Letters to the Editor

A slippery slope

Editor, the Journal,

I for one support Sandy Tarzwell and am thankful for her warnings and that she spoke out. I sense that the outrage expressed is really an attempt to change the subject or get someone different for the school board. I thought this was the age of tolerance and being non-judgmental. Causing shame is to be avoided, is it not?

The Holocaust did not happen in a vacuum. There were many things leading up to it including a new law (the Malicious Practices Act) passed in 1933 that made it a crime to speak out against the new government or criticize its leaders. Opposition was outlawed and civil liberties were eliminated. Those considered enemies were demonized.

In the same way, we see attempts to suppress any criticism or discussion of the vaccines or the government’s mandates. Science should be about discussion and looking at things from different perspectives.

Autonomy over one’s own body and what you put into it is pretty basic to freedom. If you don’t have that, you have very little freedom. Making a vaccine a condition of employment is perhaps not “forcing” in the sense of holding them down and giving it to them — but I would say that to contemplate losing one’s means of making a living and thus paying for food and shelter, etc., comes pretty close to forcing a person to get it.

Let’s be clear, the mRNA vaccines do not prevent one from getting or transmitting COVID-19 to others. Yes, they may protect the person who takes it from getting as sick as they might have otherwise — but it is not as protective for the public. Also, no exception is given for those who already have the antibodies from previous illness and no discussion allowed. Vaccines and masks are not the only means of ensuring health.

Political correctness and cancel culture have not helped us as a nation. Neither does it help to have a media that covers up most of what they don’t agree with.

We need more people like Sandy Tarzwell.

Rebekah Wilson

Shelton

Bullying tactics

Editor, The Journal

Mahatma Gandhi asks, “Must a citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?” Gov. Jay Inslee violated the personal right of conscience when he required the Shelton School District to fire teachers for not being vaccinated. I find his order contemptible.

The bullying tactics by government officials demanding everyone be vaccinated must stop. Our right of conscience is now being denied by these politicians. Ben Franklin said, “Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!”

Critics must understand the concerns of the anti-vaccinate crowd. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (term 1916-1939) said, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” As well-meaning as these critics are, they fail to understand or appreciate the sanctity of our conscience. Why do politicians reject medical, religious, or philosophical concerns about the vaccine?

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said 64,000,000 people are unvaccinated, yet insists on mandates. This is tyranny. Rioters in Portland are ignored; illegals stream across our border unimpeded; yet Democrats fire cops, firefighters, doctors, nurses for not being vaccinated. These folks save lives while politicians kill careers. How dumb are Democrats?

Those who believe mandates are important should insist President Joe Biden include the illegals in this mandate and close our southern border. As it is, death comes with every COVID-infected illegal (16,000 and counting) who are sent to cities across the USA.

Some feel the unvaccinated are selfish. I’m vaccinated but I support those who refuse the vaccine. If the vaccine works, why the fear? If the vaccine doesn’t work, why must we take it? Why doesn’t the natural immunity of COVID survivors count? It can’t be for the kids as they now have their own vaccine. I resent Inslee and Biden taking away my First Amendment right of assembly by executive action with no legislative involvement. They’re tinhorn dictators.

The following great novels tell us how to lose our political freedom. “Atlas Shrugged” shows how socialist sloganeering of liberals works; “1984” discusses people with the political courage of fainting goats; “Animal Farm” observes pigs evolving into Democratic politicians.

“The Fountainhead” is emblematic of heroes who stand up to the Inslees of the world. It shows what one person with integrity can do. For local lovers of liberty who were unjustly fired and are now leaving this city and state for wherever, God speed. Find a state with courageous citizens and honorable leaders who respect your right of dissent. We will miss you.

Ardean Anvik

Shelton

Freedom

from religion

Editor, the Journal,

An open letter to those running opposed and unopposed for Shelton City Council seats:

I, the Washington state representative of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org, would like to congratulate, and respectfully support your quest for caring enough about Shelton to take on the responsibility to represent all the citizens of this amazing town.

