Online-only letters

Cyd Charisse obit

Times kudos

Editor, The Times:

I want to thank The Times for printing the obituary of that fine entertainer, Cyd Charisse ["Actress danced into spotlight," Times, News, June 18]. I am contributing a poem written by a famous person. I don't understand how I can remember this poem after many years but can't remember the name of its famous writer.

Cyd Charisse, get off of that mantelpiece.

You gave us a shock there.

There should be a clock there.

— Wilbur Mann, Kirkland

Elephant's pregnancy

Zoo's focus financial

It is wonderful to see some light shed on the zoo's position about breeding ["Elephant's pregnancy raises health concerns," Times, page one, June 20]. In spite of the fact that it is an organization of zoos, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums doesn't always have the animals' best interests at heart. The fact that they have OK'd breeding Chai again, does not necessarily mean that they have her best interests in mind. First and foremost, they support the zoo and hope to boost the zoo's bottom line.

For instance, the AZA space requirement for housing an elephant is about the size of six parking spaces. So much data has since been collected that now show this is far too small and the lack of space and inadequate substrate put elephants at risk of foot infections, arthritis and osteomyelitis, not to mention the psychological aspects of confinement. Yet the AZA standards for this have not been changed.

Given the fact that breeding Chai again was OK'd by them, it's not much of a stamp of approval. The elephants are only being bred to assure the zoo of a good zoo attendance at the birth of a baby and elephant populations for the future at zoos. These babies are fated to live an inadequate life at one zoo or another, not to roam free where their ancestors roamed. The "preservation of the species" is very questionable to me.

Throw in the herpes factor, and breeding Chai seems like a really bad idea. From what I understand, not much research has been done about it. A responsible zoo would thoroughly check out the factors and risks of Chai's having another baby.

Plus, the Woodland Park Zoo has inadequate habitat, yet they are adding another baby.

It would be great if the Woodland Park Zoo would up the ante and really massively expand the elephant habitat to an area that would give them an adequate roaming area, even if folks could not always see them. Give them some freedom. I certainly would support the zoo in doing that, but in it's present format, it should not be breeding elephants.

— Galen Hazelhofer, Valley Springs, Calif.

Baby won't preserve animals

In "Elephant's pregnancy raises health concerns," the Woodland Park Zoo cites preserving Asian elephants as a reason for subjecting a young elephant to an almost certain death from herpes. The Merriam-Webster definition of preserving is "to keep safe from injury, harm or destruction." Preserving should start at home, and breeding at a herpes-infected zoo where three surviving elephants are all carriers invites harm, suffering and death.

If Woodland Park Zoo were serious about saving Asian elephants, they would spend the estimated $300,000 a year it costs to keep three elephants in their outdated, spatially inhumane exhibit and instead preserve them in the wild — where they belong. The $10,000 cost of a six-man anti-poaching team in Thailand is far less expensive than the cost of one artificial insemination, and Chai has had 12!

— Alyne Fortgang, Friends of Woodland Park Zoo Elephants co-founder, Seattle

Protect natural habitats instead

The recent struggle to prevent Woodland Park Zoo from breeding any more elephants because of the potential threat from elephant herpes is certainly worthwhile, but more important are the moral and ethical issues of zoos as they currently are.

Nancy Hawkes, chief curator for Woodland Park Zoo, might be offended at the suggestion that the zoo is more interested in ticket sales, but the greater offense is to the elephants who are kept there to entertain humans.

Sadly, as long as the general public continues to support circuses, zoos and all other endeavors where animals are captured, bred and contained in artificial environments made easily accessible to a spending public, corporations will happily take their money. It is the masterful job of the department of public relations that continues to seduce the public into believing that zoos are fundamentally mandated to educate the young and protect animal species. They are not and they do not.

