Letters to the editor

A day at the zoo

Should zoo business include donations and high salaries?

Editor, The Times:

Lynne Varner's rehashing of Woodland Park Zoo ["Ambassadors for the wild," Opinion, July 2] promotional literature in the form of an opinion piece was remarkable for its lack of any critical analysis. She dismisses citizen concerns about overcommercializing the zoo by building huge structures in a public park, including a 700-car garage and banquet hall, then goes on to declare that this "is a smart relevant strategy for the business of zoos."

She later refers to the "industry of zoos." She's correct. The zoo has become a commercial business, with a $24 million budget, a growing payroll and the tendency to build empire using public property and tax subsidies as the main assets.

This is all glossed over in the name of conservation, yet Varner writes nothing about how much the zoo is spending on actual conservation projects. A look at the latest Zoo Society federal tax form 990 (2004) reveals more of the truth about their priorities. That year, compensation for the Zoo Society president alone totaled $212,819.

Compare that with the total of $145,896 spent on all grants for conservation/education projects. That amount included some curious contributions, including $5,000 to Harvard College and $1,000 to the Greenwood-Phinney Chamber of Commerce.

If the Zoo Society were serious about worldwide conservation, why did they spend $10 million on Zoomazium, a glorified romper room of artificial nature, and another $2.5 million on the carousel/party building, both of which are getting darn close to the Disneyesque qualities they deny?

— Irene Wall, Seattle

Where's the education?

Lynne Varner's commentary about Woodland Park Zoo claims the zoo is educational and accurately re-creates the wild in its exhibits. The truth is, it only "re-creates" it to the most casual observer.

In reality, the zoo forces its animals to live in small token exhibits that cause them to become neurotic and unhealthy. The lone African elephant at the zoo, Watoto, whose species would be responsible for creating African savannahs in the wild, is given no access at all to the zoo's African Savannah exhibit.

Instead, she is forced to live in a one-acre yard with three Asian elephants whom she would never even encounter in the wild since they live on different continents. What is educational about that?

— Lynn Post, Seattle

Revisionist history

Simply missing what was obvious to many

I was struck by the opening paragraph of Charles Krauthammer's article on the Iraq war ["Drying up the jihadist sea," Opinion, July 3]. He says that the objective of replacing Hussein's regime with a democratic government "has proved far more difficult than anticipated." If he had phrased it more precisely such as it was "more difficult than I [or George Bush or Richard Cheney] had anticipated," it might pass muster as a reasonable statement.

However, given the next-door presence of Iran, a longtime enemy of Iraq and the U.S., and given the long, long struggle in Israel, there were many people who had anticipated the difficulty. There were people in the State Department and the intelligence agencies who anticipated it. There were elected officials who anticipated it. There were millions of average people who anticipated it.

Krauthammer is attempting a piece of revisionist history that would make the Soviet communists proud. Until he and his fellow travelers admit that they missed seeing that was so obvious to so many, I don't believe they will ever be able to fix what they have broken.

— Mark Phillips, Seattle

Muddying the waters

Putting the people in the First Amendment

You write: "The muddy stew of American democracy has four main ingredients: the judiciary, Congress, the executive and the press" [""War is no excuse to steamroll press," editorial, July 2].

First, I disagree with your term "muddy stew," as the Constitution is very clear about what American democracy is and is not, so democracy is only as muddy as the press cares to make it.

Second I disagree with your "ingredients" including the term: "the press." Your writer has clearly demonstrated his/her lack of knowledge of the place "the press" occupies in our Constitution (First Amendment only — along with assembly, petition and speech). If there are four main ingredients, I submit the fourth would be the people, whom the press conveniently, constantly ignores in their race to be competitive with other media. Most of the time the press spends demonstrating its bias for or against something. This editorial demonstrates its bias against President Bush.

Third, as to the subject matter, I believe The New York Times should be prosecuted. We are at war. Has the press again conveniently forgotten? Apparently, The Seattle Times has.

— Ken Estes, Montesano

Gates and Buffett

Good news, bad news

The good news: Gates and Buffett doing what the United States of America is failing to do ["Bulk of Buffett's fortune goes to Gates Foundation," News, June 26].

The bad news: United States of America is failing to do what it was created to do.

We are no longer a nation, but a grab bag of self-interest people, spewing ceaseless hate and slander, led by corruption born of greed and deceit.

It is time.

— Will Stoddard, Sequim

Celebrating the Fourth

Where all votes and amendments count

Fourth of July 2006, I am thankful I am a woman in America. I have passion for the protection of our Constitution. Amendments to this document have great implications.

The Bush administration diverted our attention from critical issues with a ploy of proposing a flag-burning amendment. To our good fortune, proving one vote can count, the Senate defeated the proposal by one vote. I offer to your readers, three amendments:

ARTICLE XV. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (Adopted 1870.)

ARTICLE XIX. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on the account of sex. (Adopted 1920.)

ARTICLE XXII. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. (Adopted 1951.)

ARTICLE XXII keeps my hope alive.

— Marie Whitener Hindery, Seattle