Be it declared and known that Shelton has good residents, verifiably, that call themselves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, wiccans, et. al., and then too, there are those (23% of Americans referred to as “nones.”) that have no affiliation with any religion at all, and then there are those living here that prefer to just sleep in on Sundays than go to church. Your good neighbors.

We, secularists, are here, we are productive and law-abiding citizens trying, just like the religious citizens, to add meaning to this existence none of us can recall asking for but we all are making the best of it as we deem it meaningful and worthy of the respect and admiration of our families and fellow citizens.

We, believers and nonbelievers, we are all in this together, and with “we,” I am referring to: “We the people,” as stated in our Constitution, and so I sincerely hope you soon-to-be-elected, and those currently remaining as fellow council members will continue to be neutral with regard to your personal preferred religious worldviews as the U.S. First Amendment intended and that you fully dedicate yourselves to the secular purpose of effective governance.

Good luck in your quest to be effective for Shelton.

Darrell Barker

Shelton

Mark of the beast

Editor, the Journal,

I’ve been reading with interest the pros and cons of the vaccination mandate. It seems folks are more interested in forcing vaccinations than in living in a free country. There is a comparison with the government forcing folks to follow the rules or else. In the Bible, Rev. 13: 16-17, the beast causes all people, both great and small, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or forehead, and that if someone doesn’t they may not buy nor sell. Well, folks, the parallel is that anyone who doesn’t get a vaccination loses their job and they can’t get unemployment or any government help, let them starve or eat cake.

I realize that a jab and a permanent mark is not the same, but it’s a start. If you can be forced to get a jab it’s only a matter of time before some other requirement comes along. The Milgram studies of 60 years ago proved that it (the Holocaust) can happen here. Look up the study online for yourself.

Kayce Benson

Xxxxxx

Stop the propaganda

Editor, the Journal,

In the recent letter to the editor, “Stop the nonsense,” the author references the famous story of the Great Serum Race to Nome in 1925 in which dog sleds were used to deliver diphtheria serum during an outbreak. As with much propaganda, the recount of the story in the letter was accurate in the first three paragraphs, the fourth paragraph then made some statements relative to the factual portrayal of the Nome event, but then in the sleight of hand, the author turns this example to a completely different scenario to justify his thinking on COVID-19 vaccination and berate those who do not think as he does. Classic move of a propagandist.

The many facts conveniently omitted from his letter include those which would shed a completely different light for those reading his letter. First, the serum delivered to Nome was a treatment for those already infected with diphtheria, primarily children. The serum was an antitoxin derived from horse plasma with diphtheria antibodies. It was not a vaccine. It was used to treat sick children who are at high risk of dying from diphtheria. And then the matter of risk. Diphtheria had very high mortality rates among children during that time. I found sources that indicate mortality rates of between 2 to 5 out of 10 children who contracted it in early 1900s died. Compare that to the very, very low mortality rate of COVID among children, reported as 2 out of 1,000,000 (University of Bristol, 9/23/2021), some of these deaths with serious comorbidities. All deaths are tragic; however, to connect these two risk scenarios without proper referencing is misleading, at best.

If the author had properly cited his letter, his point of comparing the Nome diphtheria response to the current COVID vaccination response would have been ridiculous, thus he left out very important facts. A better comparison with the Nome event in which people successfully got therapeutic drugs to people who were already sick, with a high risk of dying, would be the effort to get therapeutic drugs to COVID patients. Unlike in 1925 when winter weather was the enemy of getting medicine to patients, today it is the medical establishment, our government, and media with outright disinformation about therapeutic treatments of COVID.

I would have thought better of the author who in this letter claimed to have completed much research and just a few weeks ago wrote a letter espousing writers to speak truth; clearly, he failed.

Bob Rogers

Shelton

Praise for PUD 3 linemen

Editor, the Journal

At approximately 2 a.m. on Oct. 16, I awoke and noticed that the power was off in the house. After a short period of time, I drove up John’s Prairie Road, the road I live on, and on Hiawatha Boulevard I saw two PUD 3 trucks working on the problem. I went back home and went to bed and according to my alarm, the lights and power came back on at 5:05 a.m. and the power officially went off at 12:05 a.m.

