Online only letters to the editor

Editor, The Times:

National Anthem

I'm not certain what other people's objection to this new Spanish version of our national anthem is, but mine is that the words and meaning were changed, and I most assuredly did not form the opinion that it was anybody's tribute to the U.S. It certainly can be a tribute to translate it into other languages, but to change the words in any significant way is a sacrilege to me. "The time has come to break the chains" sounds more like it has to do with Mexico's treatment of its' citizens than ours. Otherwise, why come to this country? Were they kidnapped and bundled across the border? They come to this country to enjoy the fruits of our forefathers' battle to win freedom from the oppression of tyrants. They come here to earn their bread because they can't earn it in Mexico. Are they complaining that they begin on the bottom rung of the ladder? We would all like to start out in the board rooms, but is that a realistic desire?

Immigrants have always begun on the bottom rung, and set about improving their lot by hard work and ingenuity. I have noticed that a large portion of those of Mexican heritage have done just that. Did any immigrants give up their heritage, and customs when they landed on our shores? Not at all, they simply tried to integrate their culture into ours, and attempted to learn our language. They didn't expect us to conduct our business in their language. They sang the national anthem with the vigor it deserves, in a broken but proud English. They seemed to appreciate the freedoms they found here. They didn't attack the hand that fed them, and they certainly didn't condemn us for trying to get them to pay their own way or demand that they obey all of our laws, including the ones related to how they are allowed into this country. I believe that every country on the face of the earth has the right to protect their borders.

We seem to forget that we are forced to put up fences to keep people out who want to disregard our laws, not keep our citizens in. Mexico doesn't put up fences because they are happy to get rid of these people, and the Mexicans who cross our borders are demanding rights from us? Why didn't they demand these rights from their own government? I welcome everyone of any color, race, creed, or nationality to come join us, but please do it in accordance with our laws.

I'm told that many Mexican text books teach their children that the United States stole the areas along our mutual border from Mexico. They should be happy as clams if that were so. It makes their trip to freedom shorter.

—Charles George, Stanwood

Immigration

First, please let me try to assure you that I do not see myself as a salivating ideologue on either side of the current immigration issue. Neither do I consider all people who think differently than I to be somehow mentally flawed. But I think the Times is trying to have it both ways here ["Newspaper wrestles with issue of immigration, just as U.S. does," Times, Local News, May 7].

Mike first quotes Mr. Stanton as saying, "... our policy isn't intended to be politically correct ... ." and, "we do not the use the terms most offensive to people who have come into this country without going through the immigration process".

In nearly three quarters of a century of life, I have come to the conclusion that the very essence of political correctness is the considered avoidance of terms, phrases, or sometimes even subject matter that might offend somebody. That is what I mean by trying to have it both ways.

Indeed, I have lived long enough to remember when newspapers were expected to sound the 'clarion call' when a danger to our society was sensed or perceived by the editors. I don't recall much editorial 'impartiality' when Hitler's Germany invaded Poland, for example. I must conclude, therefore, that your editorial staff, if it is striving for 'impartiality' in this issue, must not sense or perceive any danger in it.

If memory serves, there were about 5 or 6 million American men and women under arms at the height of World War II. They, together with a few million from allied nations, essentially conquered the entire planet, all of Europe and most of Asia. Think about that, if you will. There are, reportedly, some two or three times that many millions of illegal immigrants in the United States of America.

I believe that what is happening is a non-military, cultural invasion. Just as our troops occupied the territories of Europe and Asia at the end of WWII, the current illegal immigrants are occupying the territory of the U.S. They are just doing it without guns, so perhaps the danger to our society is less obvious.

I truly hope that statement of belief does not come across to you as bigoted or racist. It seems to me just an objective fact.

Please let me end by saying that I do not see how any society can expect to maintain the integrity and continuity of its culture if it has open borders. And, indeed, I acknowledge that it may be naive or presumptuous of me to even suppose that a culture should expect any integrity or continuity as history moves along. But an almost infinite investment of human endeavor and, yes, suffering (Remember the pictures of the fields of dead soldiers at Gettysburg and Antietam?) have been put forward to bring our culture to where it is today. Those earlier people must have believed that their culture should and would have some integrity and continuity as history went forward from their time. So do I.

Thus far, I have heard no 'clarion call' from the Times about the current immigration matter. I think such an editorial call is long overdue. If the editorial staff does not see a 'clear and present danger' to our culture in the millions of illegal immigrants, I respectfully invite them to simply take a few minutes off from the pressures of the day and think about it.

No one is talking about the possible cultural outcomes of the situation. Effectively, I think our society is simply 'rolling the dice' with its own cultural history. I see that as gambling with the title to the family farm; the equivalent of betting the family jewels in a poker game. If that does not comprise a clear and present danger to our society and its culture, I cannot imagine what would.

