Send your letters to the WA Free Press, PMB #178, 1463 E Republican St, Seattle 98112, or WAfreepress@gmail.com. Please include your full name and phone number for verification. Keep them short. Letters may be edited for length, spelling and grammar. Letters printed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Free Press. Letters which respond to Free Press articles will be given precedence.

Immigration and Ads

I very much enjoy reading WFP and agree with most of it--learning much and receiving confirmation of some subjects. One thing I don't agree with WFP on is immigration, even though both my parents emigrated from Norway. I also think a requirement for immigrants should be that they are able to speak, read and write English, for their own protection.

Like P. Purdy (Reader Mail, Jan/Feb 2004) I think "immigrants should be stopped at all costs." But I deny that P. Purdy necessarily lives "life in a paralyzing fear of people different from yourself," nor do I. In fact the journals, books and magazines I read make me the different one. The problem is numbers, not their race or national origins, burdening the environment, and diluting community cohesion.

Metro Atlanta's population boomed 45 percent in the past decade, added more than 10,000 people per month during the 90's, and now stands at 4.5 million. That means the 28-county area has a larger population than 29 states! The "big bang" as some locals call the massive influx has definitely impaired the daily lifestyles of millions of people.

There is an intensifying conflict between people whose lives are being made worse by crowding and the developers and entrepreneurs who seek to profit from growth. Negative Population Growth has collected over 1500 news stories about crowding in growth areas of the US. The range of issues is enormous; rising housing prices and the displacement of the less prosperous; urban sprawl, stalled traffic and the "transportation crisis"; infrastructure costs and rising taxes; the deterioration of public and social services; the impact of massive housing developments; rising school populations and inadequate schools; worsening local air quality; the polarization of local politics and the deadlock of government; rising unemployment in some areas and the dislocation caused by new industry in others; the spread of paving and the attendant problems of runoff and flooding; the failure of water supplies; the destruction of woodlands, farmland and natural landscapes, the sense of a lost quality of life and the feeling that growth has somehow gone bad.

Those articles deal exhaustively with the proximate sources of the complaints, such as a new development or shopping center, rising school populations, the construction of superhighways (or the lack of them), and diminishing rivers and aquifers. They are all silent about the underlying driving force. A conservation group announces that excessive consumption is draining rivers across the country--and it blames "US irrigation habits, urban sprawl, increased groundwater pumping and loss of wetlands... more often than not government policies...." and excessive municipal consumption. Not a word about population growth.

[Regarding another article,] "The Consequences of Ads," by Doug Collins, Washington Free Press, Nov/Dec 2003, correctly advises that ads are paid for by consumers that buy items advertised. The reason we are stupefied by so much advertising is that businesses can deduct the cost as a business expense. All business managers would rather pay for advertising than for taxes. Consequently, working men and women pay twice: this time to make up for the taxes businesses don't pay.

There is so much money spent on TV ads that it upsets any reasonable salary for people involved, whether actors, sports figures or news readers. Many actors get a million dollars or more for taping about 18 to 20 minutes of film. Everyone knows about the gross overpayment of sports figures.

The only way to cure this severe imbalance is to stop letting businesses deduct advertising costs. But don't hold your breath.

Karl I. Hennum

Anti-immigration is not racism

I was interested to see the editorial reaction to the letter by P. Purdy expressing concern about immigration. Purdy's letter addressed "reducing the US birth rate while still allowing a million immigrants annually" which he went on to say "makes no sense to me". The editorial comment following Purdy's letter stated, in part "I'd say you seem to live a lot of your life in a paralyzing fear of people different that yourself, which is quite unfortunate for you". I'm uncertain how this conclusion was reached, but I'm concerned about US population growth and immigration is certainly a part of that growth.

The current US population growth is approximately 3,000,000 annually. It's my understanding that actual immigration (legal and illegal) accounts for 60 percent or more of the 3 million annual population increase. The current US birth rate is 2.1 percent. A 2.1 percent US birth rate would allow for US population stabilization in approximately 50 years, I'm told, if immigration were limited to around 200,000 annually. Yet we continue to ignore this ecological time bomb while sniping at those who are concerned about immigration (although they may be addressing only part of the problem, we should not assume that they are racists because of their concerns).

Scientists are predicting dire future environmental and social consequences if unchecked US population growth is allowed to continue. After all, all resources are finite. Is there any serious question about the need to address US population growth and that the United States needs a population policy?