I don’t think these PUD linemen get the credit for a job well done, especially when they are called out at all hours of the night and all kinds of weather conditions.

We, I, take for granted the luxury of power until we are without it for a period of time. I know I appreciate the work they do, and the promptness and professionalism they show!

Bill Dagle

Shelton

Nazi references

Editor, the Journal,

In last week’s Journal (Oct.21) we witnessed what I consider a totally unnecessary kerfuffle over some words uttered by Shelton School Board member Sandra Tarzwell. The subject at an Oct. 12 board meeting apparently was a recent government mandate for all school district employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination.

It was then reported that Tarzwell said, in part, “I don’t necessarily believe that public good should triumph individual rights. The Germans used ‘public good’ to exterminate 6 million Jews.”

Then all hell broke loose and a public lynching (in print) ensued. Our own editor-in-chief renamed the comments “damnable” and several exercised letter-writers piled on. I left the op-ed page thinking Tarzwell was the spawn of Satan and sent packing to the nether regions. If we seek reasons for this teeth-gnashing, we need to look at the comments, their intent, and the rather brutal put-downs of them.

Were I still a teacher, I would mark down Tarzwell for poor (or less than cautious) diction and tenuous grasp of history. Her use of the phrase “public good” was unfortunate and “triumph” is not a verb. Better choices might be “trample” or “trump,” if that word wouldn’t cause a rash on some people.

Further, it’s preposterous that any late 1930s-1940s Nazi — from the former brilliant propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels to the average man-in-the-street Berliner — would ever, ever!, even if he was aware of them, call the mass executions a “public good.” Hitler himself refused to even mention the subject, but he secretly knew his orders were being carried out.

Also, Tarzwell didn't appreciate her audience or today’s political climate. Basically, she walked — or rather talked — herself into a trap. She had no clue at the time she was tossing red meat to crafty Democrats eager to pounce on and creatively misconstrue lax or unguarded comments by anyone sounding remotely conservative.

What of the charges made by Tarzwell’s faultfinders? I do not think at all she is an evil person and marvel at the ignorance of those that do. To heap scorn on her and/or her less-than-precise phrasing is to subscribe to faulty reasoning, which reads like this: if you do not believe a vaccine is completely safe or is mandated, and you choose not to take it, you believe in mass murder.

Tarzwell was attempting to register her concern with the mandate (Oops! That was in the story?) not the vaccine. I would agree. Americans are as disgusted with the mandates as they are with President Joe Biden’s “Let ‘em eat cake” disposition.

Please, let’s put this thing to bed. Anyone with some common sense and who had an effective high school or college history teacher should know full well that the Holocaust was caused by Adolf Hitler’s personal, racial hatred of the Jews and never mentioned or even imagined as a “public good.”

Robert E. Graham

Union

Tarzwell and symptoms

Editor, the Journal,

Sandy Tarzwell’s remarks are not the problem; they are a symptom of the problem.

Today we see our nation divided: the right calls the left “socialist,” the left calls the right “authoritarian.” Each side feels confident that “the facts” support their positions.

Here’s the sad dilemma. Both sides are failing to perceive the subtle but powerful forces at work distorting our perceptions. In his opinion piece in the Oct. 21 edition of the Journal about Tarzwell’s comments comparing vaccine mandates to Holocaust exterminations, editor Justin Johnson touches on this issue. Johnson observes, “It’s possible that like too many others, Tarzwell has spent too much time reading social media posts, exposing her to the kind of people who repeat this kind of nonsense daily to the point that it doesn’t feel weird or inappropriate.”

It is time for all of us to take a hard look at the system that brings us news and information. Not so long ago the marketplace of information was dominated by just three television networks that competed to provide the broadest possible appeal. Americans were united by shared information. Today we have a vast array of choices. Wonderful as that sounds, it has brought us unintended consequences. It is undeniable that we are emotionally attracted to news sources that confirm our worldview. As human beings our concept of “truth” follows where our emotions lead; not the other way around. Flawed though this inclination is, it has been confirmed by the work of many psychologists (e.g., Daniel Kahneman, Jonathan Haidt, et. al.) Modern news sources, in turn, have to compete for customers in a marketplace that is expanding and fragmenting. They further tailor their message to keep us coming back for more. We are caught today in a downward spiral leading us to ever more divergent and distorted thinking. Is it any wonder the levels of anger and mistrust have risen so high?