In Thailand, where I live, small birds are captured in little cages and kept by their captors at the gates of temples. The public is encouraged to spend a little money and set them free all for the benefit of "good merit". Once freed, they are simply recaptured and reconfined. When zoos tell you that elephants, who normally move through miles of habitat daily, are kept in such pitiful confinement for the benefit of their species, we are meant to feel better about ourselves. How can we?

Real "merit-making" would be creating better protection for natural habitats and creating sanctuaries for those creatures held too long in captivity.

— Galen Garwood, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Gloucester pregnancies

Talk to teens

I was saddened to read that Gloucester High School in Massachusetts had a record number of 17 pregnant teens this year ["Girls' alleged pregnancy pact stuns Mass. city, school officials," Times, page one, June 21.] Apparently, this happened after a number of them — all 16 and younger — made a pact to get pregnant. According to the article, some girls expressed that they felt their parents would be fine with it and would help them out.

My daughter's Seattle high school newspaper's recent cover story was on three teens who had their babies while at that school. Each girl spoke about how wonderful it was to have a baby and how much the family pitched in to help. The story didn't mention of any downsides of having a baby while still a teen.

It appears that many teens are not getting messages from their parents about the serious consequences of teenage pregnancy. The parents of pregnant teens also pay a heavy price. Figures from the 2000 U.S. census show that 2.4 million grandparents had primary responsibility for raising their grandchildren.

This data motivates me to talk to my two teenagers about sexuality and the incredible responsibility involved in having a baby. Parents, if we want to enjoy our grandchildren someday but do not want to be responsible for raising them, we need to talk to our teens about this. Many books provide great suggestions for talking to kids about sexuality and other associated responsibilities. You can find some of these books on www.PricelessParenting.com. Let the conversations begin!

— Kathy Slattengren, Priceless Parenting owner, Kenmore

High-school girls selfish

Stop it already! The girls in high school who are purposely getting pregnant are the most selfish of the selfish. They are only thinking about themselves and not about the babies they are bring into this world. They have no means of caring or supporting these babies and city and school officials are making excuses for their bad behavior.

Who will take care of these babies when the girls find themselves incapable of parenting? This is the worst child abuse in any meaning of the word.

And by no means should their parents be let off the hook, because they are just as culpable as their daughters. The focus should be on the children who will soon be in the care of these selfish girls.

— Mary A. Radcliffe, Child's Advocate volunteer, Bellevue

Guantánamo Bay ruling

Captain misinterpreted

The hallmark of liberal democracies is civil discourse["Guantánamo Bay ruling," Times, Northwest Voices, June 21]. Mr. Pluckhahn does not address the merits of my arguments as to why the Supreme Court erred in conferring habeas corpus rights to detainees. Instead, he engages in arm waving about "far right-wingers," "liberals" or whether some or all detainees have or have not been mistreated while in custody.

These matters have nothing to do with the habeas corpus issue, which hinges on the law and the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Pluckhahn would do well to note that the court ruled 5-4 and the dissent was especially sharp — hardly a ringing endorsement for granting habeas corpus to illegal combatants. I reject the implication that folks who do not agree with Mr. Pluckhahn, whether sitting Supreme Court justices or mere retired captains, should feel "shame" for their reasoning and acceptance of pay from the U.S. Treasury.

The Constitution specifically provides for the suspension of habeas corpus when in "cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." This, of course, was the principle upon which the administration relied in not extending habeas corpus to detained combatants. After all, the Sept. 11 attacks cannot be viewed as anything short of "invasion." Further, the United States has never in its long history granted habeas corpus to those captured on the battlefield.

The Supreme Court's ruling reverses a prior ruling (Johnson vs. Eisentrager, 1950) and relies on historical precedence. The current case (Boumediene vs. Bush) centers on whether or not the detainees are enemy combatants. If they are, the United States may detain, interrogate, force them to work in nondefense related industry, etc. If they are not, then they should tried for specific offenses or released.

