The Editor:
The careful planning of traffic control measures is essential to ensure road safety and efficient traffic flow. However, the proposal to install stop signs on an uphill blind curve, solely to accommodate an additional exit for a new development, is highly problematic. This essay, authored by ChatGPT, will argue that such a decision would not only jeopardize winter driving conditions but also lead to congestion and disruptions on a designated Tsunami escape road.
1. Hazardous winter conditions: Placing a stop sign on an uphill blind curve during winter, especially in areas prone to snow and ice, poses significant safety concerns. In snowy and icy conditions, vehicles face reduced traction and increased stopping distances. Attempting to stop on an incline during such conditions becomes exceedingly risky, potentially leading to accidents, sliding and collisions with other vehicles.
2. Limited visibility and reaction time: An uphill blind curve already diminishes drivers’ visibility of oncoming traffic, creating a potential hazard. Adding a stop sign to this equation further compromises safety, as drivers may have reduced reaction time due to poor visibility.
3. Tsunami escape road congestion: Designating a Birch Bay Drive as a Tsunami escape route indicates its critical role in ensuring swift evacuation during emergency situations. Introducing a stop sign on an uphill blind curve along this route would lead to unnecessary stoppages and backups. In emergency scenarios, where every second counts, delays caused by the stop sign can impede the smooth flow of traffic, potentially endangering lives and diminishing the effectiveness of the designated escape route.
Conclusion: The proposition of installing a stop sign on an uphill blind curve solely to accommodate a new development’s exit is fundamentally flawed. A comprehensive approach that considers the long-term implications and prioritizes road safety and efficient traffic flow is necessary for making informed traffic control decisions.
Tom Baker
Birch Bay
(Ed. Note: According to Tom Baker, this letter was produced by using ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chat box that was recently released to the public. We are printing it here for its novelty value; in the future, we will not knowingly publish letters written by non-humans.)
The Editor:
I write in response to Mike Harkleroad’s letter in which he recommends that a previous letter writer read more of the history of the Second Amendment. I would encourage Mr. Harkleroad to read more deeply into that history himself.
The first clause, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …” is rarely if ever mentioned, but is the key to understanding that history. Colonials wanted no standing army, thus the state militias. Those opposed to the new Constitution insisted on the Second Amendment to prevent the federal government from taking control of state militias.
Many, if not most gun-rights activists and some Supreme Court justices, look only at the second clause of the amendment: “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Note that the amendment does not say “The right of the people to keep guns.”
In the 18th century, the term “keep and bear arms” was commonly understood to be an organized community obligation for protection of everyone. In 1840, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that “the right to keep and bear arms is secured, it’s of a general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for the common defense.”
Some justices use “originalism” to infer the intent of the founders and interpret the history of those times. They exhumed the 19th century to argue their Dobbs and Bruen decisions. But if the 19th century can be used to deny a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and strip 100-year-old gun control laws, then shouldn’t guns be limited to the single-shot, breech-loading rifles used back then?
I am not a gun owner, and I believe that the great majority of gun owners are conscientious and law abiding. I believe they would support sensible gun control regulations like background checks and doing away with military-style weapons – single shot or more – on our streets and near schools without backdooring tyranny. Enough blood has been shed because of propaganda and biased thinking.
Bob Schober
Blaine
The Editor:
If I had given a donation to PeaceHealth recently I would be livid that outpatient palliative care is going to be discontinued. Perhaps the only way PeaceHealth management might be persuaded to reverse its decision to put outpatient palliative care on the chopping block is for fundraising to slow to a trickle.
Conversations are rampant that major donors are considering suing PeaceHealth for misrepresenting their intentions when they asked prospective donors to provide over $2 million in seed money to launch the palliative program, with the promise that it would be sustained.
Contact PeaceHealth’s foundation and let them know you will not donate to them in the future unless outpatient palliative care is restored to full service at peacehealth.org/foundation/st-joseph.
Another possibility for management to change its decision is for PeaceHealth to lose its tax-exempt status.
Dr. Rod Hochman, the chief executive of Providence Medical Group told an industry publication in 2021 that, “‘Nonprofit health care’ is a misnomer.” He went on to say: It is tax-exempt healthcare. It still makes profits.
Perhaps, PeaceHealth could donate the old St. Luke’s hospital, which was truly a community hospital as a homeless shelter if they won’t pay property taxes. It’s been sitting empty and deteriorating for years.
Contact Bellingham mayor Seth Fleetwood and Bellingham City Council and all the candidates that are running for mayor and demand they end PeaceHealth’s tax-exempt status.
Sheri Lambert
Bellingham
The Editor:
I have been a cancer patient at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Cancer Center since the summer of 2021 when I was diagnosed with stage three gastro esophageal junction cancer and have received most of my treatment in Bellingham including radiation, chemotherapy and immunotherapy. I am extremely grateful for the extraordinary care I have experienced.
But besides medical treatment, I’ve discovered there is another side to cancer that is equally important: A patient’s emotional and mental health. Without support in this area, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a patient to successfully manage the side effects of various medical interventions. Currently I attend a weekly women’s support group. In addition, my oncologist referred me to the outpatient palliative care program. I’ve met with Dr. Angela Caffrey twice and both times her compassionate and insightful questions helped me and family members develop the strategies and hope we needed to get through some of the most difficult parts of my treatment plan.
Therefore, I was devastated to learn PeaceHealth Palliative Care has been reduced and will now only be available to patients admitted to the hospital.
According to a statement by Bryan Stewart, system vice-president for PeaceHealth’s Home and Community division, “The health care provider couldn’t justify continuing the program given the high cost of palliative care.” It is my opinion that palliative care can actually reduce costs by addressing a patient’s spiritual and emotional needs in addition to medical ones.
I sincerely hope PeaceHealth reconsiders this cost-driven decision and that the full range of palliative care services will be reinstated. Such a decision would be in accordance with both the hospital’s mission statement and values.
Linda Morrow
Bellingham
The Editor:
Most readers of The Northern Light are aware of PeaceHealth’s campaign, “We See You.”
In the context of recent medical services cuts, our community is flummoxed by this message because we believe PeaceHealth management does not “see” us. A chorus of voices has raised concerns about the slashing of St. Joe’s outpatient palliative care program. Countless others have similar concerns but are too ill or too vulnerable to muster the energy to add their voices.
I have contacted numerous PeaceHealth administrators about the cuts, ranging from the system-wide CEO and chief medical officer in Vancouver, Washington to the director of community health and chief development officer (CDO) in Bellingham.
Only one PeaceHealth employee responded – the CDO at the local foundation, stating, “There is a whole team of us who are working to find a solution that meets the community’s needs, supports the donor community, and maintains the strong reputation of our foundation. More to come!”
Before PeaceHealth launched its “We See You” campaign, those responsible for its creation should have conducted focus groups to determine its potential value. Everyone I’ve asked has a negative impression of the campaign.
We are waiting to be “seen” – and waiting for mission-driven, ethical solutions to the palliative care cuts.
Micki Jackson
Bellingham
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here