How can we pull out of this tailspin? We need to turn our gaze away from the outrages of “the other side” and look squarely at the feedback loops that are poisoning our media environment. Democracies have shown time and again that they are capable of pulling together to solve problems, once the threat has been identified.

Steve Hankin

Shelton

Holocaust, shots

Editor, the Journal,

I can’t thank you enough for your wonderful opinion piece in the Oct. 21 issue of the Journal.

Not only does Sandy Tarzwell’s comment defy any semblance of logic in comparing the Holocaust with vaccine mandates, but it is also, as you said, “damnable and detestable.” I look forward to her apology, explanation and immediate resignation from the school board.

I was also grateful to read so many letters from readers condemning her comment in the strongest possible terms.

Steve Hecht

Grapeview

Homeless treatment

Editor, the Journal,

The Shelton City Council recently tabled draft ordinance 1977-0921, Homeless Encampment for consideration in early November. This shameful draft would make homelessness a crime in certain circumstances. This is an abomination — a nightmare straight from the pages of Victor Hugo’s dystopian story “Les Misérables.” It constrains homeless persons to one of three options: A homeless shelter, county jail or just leave town. Those who have the misfortune of being poor deserve charity, not persecution.

Toby Kevin

Shelton

Public good is good

Editor, the Journal,

I do not know a thing about Shelton School Board member Sandy Tarzwell outside of her quote on the front page of the Oct. 14 Journal and the follow-on letters about it in the next week’s paper. The quote mentions public good versus individual rights in the context of the Holocaust where she seems to deride the public good. If a classroom teacher (or any other authority) does not promote the public good, where will that take us? Who has the teacher’s back if the school board does not? I hope some Shelton voters who do not agree with Tarzwell will step up to the plate to run for office and offer an opposite point of view.

Richard Kinerk

Hartstene Island

A history lesson

Editor, the Journal,

I believe that the use of the statement on the top of the Oct 14 paper was a cheap shot. I find it fails the standards of journalism and shows that the political bias of the newspaper editor. After reading his editorial in the Oct 21 Journal and some of the letters to the editor, I was compelled to respond.

What the German government did was an unimaginable horror. It started in 1933. My information comes from the Anti-Defamation League, http://www.adl.org/education. The following are just some of the things that were done.

1933

All non-“Aryans” were dismissed from holding government jobs. This regulation applied to public school teachers, university professors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. — all Jews who held government positions of any kind. Non-“Aryans” were defined as Jews, the children of Jews, and the grandchildren of Jews.

Jews could not hold jobs in radio, in the theaters, or sell paintings or sculptures.

Books written by Jews and anti-Nazis were burned.

Jews were prohibited from owning land.

Jewish lawyers and judges were barred from their professions.

Jewish doctors were barred from treating “Aryan” patients.

1935

Jews could no longer be citizens of Germany.

1938

Being a Jew was cause for dismissal from a job.

Jews could no longer attend plays and concerts, own phones, or have drivers’ licenses, car registrations, etc.

No one today would believe that our own government could do anything similar.

Maybe we should look to our own past, what the U.S. government has done. In 1942, 127,000 Japanese people in the U.S., some citizens, were rounded up and put into “camps” for the crime of being Japanese.

My point is that the freedoms that you give up today, will not be given back to you, we will have to take them back.

If you allow a government to simply say “it is for the common good” where does it stop?

When does the “emergency” end? Seems that they keep changing the goal.

Why are the nurses and doctors who have fought this virus for more than a year being forced into getting the shot? What do they know that we don’t?

Why did they decide that it is only companies with more than 100 employees?

What about the companies with less than 100?

If they decide that global warming is an emergency, then what will they force you to give up?

It is a virus, it will be here forever. I am not anti-vax. If you want the shot by all means get one or two or three, if you want to wear a mask, wear one. I am against being forced to get the shot. If you really want to force anyone to get the shot, may I suggest going to the southern border and start with everyone who is illegally coming into the United States.

