Reader gives opinion on Brunell columns

After reading Don C Brunell's recent columns on the editorial page, I have to wonder why he is still given a guest editorial space in the paper. His columns are repetitive and increasingly ridiculous in their portrayal of the supposed clash between environmentalism and business in Washington and in their portrayal of Democrats.

Brunell constantly uses phrases like "some environmental extremists" or "anti-forestry activists" in an attempt to characterize the overall movement toward a more responsible attitude toward how we do business in Washington. Clearly, there are people who take extreme stances on environmental issues. However, to suggest that those who support environmentalist causes are interested in "shutting down economic and human activity, regardless of its environmental impact" is ludicrous.

Brunell's other columns contain similar generalizations. We needn't worry about businesses damaging the environment because Weyerhaeuser did something positive thirty three years ago. We can't oppose new dams because if *all* the dams were gone then barges would have trouble operating. Adding the term "ecosystem functions" to a treaty that governs dams means that the Obama administration is getting the dynamite ready. There is no clear correlation between any of the points Brunell is trying to make and the skimpy evidence he is using.

His latest column regarding Obamacare claims that the GAO has stated that the new health plan would add $6.2 trillion to the national debt. Politifact explains that Morgan Griffith invented this figure and that it has no basis in reality. Brunell needs to check his sources.

I realize Brunell has a right to his opinion, but can't his pieces be put in the normal place, in "letters to the editor" along with the "chemtrail" people and the other paranoid conspiracy theorists who submit letters each month? Giving him the guest editorial position makes it appear that you are endorsing his ravings.

Steve Close

Moses Lake