lee was never in the military again.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3, has sat dormant for a little more than 150 years and then the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, happened at our Capitol when Congress was validating the Electoral College votes for president and vice president.

Well, now a group of folks in northwestern Georgia, from the congressional district that U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene represents, looked at Greene's behavior and words dealing with the Jan. 6 insurrection (before, during and after) and have filed a suit in federal court invoking the 14th Amendment to not have her ever hold public office again. Wow!Who would have thunk it that something written 150 years ago in our Constitution about insurrectionist scum-buckets would come into vogue today? We shall soon see whether the federal courts find that the 14th Amendment, Section 3, is still valid today concerning all those political dirtbags who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Earl W. Burt, Bremerton

Biden and Obama

Editor, the Journal,

On Monday, April 4, we were treated to a video of a triumphant Barack Obama returning to Washington, D.C., to commemorate the 12-year anniversary of Obamacare, also known as the "Affordable" Care Act (sneer quotes my own).

Mr. Obama was having a grand time in the East Wing of the White House, flashing his broad, winsome smile and reaching across bodies to shake hands with anyone who looked familiar. A throng of near-delirious Democrats crowded around him with hopes of speaking to him or at least touching his garments. The messiah had returned. What a thrill it must have been.

But wait. Where's our president? Where's Joe Biden?

A camera captured him alone and apart from the crowd. He turned to his left, then right, looking confused, then turned his back to the camera altogether only to stare at ... nothing. A short time later and emboldened, he reached out to touch Obama's shoulder, but his presence was not even acknowledged.

After the gathering, some pundits suggested that this pathetic scene of rejection should evoke some sympathy, even from conservatives. Sorry, I felt nothing. Remember, this is Joe Biden, a man who doesn't much care for America. His policies have all been disasters and his personnel appointments, from veep on down, summon either tears or laughter.

Most Americans can now see that Democrats can't govern, and, as a result of this event, their messaging is subpar as well. So how did Joe and Barack match up?

Obama is an elitist, and a flamboyant one to boot. (Remember his silly Greek columns in 2008 at Denver's (formerly) Mile High Stadium?) At the White House, his welcoming smile and glad-handing stole the show and made Biden irrelevant Joe, on the other hand, gave a realistic performance by wandering aimlessly about the room with a confused expression as if he was looking for his mother. I believe the Democrats made a grievous unforced error by showing this event to the public. If they ever try to air something like it again they should tout it as a TV reality show.

Robert E. Graham, Union

'Family values'

Editor, the Journal,

We have a political party that claims ownership of family values and small government.

How can they be for "families" and deny a woman the right to plan her family? How can they be for families and be against raising the minimum wage? How can they be for families and deny them affordable health care? How can they be for families and not acknowledge that Black lives matter too? How can they be for families and separate families at the border and separate families by deporting parents who have lived here for years? How can they deny children who came here as small children the protection of DACA?

How can they be for families and deny LGBTQIA people even a say in who they are? How can they deny health services to transgender kids? How can they deny transgender kids the right to play sports?

If they believe in family values, how do they deny the right to read books? Books that teach our true history. Books that tell the life experience of any one of color of LGBTQIA people? How do they ban books that teach understanding and empathy?

That seems to be the point. This political party doesn't want understanding and empathy for people other than well-to-do white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual families. These are families they want to recognize as "real families." This is what this political party of "small government" does. It takes away women's rights, and even encourages others to report and bring a lawsuit against anyone involved in a woman exercising her rights.

This small government bans books. This small government makes it illegal for teachers to even answer a child's questions. A child cannot discuss their own family. And this government encourages lawsuits of teachers and schools.

This small government is investigating parents of trans kids for child abuse.

This small government is in the most private aspects of our lives. This small government is pitting family against family, neighbor against neighbor. This small government is putting the lives of women, homosexuals and transgender people in even more danger, at risk because of these ridiculous laws.

This small government does not want people to know the true history of this country. They don't want anyone to feel empathy. They don't want people to know that people are born homosexual, people are born in the wrong body. They don't want people to know that people don't become homosexual or transgender because of reading a book or having a conversation.

"... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."

Isn't that what we all want, to just live our lives and to be our true selves?

