Online-only Letters

Noisy neighbor

Welcome to my dance club, I mean home

Editor, The Times:

Letter writer Ty Blazey wrote, "Let them dance! Alcohol should be served in nightclubs until 4 a.m." ["A longer pour," Northwest Voices, July 19]. Has he no regard for the people being made miserable by the overloud music and noise generated by clubs?

I invite him to come to my apartment and listen as the music is cranked up five times louder at 11 p . . m... than it had been at 9 p.m.! Not to mention they open their windows and make the noise worse.

I spoke to one of the managers at the club, and I have called in frustration to ask them to turn it down, or to at least close the windows. Nada. The misery caused by this overloud music and noise from patrons screaming and yelling should be a crime. Having it continue until 4 a.m., when so many people are already made miserable, for a few to "have a good time" is just wrong.

I invite Blazey to come to my apartment and hear the noise. Have him put in a pair of earplugs and listen to the noise. Keeping the earplugs in, I invite him to close himself in my bathroom and hear the noise and I invite him to step out into the hallway outside my apartment door and hear the noise. There is no relief from the noise no matter where you go!

There are no drugs and fighting at this club that I know of, but that doesn't excuse the excess noise and the overloud music. I hope there is an enforced noise decibel-level on clubs coming soon. I shudder to think of how many seniors, disabled and working people are miserable and sweltering in the summer heat behind closed windows just so a few young people can have "fun" and club owners can make a buck.

-- Pamela Buxton, Seattle

Someone new in national security

Harry Potter's publisher

It is amazing to me that millions of copies of Harry Potter's final book could be kept securely locked up for months until the official launch date (with severe penalties for anyone who dared disobey this international secret), and yet our nation's nuclear, military and CIA secrets are treated by the media as some sort of joke.

Considering the fact that nearly every media outlet has learned from "a high-ranking source" from the Pentagon, the CIA or Congress explicit details on every top-secret weapon and military operation or intelligence report, I wish that Harry Potter's publisher would take over our national security.

Yes, there were a few book leaks last week, but those people have been fined and punished. I would feel much more secure knowing that our secrets are safely locked away under penalty of death, unlike the trivial manner with which these secrets are handled today.

-- Apollo Fuhriman, Bothell

Harried fans

Muffliato!

Your publication of a "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" review before the book's July 21 release date was in very poor taste ["Series ends on a satisfying note," Northwest Life, July 19]. Your readers could not yet even purchase the book!

Those of us hoping to enjoy the suspense of the final book in the series would prefer not to have spoilers leaping at us from every direction. I expected them to be flying about the Internet, and had ceased browsing the Internet entirely until the book's publication, to avoid such spoilers. But I did not expect them to appear in The Times on my doorstep!

Couldn't you have waited just four days before spoiling the book for your readers? Harry Potter's plot is not such vital world news that you needed to leak it early.

A longtime (and disappointed) Seattle Times reader,

-- Emily Drew

Deletrius!

I was very disappointed to see The Times show blatant disregard for anyone who had not yet obtained a copy and read the seventh Harry Potter book. Lots of fanatics surely have read the book by now, and for them there is nothing to spoil. But, plenty more who have not yet even obtained a copy have suddenly learned more than they ever wanted to know in advance by merely glancing at the front page of your Northwest Life section.

The headline alone says way more than it should. I tore out the whole story and threw it out before my unsuspecting sister, a fanatic who would be shattered to tears if she saw it, decided to read the comics.

I think the show of great excitement and energy and fun that has poured into this book is wonderful. The Harry Potter books get children hooked on reading, and the excitement surrounding the last few releases has given people something bright and exciting to look forward to.

To feed on that excitement by exposing so much of the surprise just to get the jump on reporting or add the shock factor is uncourteous and frustrating to your readers.

In the future, think about the many people who deserve a chance to read or watch for themselves, even if they can't do it on the very first day.

-- Carlene Skiles

Accuracy is important

Scientific fact-checking

In general, Times' articles with scientific content have been reasonably accurate. "Company to sue over composting regulations" [Local News, July 18], however, is way off base. The descriptions in paragraphs three and four regarding anaerobic and aerobic decomposition are terribly wrong! I assume that most articles with scientific content are written/edited by science writers and editors with some background in the discipline. If such is not the policy at The Times, I hope it soon will be.

Your readers need and deserve to be accurately informed about science-related matters that come up. And yes, there will be some that are more important than composting.

-- Larry Happ, Redmond

More on the war

Encouraging support

This week, to drum up support for the war in Iraq, President Bush is telling the American people that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are the same terrorists who are fighting our sons and daughters in Iraq. Finally, he admits the complicity of the Saudi Arabians in this so-called war on terror.

-- Lonnie Ekstrand, Seattle

Burning questions

I'm trying to understand why people still support Bush's war in Iraq. Here are my questions:

1. If you invaded Iraq to plant democracy, why don't you plant democracy among our Arab allies? Why sacrifice our soldiers for democracy in Iraq while selling billions in arms to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- a police state, a fascist monarchy and a military dictatorship?