We should work together towards achieving a population policy we can all support instead of disrespecting the views of those who support limiting immigration. I'm happy to kick off the discussion. I would like to hear the views of others.

Howard Pellett

What about the environment?

It's not surprising President Bush didn't say a word about the environment during his State of the Union speech on January 20, 2004. After all, he's supported widespread logging, drilling, mining...and that's just for a start. He's declared war on the environment, but it's a silent war.

What was extremely disturbing was that neither National Public Radio commentators or Democratic leaders said anything about the environment either.

Senator Tom Daschle and Representative Nancy Pelosi, in the Democratic rebuttal, were far more concerned with questions of national security and economy than of the environment.

What about us? Senator Daschle asked about small-town residents who want more jobs. I would ask that same question about dozens of species facing habitat destruction and genocide. The Bush administration's refusal to allocate anywhere near enough money to environmental agencies, particularly the Fish and Wildlife Service, is crippling their ability to defend animals on the endangered species list, if those species even make it onto the list at all.

Daschle also talked about the need for every child to go to a good school. But what about the need of every child to breathe? Asthma in children is reaching epidemic proportions, thanks in no small part to the EPA's retraction of "new source review." Now, according to a study by ABT Associates, the 51 coal-fired power plants that were in process of being prosecuted under new source review--and have now been entirely let off the hook--kill 5,000 to 9,000 people and cause hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks every year.

Everyone--President Bush, the Democratic candidates and the commentators--talked about what the American people want. And of course, we do want lower taxes and better health care and education and more jobs and freedom from fear. But we also want a clean environment. It's about time we let our government know that. We need to call our leaders, or write, or email, and demand that they fight the war for the environment as well as the war on terror.

Laurel Eddy

Kucinich was right!

Thanks to the Kay report, we now know that there were NO stockpiles of WMD in Iraq and NO imminent threat to the US. Yet, the US launched an unauthorized and unnecessary preemptive attack against Iraq.

At least 527 US soldiers have paid the ultimate price and hundreds more have been injured, many seriously. Thousands of Iraqis have been killed or maimed, and their country is in turmoil. Almost $200 billion has been spent, with no end in sight. The debacle goes on and on.

Commenting on the faulty US "case" for attacking Iraq, David Kay testified in the Senate: "It turns out we were all wrong." Well, not quite.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted against the Iraq War Resolution, the only presidential candidate to do so. Kucinich also compiled a detailed history of the WMD issue, including who said what when (www.kucinich.us/DennisKucinichWasRight.pdf).

Kucinich was right about Iraq all along. Perhaps it would be wise to listen to him now! His detailed 10-point plan would get the UN in and the US out of Iraq, while transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people in orderly phases (www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php).

Isn't it high time for Operation Iraqi Freedom to live up to its name?

Terry Johnson

Beware of attorney retainers

The Ethics 2003 Committee of the Washington State Bar has recently been considering "fully earned nonrefundable fees." Such fees are a consumer protection loophole and an oxymoron. Because retainers are often prepaid and "earned" at the time of their receipt, clients have little recourse when their hired attorney doesn't perform the agreed work.

No fee can be considered fully earned until a service has been completed. Unlike "advanced fees," retainers are placed in a non-trust type of an account or a wallet where there is no accountability. Using subjective qualifiers, the bar maintains that fees must be "reasonable." Regardless of work performed, unscrupulous attorneys easily argue that their fee is reasonable. Together, with a lenient disciplinary system and rules that favor lawyers, consumers are at substantial risk. Bottom line: 1) Never agree to fully earned, nonrefundable fees until after they've been truly earned. 2) Carefully research a given attorney before using their services. Friends and others in the community make the best referrals; not the phone book, bar or referral services. 3) Finally, write the bar and insist on rules that protect consumers (WSBA Ethics2003, 2101 Fourth Avenue, #400 Seattle, WA 98121)

Brian Shute, Ph.D.
Communities Against Unethical Attorneys, www.CAUA.org

Waiting for freedom, looking for friends

I recently put myself on the internet for lack of friends to share ideas with. I've been receiving all the wrong feedback. Will you please print my [pen-pal] ad? I hope you have understanding of my situation. I'm looking for friends to write to who share the same interests. My interests and ideas are endless. I will be free August 12, 2004. I really do need outside input. Especially as to what's going on in our old world.

Please write to:
Kevin Clayton #1090837
Route 2, Box 500, Boyd Unit
Teague, TX 75860