Letters: Nov. 19, 2019

Four comments on Hanford roads

Deputize Hanford Patrol so they can enforce traffic rules as they once did. I witnessed drivers taking more risks after patrol (officers) were no longer deputized. Hanford Patrol staff told me of times where they have gone off the road to avoid being hit by oncoming traffic while others driving Hanford Patrol vehicles received “one-finger salutes” as they were being passed; “Flatten” the roadside hills and draws between Route 4-South’s Wye barricade and 2-East hill. This was proposed two decades ago after it noted the relationship of animal strikes and draws.

Leveling the terrain another 100 yards back increases the drivers ability to take action when spotting an animal; Flatten out the roadway itself to allow a line of sight from the turn after the Wye Barricade to the 2-East hill. Eliminating the hills reduces the chance of vehicle striking oncoming vehicles as each will no longer be hidden in the many dips; Everyone should drive responsibly. It’s up to each person who is behind the wheel to not cause the next fatality or injury due to poor judgment.

Heeding a Turk, not our generals

I appreciated the letter from Lenny Perkins recalling the old-fashioned respect for a person who devotes his/her career to public service. In my career I worked on many government-funded projects and worked with many government employees who were competent and hard working and honestly felt that their work was a patriotic act. Since our president conspicuously lacks the characteristics of competence and honesty, he is threatened by anyone who is competent and honest.

When distinguished diplomats with decades of public service give sworn testimony that he finds unfavorable, he derisively calls them “unelected bureaucrats,” and he embraces the right-wing conspiracy theory of a “deep state” lurking in the government, out to get him. Mr. Bone Spurs claims to be smarter than the generals (presumably including the Tri-Cities’ honored Gen. James Mattis), but he accepted the advice of a Turkish dictator and withdrew American troops from their positions in Northern Syria, sacrificing our Kurdish allies.

This man is unfit to be president. The House impeachment inquiry is gathering the testimony of many patriotic public servants to weave a tight argument for impeachment. It would be the best imaginable public service to impeach this president and remove him from office.

Quid pro quo or extortion attempt?

The definition of quid pro quo is “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.” The current use of the word quid pro quo in the news media is giving it an undeserved reputation.

The definition of extortion is “the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.”

The impeachment investigation by the House of Representatives is not about a quid pro quo situation. It is about whether our president attempted to extort from the Ukraine government an announcement that it was performing a corruption investigation of his political rival, delaying previously approved foreign aid until the Ukraine government complied with his request.

Let’s call it what it is, and discontinue the use of the phrase quid pro quo to describe what is going on. It is more properly, the investigation of what may be an extortion attempt by our president for personal benefit by withholding previously approved government aid.

Changes at parks could be for better

News flash: national parks already have concessions (hotels, food service, guide service) and many Forest Service campgrounds are already operated by concessionaires who clean restrooms, maintain order, collect fees.

I agree that golden arches at the entrance to Mt. Rainier or Crater Lake would be inappropriate, however there could be strict design guidelines for new structures, similar to Santa Fe (maintaining its pueblo village appearance) or Bingen, Wash., (which decided to become a Bavarian village). And it’s obvious that any new development should not occur on the top of Mt. Rushmore or adjacent to Old Faithful, but within or near existing development.

However it’s also obvious that additional concessions within a park could provide competition for food and lodging, providing variety and potentially more reasonable prices.

Finally, an environmental impact statement should not be required for projects that occur in areas already developed or adjacent to existing development. Expanding campgrounds in most cases is minor construction and would provide more people the opportunity to spend time in the parks that so often are booked as soon as reservations become available.

It’s an idea that should be explored, not reflexively dismissed because it was suggested by President Trump.

This story was originally published November 19, 2019 at 12:01 AM with the headline "Letters: Nov. 19, 2019."