Keith Martin

Shelton

Extreme example

Editor, the Journal,

Occasionally when I observe a particularly egregious decision by a public entity, I will openly express my displeasure. In one such instance, the action was defended by saying that “it is legal,” another “this is commonly done.” My answer to those arguments: “Slavery was legal and common, but that does not mean it was the right thing to do.”

Absolutely I was not saying that the behaviors I objected to were equivalent to the vile institution of slavery. What I was doing was using an extreme example to demonstrate that “legal” and “common” are not sufficient conditions to defend an action.

Similarly, does anyone actually believe that School Board member Sandy Tarzwell was arguing that the vaccine mandate is equivalent to the horrors of the Holocaust? Not at all. She used an extreme example to demonstrate that using the pretense of “the common good” is not by itself a sufficient condition to trample on individual rights.

If you want to debate either side of the vaccine mandate issue, great, debate is good. However, it is discouraging to observe the public piling on of personal attacks. That is not making an argument.

Oscar Wilde famously said “If you cannot prove a man wrong, don’t panic. You can always call him names.” Personal attacks are the last refuge of a failed argument.

Randy Lewis

Shelton

Tyranny or public good

Editor, the Journal,

I will start by saying, I truly hope that Shelton School District Director Sandy Tarzwell does not reply to your slanderous attack in your editorial. Tarzwell’s statement, which you reacted so negatively to, was not comparing COVID-19 vaccinations to the Holocaust but about using the tyranny of the Nazi regime to trample on individual rights for “the public good.” Using Hitler or Nazi references invokes lots of passion, which it should; but that sometimes clouds the underlying argument. Tarzwell’s point of justifying tyranny for the public good has many other examples, including your own newspaper.

First, the one-child policy of communist China is a great example of the slippery slope of government infringing on individual rights. The one-child policy was created for the public good, to reduce population growth. The policy started as voluntary program with much encouragement from the state for people to make their decision for the good of all. However, the state felt this was not enough and financial incentives were started. The government was still not satisfied, so then compliance affected what job you could do and where you could work. Sound familiar? Finally, some forced medical procedures began. All done for the public good. And now years later, China continues to deal with the negative consequences of this policy.

Next is our own country’s sad history of eugenics and forced sterilization, including influence on other countries, such as Nazi Germany. The entire justification of eugenics is to improve the genetic base of our population for the public good. In this country, forced sterilization of the disabled, prisoners, minorities and immigrants have all been, in the past, justified and upheld by our courts. This history reinforces the basic question of who determines the public good and to what extent are they allowed to push their choices on other individuals.

Finally, did the editor not read his own paper’s editorial “Perhaps wishing death on unvaccinated is bad,” of Aug. 5? You took Tarzwell to task for using a historical reference which you felt is inappropriate. The Holocaust was terrible, but it occurred over 50 years ago. Your August editorial was talking about people living and dying today. I found it abhorrent that the writer only concluded that letting unvaccinated people die was wrong due to realizing vaccinated people were now becoming infected or since children could not be vaccinated. I am still not sure he believes that other categories of unvaccinated people dying wouldn’t be for the public good. Does this paper support allowing unvaccinated people to die for the public good, as is implied in the August editorial? Until you answer that question, your virtue signaling is deafening.

Lorilyn Rogers

Shelton

Your vote … your voice

Editor, the Journal,

Mason County voters, your vote is very important. Nov. 2 is your opportunity for your voice to be heard. This year, we have the opportunity to choose our local officials who make decisions that impact us daily. Please take time to open your ballot and cast your vote.

Checklist for the Nov. 2 general election:

Check your registration status. Be sure your registration status is active and your address is current at VoteWa.gov. You can still register or update at the County Elections Office, 411 N. 5th St., Shelton, WA 98584 until Election Day, 8 p.m., Nov. 2.

Learn about candidates and issues. Check your voters pamphlet. Your voters pamphlet also has contact information that each candidate has provided, so you can contact them directly with your questions. Get more information about candidates at Vote411.org.