I ask this, what is it about you that this political party will come after next?

Because if they think they can lie about something about you to instill fear in their voters, they will come after you too.

Why would anyone actually vote for this kind of government?

Donna Holliday, Shelton

I have a solution

Editor, the Journal,

Election choices. Citizens of this country are given the responsibility to vote and with that are given choices: vote for something or vote against it. Now hopefully we take the time to understand the issues on the ballot (raising taxes, levies, bonds, water rate hikes and others) and make an educated choice to vote for what we feel is in the best interest of the community, the state or the nation.

When it comes to people we elect, we again have a choice, hopefully we have listened to their positions. And maybe they will stand by their campaign promises.

What if it's their positions you don't agree with? Do you support them because of the R or D after their name or do you vote for the other guy? Do you leave the position blank on your ballot? Now I really dislike leaving my vote blank, even if there is only one person on the ballot, if I don't like the person running, I write in my wife.

Let's take the issue of immigration and our southern border. Both sides say that the system is broken so we just let the guy in the White House write an executive order. What has that gotten us? The next guy simply undoes what the last guy did. Is that any way to fix the problem? No, this is a nation of laws, follow them, if they are broken, fix them. The people we send to Washington, D.C., are not fixing the broken system and because they won't, millions of people are just walking over our border, they are given a date to come back for a hearing that 95% of them never show up for. What are all these people who are here illegally going to do? They should not even be able to work here without a visa or green card.

I have a solution. Close all of the borders and hold the pay of all elected officials until they can come up with a fix for the broken system. Make the changes and get the bill to the desk and signed into law and then enforce the laws equally for everyone. If they break the law, send them back to where they came from. Our nation does not exist without its borders, states do not exist without borders, so legislators: Fix the system or we will put someone willing to do the job in your place.

Did I vote for President Joe Biden? No. Biden never had what is needed to be president of the United States. He was supposed to be a moderate, but a moderate does not do and say the things that he has, he is just another career politician. He has failed on everything he has ever done with the exception of making money for his family. If he was the best that the Dems had, they are in sad shape. We need people willing to work together to solve problems. I chose the person that I felt had the best interest of the nation in their heart. I stand by my vote. Can you who voted for Biden say the same?

Keith Martin, Shelton

Oil facts, fantasy

Editor, the Journal,

I read a letter from a usual suspect last week regarding climate change. Now, I know that writers such as this will never accept the proposition that releasing massive amounts of carbon and methane into the atmosphere is probably a bad idea. They will never accept that humans are in fact creating a problem that is going to cost us

dearly. Perhaps they are simply so old that it just won't affect them, so to heck with the rest of those who might have to live with the consequences. But perhaps we should rest their credibility on blatant misstatements of facts.

What was the effect of rejecting the Keystone Pipeline? Well, nothing. The pipeline was never shipping Canadian tar sand oil because it wasn't built before. And that oil has been shipped into the U.S. And refined. And sold.

Did President Joe Biden stop oil production on federal land? No. The executive order only affected new leasing on federal land. The oil companies currently have a significant amount of leased land. In fact, they aren't even using half of what they already leased. That half amounts to millions of acres. Additionally, in 2021, the Biden administration approved more production permits than the Trump administration. U.S. production went up last year, not down.

Now, if the writer is sloppy with these basic facts, then why should I believe him when it comes to other representations on climate change? Now, let's talk briefly about fossil fuels in general. I will look at the strategic aspect of it. This is an important topic given that American policy for my entire adult life has maintained that oil is a strategic commodity. If oil is a strategic commodity, then why is it we do not treat it as one? Our focus seems to be on how much we can consume at any given time. And there is a reason we happily relied on the Middle East. Their oil is cheap oil to produce. North American oil is increasingly reliant on more expensive extraction and refining technology. Thus, our oil requires a higher price point to break even. So, we chose to suck the other guys dry first, then use our reserves as oil became scarcer. That makes our oil more valuable in the future. Oil in the ground is not lost. It's not going anywhere. It is an appreciating asset.

