The Columbian | Serving Clark County, Washington

Responsibility key in education

In regards to John Laird’s Feb. 28 column, “Schools have changed, but not enough,” as an immigrating student into the United States, I see every opportunity I never had. I agree that increased time in school would bring about more credit hours in the classroom. However, this action is not absolute.

When I was a little girl in Nigeria, school was a privilege to attend. In my country, not everyone is able to afford enough to attend because of the level of poverty. School fees and supplies had to be paid by my family. We had no money for books, so the only responsible thing I could do was make friends with others who had books so I could read their books during recess, while they played. I used every opportunity to learn all I could at all time.

It is not always a person’s right to everything but a responsibility for the individual. Things will always change — that is certainly true about time as it changes constantly and that time slips away and can never be retrieved again. Those responsible seem to find themselves just where that virtue takes them. For others, they have eyes yet cannot see opportunity afforded to them.

Patricia Burton

Camas

Too many drawbacks with nukes

Although I support President Obama’s efforts on most of the difficult issues he is trying to tackle, I take issue with him and The Columbian (Feb. 18 editorial “Nuclear power? Yes!”) when it comes to resurrecting nuclear power as a viable option. When is everyone going to realize that the “nuclear waste disposal challenge” is much more than a mere drawback? That very critical issue has remained an obstacle for decades and will not be resolved with another commission. We should recognize it as the deal breaker it is and move on to further conservation and the truly green sources of power. No nukes!

Russ Grattan

Amboy

Regulate nuclear plants with iron fist

I believe nuclear power is a necessary stepping stone to a safe, independent energy infrastructure that should include hydrogen fuel cells, solar, wind, fusion and any other less obtrusive energy sources we can invent. However, the thought process The Columbian’s Feb. 18 editorial, “Nuclear power? Yes!,” uses to support implementation of nuclear power is a tad fuzzy. The statement, “But the waste disposal challenge is no reason not to at least get started on expanding the industry,” is a horrible way to design anything. Let’s not create the most deadly waste substance that exists before we know what to do with it.

“Equally important is the need for government to ultimately to step aside and let the free market take over.” A couple of weeks ago a free market energy company in Vermont released radioactive tritium into the water and lied to the state Legislature and regulators that they did it. We need to control these nuclear power plants with an iron fist. Perhaps we should let the Navy run them. They have experience and an excellent track record.

If we’re to use nuclear power as a stopgap measure on the way to truly clean energy, we need to be prudent about it.

Bryan P. Blair

Woodland

Time for progress on bridge issue

With all of the political infighting and posturing, one would think the new Interstate 5 bridge has become a politically correct California project. The time has come to move forward with function, rather than form. These ongoing battles have reached the point of absurdity, and the cost of construction clock does not stop ticking. We cannot save the “ruby breasted silver crested duck billed spotted sap sucker,” so get on with it.

Ed Delph

Brush Prairie

Feds should bankroll bridge costs

Define interstate. Occurring between states: occurring between, connecting, or involving two or more states that form part of the federally funded system of highways connecting the major cities of the United States. In this terminology it says that an interstate highway is a road connecting two states and other major cities of the United States. So why are residents of Vancouver and Portland the ones who they are trying to force to pay for much of a new bridge through tolls or tax increases? If it is a state highway, make the whole state pay for it. Better yet since it is a federal highway, make the federal government pay for it all.

Light-rail connection to MAX is the real reason for a new bridge, the only reason. Traffic jams happen and a new bridge won’t help that. Look at Interstate 205. If they leave MAX out of the mix, I believe there is no reason to build a new bridge. With threats of cutting service and raising fees do we need light rail over here? Who will pay for it?

I say “no” to a new bridge unless someone else pays for it. Keep MAX out of Vancouver — it’s another money pit.

Arthur Hooper

Vancouver

Social benefits are a gain for all

I’m writing in response to Diane Willerton’s Feb. 15 letter, “Don’t ignore dangers of socialism.” Most enlightened societies, like all of Western Europe, are a combination of “regulated” capitalism and “yes” socialism, not communism. The terms are not synonymous.

These social programs protect us all. Call it the commons. They include public education, highways, national parks, health care in most countries, and public libraries, to name a few. Also included are Social Security, Medicare and the government-controlled VA. The “evil” labor unions acquired for us all the benefits of overtime pay, paid vacations and holidays, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. They provide a necessary wall to keep employers honest.

George Orwell’s book “Animal Farm,” not “1984,” which Willerton misquoted, is a scathing indictment of communism, not the social programs. His book “1984” explains the media control by Big Brother, which was frighteningly similar to the Bush-Cheney White House (and also Fox News). Mussolini’s definition of fascism is the corporate takeover of the government. Our forefathers rolled over in their graves at the blatantly unconstitutional decision made, 5 to 4, in the most recent U.S. Supreme Court case giving corporations the right to free speech.

Mark Bullington

Stevenson

Let’s not redefine ‘mistake’

Since when have egregious acts of immoral and/or illegal conduct become “mistakes?” A mistake is calling an acquaintance by the wrong name or overcooking the hamburgers.

Lying, cheating, stealing, drunk driving, not paying taxes, and having affairs are not mistakes, they are conscious acts showing lack of character and moral fiber.

Celebrities and noncelebrities alike need to understand the difference before they attempt to “apologize.”

Nancy Bartholomy

Vancouver

Print this article