Mark your ballot choices. Then, follow the instructions to place the voted ballot into the security sleeve and into the return envelope and seal.

Sign the envelope. Make sure your signature matches your driver’s license, state ID or voter registration.

Return your ballot. You may mail your ballot in the postage-paid envelope included with your ballot. The recommended mailing date to be sure your ballot arrives in time is by Oct. 29. Or you may use a ballot drop box until 8 p.m. on Nov. 2.

Track your ballot. Check the status of your ballot on VoteWA.gov and make sure it was received. When ballots are received at the Mason County vote center, the signatures are verified by comparison with your registration or driver’s license. If your ballot was not accepted, perhaps the signature does not match or the ballot envelope was not signed. The elections staff will send you a letter which you will sign and return as quickly as possible. Your ballot will then be processed and counted.

We voters in the state of Washington are very fortunate to be part of an election system that is designed to make voting safe, efficient and convenient.

Bobbie Stady, chair

Voter Services Committee

League of Women Voters of Mason County

Supply-chain reality

Editor, the Journal,

I am tired of the silly economic analysis of writers and pundits when addressing economic issues. There is so much commentary that gives blame and credit to presidents and government policy for what happens in the economy. The fact is presidents are usually along for the ride. The phenomenon becomes weirder when it comes from people that claim to champion capitalism. To claim that broad economic trends are mainly influenced by government policy is more of a mark of a planned, command economy.

The latest is the noted supply-chain problems. What makes the politization of the phenomenon ridiculous is that it is worldwide in nature. If it was local, or unique to the U.S., one might have an argument. But suddenly, the U.S. president is responsible for everything wrong with supply chains in the entire world. This is not even the first time. The same was done with the 2008 financial meltdown. As if a Wall Street manufactured meltdown that affected every financial institution in the world was going to be solved by a mere president.

I hate to tell you this folks. Most of what happens in markets are the result of literally billions of decisions made by individuals, companies, bankers, investors and government. A lot of it is trends in business that have gone back for decades. The supply-chain problems started with what was a new fad when I was in college back in the dark ages.

In the 70s, it was the new idea. Inventory costs money. Businesses had to buy it and store it. And if they guessed wrong or the economy turned, they were stuck with a lot of stuff they couldn’t sell. It was especially costly if they borrowed money to buy it. That was the problem that Just in Time (JIT) inventory practices was designed to solve. And JIT became more feasible when we could computerize our accounting and tracking. Now JIT is pervasive in our supply chains. That has been true for at least 20 years. And it all had very little to do with government policy. Which policy, by the way, isn’t dreamed up by politicians. It originates in Wall Street and was implemented by conservative politicians.

What you are seeing now is simply an application of the old saying “The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to plug the drain.” Everyone wants to get past COVID so we can act like it is all “normal” again. Guess what? COVID is the problem. Other nations are not quite as willing to kill their citizens for profit as the U.S. is. They know that they’re not going to get bailed out with Regeneron, monoclonal antibodies or high-tech ICUs. Heck, they’re not even going to get the horse dewormer. They just get to die a nasty death. So, when COVID comes to town, they get very, very careful. And that becomes yet another clog in the plumbing.

What you are seeing at the ports is simply goods moving through the designed chain like a rat through a snake. This isn’t magic. It’s not politicians. It is the result of a finely tuned JIT system that was designed to cut costs but not built for resilience. And it is capitalism. If you want a politician to fix it, you are not advocating for capitalism and freedom for businessmen. You are advocating for a command economy.

Andy Makar,

Hoodsport

Support ranked voting

Editor, the Journal,

It just does not seem fair.

There are four Shelton City Council positions up for election this November. For two of those positions, there are two candidates running but for the other two positions there is only a single candidate for each. We have Joe Schmit vs. Tyler “Mad Dog” Elliot, Miguel Gutierrez vs. George Blush, Eric Onisko unopposed and Sharon Schirman unopposed.

This means that two candidates are running unopposed and are guaranteed to get elected while the other four candidates have to work really hard to convince people they are the right choice.