For more than 200 years, combatants detained by the U.S. armed forces have never had the right to habeas corpus in that process of determination. I share the view of the four justices who held that they should not now have that right. They also opined that the Supreme Court was improperly inserting itself into an arena where it did not have the right of review and, in doing so, jeopardized U.S. safety.

I never argued that the United States should be free to mistreat detainees.

— Peter W. Soverel, retired U.S. Navy captain, Edmonds

Illegal immigrants

Make Mexico responsible

Your article about Julie Quiroz, the young American girl born of illegal Mexican immigrants, facing some travails because her family has been deported, misses the point entirely ["Area teen studies while deported mother struggles," Times, Local News, June 22].

The idea here is that her mother's and brother's difficulties living in Mexico are Mexico's problem, not ours. They, the Mexicans, have successfully exported their social welfare program to the United States, thus avoiding taxing themselves to provide job training, welfare or aid to dependent families, not to mention a safe environment in which to work and live and an educational system capable of producing skilled workers.

Instead, they encourage their downtrodden to come north so we Americans can tax ourselves to provide these services for their workers, all the while having them send money back to Mexico in remittances.

We should continue to send them back, as we did with her two brothers who tried to sneak in again (demonstrating their respect for our laws). Sooner or later there will be enough of them in Mexico in sufficiently dire straits that their government will be forced to respond and provide the above-mentioned services.

As long as we provide a safety valve, there is no incentive for Mexico to do its share in stopping illegal immigration, whereas if we stop them or send them back, then they must.

— Ed Nichols, Bellevue

Another sob story

The illegal alien sob stories are starting to flood newspaper pages again.

So Julie Quiroz's mother struggles while deported?

I am a law-abiding, taxpayer Hispanic U.S. citizen and I live in California, ground zero and the welfare state for illegal aliens. It costs my state $10.5 billion a year to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. California has a $20 billion budget deficit.

It is not a matter of if but when California succeeds in overturning Proposition 13 to raise property taxes to care for illegal aliens.

When that happens, I will lose my home because I will not be able to pay higher taxes on it. I am a senior citizen on a fixed income who paid her taxes and obeyed the laws of her country. How do you like that for a sob story? Will a benefactor come to my aid? I think not.

— Haydee Pavia, Laguna Woods, Calif.

WSU football

Serious issues in play

Although he admits that his kids have made some mistakes, new Cougar coach Paul Wulff states that his players are not making major mistakes — no hard drugs or truly serious issues with his young men ["WSU coach inherits a mess off the field," Times, Sports, June 21].

I guess a felony assault conviction, charges of felony rape and multiple DUIs are all just part of the coming of age process in the Palouse.

Attempting to blind a teammate, burglary and check forgery are mere rights of passage for his Cougar student-athletes. Just young men sowing their wild oats with a bit of tomfoolery.

It may just be due to the fact that I don't have the advantage of a WSU education, but I would love hear coach Wulff's take of what he considers to be a "serious issue." Other than first-degree murder or fumbling the football inside the 10-yard line, it sounds like not a whole lot.

— David Archer, Seattle

Race for the Cure

Good job, Seattle

A few weeks ago, I was at lunch with seven friends — four of us have been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer ["Race for the Cure against breast cancer draws 14,500," Times, Local News, June 22]. This to me is a startling statistic. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002 and again in 2007.

Having gone through both surgery and radiation therapy, I know personally both how difficult this is and the importance of early detection and monitoring. I'm OK now and have decided to contribute what I can to support this cause, so my husband, Tracy, and I participated in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure this past Saturday, June 21.

About 15,000 people ran in the race. The group of participants stretched continuously from one end of the Alaskan Way Viaduct to the other. Participants of all ages walked either in memory of a loved one or in celebration of a survivor — they walked to end breast cancer forever. They have raised about $1.65 million so far, and that's not counting corporate matches and the pledges that can still be turned in between now and June 30.

Seattle may be known for coffee, planes and computer software, but Saturday showed the compassion, generosity and perseverance of its people in support of an important cause.

— Linda L. Dodge, Bothell