—John R. Haynes, Auburn

Energy

In case you didn't notice, Mitch, Europe was facing a gas crisis this summer, and they rioted outside Paris about it ["Future nostalgia: the way we weren't," Times, Letters to the Editor, May 7]. And your idea of supply and demand is a little tweaked. Consumer demand makes up only a small part of the American demand for oil. It costs America one barrel of oil for every $1,000 of GDP we produce, making us the most oil dependent economy in the world. Furthermore, our high prices are not caused by our usage of oil, but by the one billion people in China who have recently begun living a modern, industrial life like ours. Yes, demand is going up, but it is from overseas, not from within.

And we are addicted to oil, because all our extensive energy needs are hinged on one source, which is an inflexible and bad place to be in economic and political sense. A [tangible] community approach to solving the energy problem, which is the biggest issue society faces this generation(even more than terrorism or abortion), is impractical because it would require far too many people to give up driving, but we can't heat our homes or make our products without oil. Eventually it will run out.

Furthermore, ending our addiction to oil is overall better for society. It will reduce global warming and environmental decay, strengthen and stabilize the economy, and free us from dependence on the most volatile area on earth, the Middle East.

—Page Russell, Burien

I am convinced more than ever that Sen. Maria Cantwell is grossly twisted on the energy issues. I believe she is motivated by her own self attention and does not truly desire to help our citizens. While she masquerades as the Energy Lone Ranger the truth is she is hurting our cause.

The oil companies merged under the Clinton administration. At present, we have two oil companies. There is no competition. These monopolies are creating the exact same scenario as the last time the oil companies were allowed to merge in the 1970s. High prices and the impression that we are running out of oil. The truth is the owners of the oil companies are getting extremely lazy and can charge as much as they want because they have no competition. Sen. Cantwell's leadership chooses to dole out more punishment rather than address the problem. She wants to make price gouging a federal crime. Instead, she should admit that allowing the oil companies to merge was a mistake and we need to work on breaking up the monopolies.

The second problem Sen. Cantwell has is exploiting the heck out of the Middle East but refusing to even consider using our own resources.

According to Sen. Cantwell, it's OK for us to expect the Middle East to tear up all of their land with oil rigs so Alaska can stay beautiful. One might argue that the Middle East is not as beautiful as Alaska but do Iraqi's believe this? Iraq is where they live. Do they really want oil rigs in every one of their backyards? This seems like a really extreme position. I think America could give a little more in helping with the demands on oil. The Alaskan senators and the people are in favor of this.

We import three times more oil than we did 20 years ago. The numbers are daunting. We need to stop exploiting the Middle East as though our home is inherently more worthy than their home. We need to allow Alaska to consider what is right for Alaska and the Americans that live there. We need to stop supporting a senator who is really just causing difficulty for everybody.

We are part of the environment and the way Sen. Cantwell treats other people living in the world environment is not good enough.

We all agree that hydrogen vehicles are a possible solution to the overdependence on oil. We need to follow leaders that are preparing the Hydrogen Highway of the future, this is consistently Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President George W. Bush. More has been accomplished in the past five years than all the years combined in development and distribution of alternative fuel vehicles. People need to swallow their pride and do what's right for all of us. Follow the leaders that get results.

—Virginia Hale, Mercer Island

The language of immigration

David Long's letter repeats an idea that I've heard a lot recently, namely that Mexicans are simply reclaiming land that was rightfully theirs by illegally entering the United States ["Assimilating chaos," Letters to the Editor, May 7]. David points out that he was born in Los Angeles and stresses the Spanish language connection. It seems that David Long (and all the others who seem to assert that Latinos have a natural claim to take over California) are forgetting that there were different tribes of Indians in California than existed in Mexico. They had different cultures and different languages. There is no natural claim of descendants of the Aztecs to take over the land of the Chumash. Isn't it insulting to ascribe the same culture to all people with similar colored skin, whatever color that may be? Just because someone speaks Spanish doesn't mean that they have any kind of natural right to live in Los Angeles or San Diego or anywhere in the Southwest.

The Mexicans, of course, did take over large parts of land that were eventually claimed by the United States. So did Spanish conquistadors before them, which is how the Spanish language got rooted in the area. I would think that looking at the history of what the Spanish did to the natives would be enough for people to find shame, not glory, in all that "Spanish" represents!

Remember the Russians, they established a colony in part of San Francisco. Should we give it back to them since they live in an unstable country with poor infrastructure and a corrupt government?

Let's forget the color of their skin and the language that they speak, since it shouldn't matter. A Guatemalan has no more or less right to immigrate to the United States than a Samoan or a Faeroese. If any of them simply break into the country without following the rules that we have established, then shouldn't they be treated equally?

—Ruth Berge, Seattle