But the bigger, and more recent, lesson is that we are too dependent on oil, period. Thus, we let it drive our economic well-being. It would seem more prudent to do two things to counteract that. 1) Become ever more efficient in use and stop wasting it through careless release of commodities like methane. 2) Develop alternatives. It is harder to drive prices up when there are alternatives. I would think the idea of reducing waste, conserving use, and diversifying alternatives would be reasonable, prudent and dare I say it, conservative. I have never understood the people who call themselves conservative supporting waste, the most anti-conservative idea I can imagine.

Andrew Makar, Hoodsport

Reading papers

Editor, the Journal,

Finally, after an entire month, The Wall Street Journal has returned to local news kiosks. I sure missed it. How am I supposed to think and what beliefs should I hold without the daily tutoring of the aforesaid publication?

It's really the weekend edition of this journal that was the source of my existential angst. My Sundays, prior to the novel coronavirus (now known as COVID version whatever), was to attend early Mass at St. David of Wales, then purchase the weekend edition of the WSJ at the downtown Safeway, for a leisurely day eating a big breakfast, perusing the WSJ, and sleeping: the perfect day of rest.

Suddenly, without explanation, no local delivery, neither at Safeway nor Fred Meyer. A tragedy only slightly mitigated by the Timberland Regional Library, Shelton branch, having the foresight to subscribe to same. Alas, the library doesn't condone a patron's clipping articles of personal interest nor other forms of defacement.

I've enjoyed the WSJ since I retrieved a copy that dropped off the company's mail cart – and, as a malicious drug – was instantly addicted. This was back in the days when it cost 35 cents per issue, only dot-shaded black and white drawings, no weekend edition, and the great Vermont Royster as the Editor of the Comments and Commentary section. What a nerd (me - not Mr. Royster). I'd bust up laughing at his insights and delightful way with words.

In the absence of local WSJ delivery, I purchased The New York Times twice ($6 a pop) and The Seattle Times ($4): both a poor price-to-content expenditure.

Word on the street is that The Wall Street Journal is read by people in control - the executives, The New York Times for people who wish they were in control, and the local news for the sports coverage and comics. I think there's some truth to this. The theme of The New York Times appears to be that the world is on the brink of catastrophic collapse - pick your poison - global warming, antagonistic race relations, declining infrastructure, rising poverty and homelessness: nothing good on the docket and only more government contributing more money and the resultant control to the dysfunctional area will solve these current problems and create a better future world for all. Just trust your elected officials guided by the very best advisers on K Street.

Tough reading, unless you prefer a life of self-righteous doom and gloom, which I don't. I give thanks daily that I live in this country and continually and habitually realize the blessings as "We the People" continue our individual and collective striving toward "a more perfect Union."

Prior to the establishment of an operational United States of America, people's lives were "dirty, painful, and short." And it was only at the American Revolution - a truly unique and propitious era - when the concept of "We the People" gained popular support and adherence. We now believe our lives deserve to be absent of hunger, sickness and slavery, and we work conscientiously to remove the vestiges of same. As "We the People" believe conspicuously that we are in charge of our nation. We're the boss. And as the boss, we're responsible for the health and well-being of our country both now and in the future.

Soon after the American Revolution the French attempted to imitate the American humanistic transformation with "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" as the theme - culminating in the most humanistic means of execution - the guillotine. Then the Russians attempted the betterment of the masses through adherence to communism, resulting in mass incarceration in the gulag archipelago and starvation throughout Ukraine. Many nations have tried to emulate America's success, but none succeed without personal freedom and an inherent core of personal responsibility.

Back to the national and regional newspapers mentioned above. They provide an overview of the international, national and regional news. The Shelton-Mason County Journal's talent is that it provides the local perspective and flavor of these broad initiatives and events such as: How much of the Build Back Better money adds to our coffers and how are we spending it? Has the federal student loan program actually helped local college students? Have welfare payments assisted our neighbors to become financially solvent?

There's no end to people ostensibly explaining how to make our collective lives better. They're creating a fantastic global utopia that more often than not catastrophically collapses because they are conceived in the fog of incompetent and egotistical hubris and grounded on feet of clay which then has to be administered locally under realistic local conditions.

The Wall Street Journal and The Shelton-Mason County Journal reflect reality.

The New York Times and The Seattle Times - eh - not so much.

James Poirson, Shelton