This is all because in Washington for elected bodies like the City Council, we use by-position elections where multiple seats on the council are filled through multiple individual single-winner elections.

This just does not seem like a fair system. Candidates jockey for which position to run for based on who they will or will not have to run against. I have seen candidates file for a position, then drop out of that race to move over to a different position for strategic reasons.

Also, what about Trenton Powers who ran against Blush and Gutierrez in the primary and was eliminated? How is it fair that Powers is not a candidate now only because they ran for Position No. 7 on the council instead of Positions 2, 3 or 6?

Why not just allow us to vote for all the candidates and then fill the open seats with the four most popular?

The reason it is not allowed is current state law. However, that can be changed and SHB 1156 would make it possible for the Shelton City Council to change how they are elected to no longer use by-position elections and instead use ranked-choice voting where voters rank the candidates they like and then the open seats on the council are filled with the candidates who get the most votes.

If this sounds like a good idea, the Shelton City Council can pass a resolution in support of SHB 1156 (aka The Local Options Bill) to let the Legislature know that they, along with other cities around the state, want the bill passed this session.

Chris Mason

Shelton

Our responsibility

Editor, the Journal,

Sandy Tarzwell’s statement at the Oct. 12 Shelton School Board meeting, published in the Oct. 14 edition of the Shelton-Mason County Journal, comparing our nation’s mask-wearing mandate to the Holocaust resonated with the MCJ’s readers as measured by the number and passion of the responses.

Tarzwell’s message is that there is great and tragic results when “We the people” abrogate our responsibility to secure our personal rights.

Seventy-nine years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 “Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas” which begins: “Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action is necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military,” according to the U. S. National Archives and Records Administration.

Executive Order 9066 forced the relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps for the duration of the war. They subsequently lost their homes, ranches, farms and other possessions permanently.

Adolf Hitler’s existential belief was that the Jewish people were the source of Germany’s problems and had to be eliminated for the good of Germany.

FDR had a similar existential belief, if not in pervasive extent, yet in concept.

Tarzwell’s message is that we are not immune to tragedies of this nature. It can happen here. It happens by degrees: quarantine, masking, social distancing, mandated vaccinations ... and to a lesser extent, elimination of disposable plastic bags. Let us never forget that “we are endowed by our creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

And let us never relax out diligence in maintaining our personal rights, freedoms and responsibilities as defined in our nation’s founding documents, primarily the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

James Poirson

Shelton

A deer solution

Editor, the Journal,

When I read in the Journal the city was in need of people to create a focus group to find a solution to the flooding downtown, I joined. The city engineer gave us a lot of information on contributing factors and past attempts to fix the problem. A recent attempt by dredging Shelton and Upper Canyon creeks had not stopped the storm drains from becoming fountains. The day before a group meeting, a heavy rain blew through. I walked into a room with other members already asking why it didn’t flood downtown? The city engineer told us the only difference was a deer got stuck in the culvert across from Mickey’s on 1st street. The water coming down Upper Canyon Creek didn’t get into the city but flowed down to state Route 3 and into the bay without flooding the city. A solution? But how to build it? Sounded expensive. As I walked into the next meeting, I had already read in the Journal, the state was putting Shelton on notice, it was going to repave Route 3. The city was told that a 10-year moratorium on work under the road would be in place so any work should get done now. That was the last meeting and the end of flooding since. The deer sacrifice at the right time, with the city and some people in the right place to understand what happened. That’s good government and a little luck.

Monte Ritter

Shelton

Let’s talk

Editor, the Journal,

In this time of conflict and division I believe we need to solve two issues.

1. Can we have honest and respectful discussion regarding the efficacy of the COVID-gene-altering drugs?

There are conflicting opinions and confusion of facts. Respectful communication will do more to gain the facts than attacks and accusations. Can we have true freedom of speech? Those who question the efficacy of these drugs are often accused of spreading misinformation. Their views are often silenced when they question the views of those promoting the drugs.

2. Can we have medical freedom? Can we have freedom of conscience regarding the COVID injection? Are the directives requiring these injections as a condition of employment and travel moving us toward authoritarianism? The requirement to have the injection is destructive to our economy. Many very capable people chose to leave their employment instead of getting the injection.