2. Since the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and Pakistan shelters al-Qaida today, why doesn't Bush confront the "evil" right where it spawns? Is he afraid of his allies?

3. Bush claims, "We fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here." Why must they come through Iraq to get into the U.S.? Since Bush is so incompetent in guarding our borders, couldn't the terrorists just walk into New Mexico?

4. Isn't it more logical to infer that they fight us in Iraq, not to get into our homeland, but to get us out of theirs?

5. What gives us the right to be there anyway?

6. If other nations followed Bush's doctrine of "preemptive war," wouldn't our model cause worldwide anarchy? Is America no longer an example for the nations?

7. Why do we spend $10 billion per month to help Iraqis, but not a penny for nationalized health care to help Americans?

8. Are we sure, at this point, we're not fighting this war just to save face? Is Bush's face worth killing for?

-- Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom

I'm no fool

According to a breaking New York Times report, plans are being drawn up by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker that would keep the United States in Iraq until at least 2009. They envision the security situation improving during the next two years, so that by the summer of 2009, Iraq will be, for the most part, pacified throughout the country.

My answer, as a citizen, to this "new" plan that will finally fix Iraq is: Do you think that I'm a blind, brainless, gullible idiot???

We've been hearing about the new plan to fix Iraq every six months or so, for four years now. It never works. It only gets worse. More people die, more bombs go off, more people are kidnapped, more chaos ensues; and Bush just shrugs and says, "Oh well, that didn't quite work out. So let's try it from a slightly different angle."

President Bush says that he listens to his commanders on the ground (except, of course, for those he fires). It seems that, in Gen. David Petraeus, Bush has finally found just what he has been looking for: someone who will tell him what he wants to hear and go along with his own plan to stay in Iraq until the end of his presidency, so that he can pass off this failed, disastrous war to the next president. Bush has no conscience, and he and Vice President Dick Cheney both need to be impeached for the good of the country.

-- Gabriel Morris, Portland, Ore.

Blame Game

On July 17, our president issued another executive order related to our perpetual state of war, giving the government the authority to confiscate, without notice, all property of any person who, 1) threatens the peace or stability of Iraq or its government; or 2) undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq while providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

The perceived threat can be direct, indirect, or a conspiracy to "undermine," and will be determined by the secretary of treasury -- with secretaries of state and defense as backup -- with no judicial process.

Remember, we're talking about a threat against the administration's Iraq policy, not a direct threat against the United States. Presidential "authority" trumps the Constitution again.

I'm curious. U.S. contractors who pocketed millions in profits, but failed to rebuild hospitals and schools or restore water and electricity -- are they threats to the peace? A doubling of U.S. air attacks last year, with a correlating increase in civilian casualties (apparently including two Reuters journalists) -- do you suppose that might be perceived as a threat to Iraqis? How about the neocons who insisted that Iraq disband its army and government, sell off 100 percent of its industry to outside corporations, eliminate protective tariffs, switch to a flat tax, drop requirements for reinvestment of corporate profits and those responsible for the economic reforms that resulted in 60 percent unemployment -- did they undermine economic reconstruction?

The U.S. government insists that Iraq implement oil "benchmarks" that welcome foreign oil companies into Iraq oil fields, handing over the right to set royalties, decide on production levels, and even determine whether Iraqis get to work in their own industry -- a law that would ensure that foreign corporations control future exploration and development in one of the world's largest oil reserves through 40-year agreements called "production-sharing" contracts favoring multinational oil corporations -- do you suppose that threatens Iraq's ability to rebuild its devastated country?

Somehow, I doubt those who are truly responsibility for the mess that is Iraq need fear this executive order. But if you or I give to a charity that indirectly supports the end of U.S. occupation, we are at risk.

What's happened to our nation?

-- Carolyn Kriegel, Stanwood

Incompetent all around

"What could happen if U.S. pulls troops out of Iraq," regarding results of talks with Syria and Iran, is an interesting article [News, July 18].

It quotes "one participant" of the war game as saying: "[there is] not much progress or tangible results." The name of this individual should have been provided by the reporters, or the reason why they did not provide it.

Syria and Iran both warned the Bush administration of the risk -- if not certainty -- of chaos in Iraq if the U.S. invaded and occupied the country. Syria and Iran both are willing to engage in substantive talks with the U.S., virtually any time and any place. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser told President Bush not to accept the Iranian offer of assistance in assessing the danger posed by Saddam Hussein, and with addressing the problem.

Had Bush possessed an understanding of the historical dynamic at work in the Middle East, he would have accepted the offer, or at least explored it in great detail rather than spurning it.

Bashar Assad of Syria has offered peace to Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Turning Syria's energies toward economic development is obviously one part of the way forward in the Middle East, but our incompetent secretary of state is unable to grasp that fact. We have a supremely incompetent president, and an equally incompetent secretary of state, to the profound injury of the nation.

-- James Canning, Seattle

Why the hype?

There are worse things out there

Why are we so excited about a trans fat ban when cigarettes are still legal?

-- John Beatty, Seattle