May God help us all to choose to be respectful of those with whom we differ and choose to protect true freedom which we all want.

Howard Spear

Shelton

Speech contest

Editor, the Journal

I would like to thank the Shelton Mason County Journal for advertising the American Legion Constitutional Speech contest in the newspaper. We still need students to let us know if they’re interested by Nov. 30.

For God and country,

Bob Stone

American Legion

Shelton

Tarzwell is right

Editor, the Journal,

Justin Johnson, editor of the Shelton-Mason County Journal, recently bashed Sandy Tarzwell, Shelton School District No.1, for saying the following: “Some people say it (the vaccination mandate) is for the public good. I don’t necessarily believe that public good should triumph individual rights. The Germans used public good to exterminate six million Jews.”

The belief that the individual exists for the sake of society is called “collectivism.” This belief is the foundation to communism, fascism and socialism. Adolf Hitler proclaimed: “The common good before the individual good.” The doctrine of “collectivism” was put into practice by dictators Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. The end result was death, suffering and destruction on a mass scale. Yes, in Hitler’s case it resulted in the extermination of six thousand Jews.

Gov. Jay Inslee’s vaccination mandate forcing people to give up their individual rights for the good of the public is “collectivism” aka, communism, fascism and socialism — the basis for Hitler’s Holocaust and the erasing of over 1 million lives at Auschwitz.

William Tabor

Shelton

Defining ‘good’

Editor, the Journal,

Regarding Justin Johnson’s editorial on Sandy Tarwell. The Nazis’ war on the Jews didn’t start in September of 1942 like Mr. Johnson suggested. He conveniently started his editorial on a date long after the Nazis controlled the population. The Nazis didn’t start killing the Jewish people overnight. There were decades of precious acts to take over the education system, divide populations, take over the media, killing political adversaries, population indoctrination and much more. By the time 1942 rolled around, many Germans allowed the Nazis to do whatever they wanted out of fear. The “public good” was thought to be whatever Hitler wanted it to be. If you disagreed with him, you had to be silent or you would be silenced.

Sandy’s statement addressed how the “public good” can be used against citizens through force. The German people would have never allowed the killing of the Jewish people in the 1920s. It took many years of Nazi propaganda and media slandering before the population stood by and allowed the Nazis to kill roughly 6 million Jews and others.

Just because we are told something is good for the public by the government does not mean we should not question it. The government has been known to lie to the citizens on many occasions, just ask the Native Americans. There is as phrase that I live by, “trust but verify.” When the government makes a statement, I will listen and then verify it. There are many examples of our government sending out incorrect information going back more than 100 years. Take COVID, for instance. Initially we were told masks didn’t work. How many times did the federal government change its recommendations on the mask before they said masks do work? Did they lie initially that masks didn’t work, or did they just not know? If all people would have initially worn masks, could more people could have been saved? When then President Donald Trump said the vaccine worked, many said they would not get the vaccine, but after Joe Biden became president, these same people said it was safe. What changed other than a change of a president? The “public good” changed overnight, but the vaccine was still the same.

In closing, Mr. Johnson, the public good should be easy to define. But as we all know, the government is not always correct. The “public good” should be questioned today, as well as back in 1942.

Ted Trask

Shelton

Advisory vote nonsense

Editor, the Journal,

According to the voters pamphlet, “Advisory votes are nonbinding and the results will not change the law.”

Will someone please explain to me why we waste taxpayer money to print the information in the pamphlet and include it on the ballot if it makes no difference what the taxpayer vote is?

By the way, Advisory Vote No. 37 notified us that an income tax has been imposed on certain individuals in Washington state. I thought we didn’t have income taxes. No, it is not an “excise tax” as was stated when it was first talked about. That would require the tax to be paid at the time of purchase. Since the tax is based on the difference between the purchase and selling price, it is by definition “income” (and some of it is reported on Schedule D of the 1040 INCOME TAX return).

Oh, and if you are OK with it because you don’t think it affects you, remember this is the government, everything trickles down eventually.

Val Martin

Shelton