Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Privatization: There you go again

Busness columnist Frank Bartel continues to amaze me. In his column of May 10, “Lack of accountability leaves community at mercy of bureaucracy,” he takes the podium again to harangue us on the theme of accountability in government.

The amazing part of the story is Bartel’s solution: privatization.

It makes no sense to pound us on the lack of managerial accountability in government and then tell us the cure is privatization. Privatization eliminates the one force that is responsible for any success government enjoys: the men and women on the front lines, the workers. In Bartel’s own words, “Any accomplishment here (in government) must come by the determined effort of line workers to break through the inertia of structural paralysis and insular management.”

Privatization is an admission of managerial failure.

Privatization prolongs the careers of $85,000-per-year managers who do absolutely nothing. Privatization does not eliminate incompetent managers. It brings in other managers to do the job the incompetent managers were supposed to do. The incompetent managers become contract managers supervising the private managers.

Privatization does not make the city manager more accountable. It does not make reachable the currently unreachable city or county department heads or special district managers. Privatization does not make anyone in government more accountable.

Citizens are, generally speaking, very happy with the service provided by various government agencies. The anger, frustration and dissatisfaction with government is with the policy and planning, the managerial functions. Privatization does not address that problem. Privatization will not solve that problem. Tom McArthur Spokane

Column should be required reading

A big hurrah to Frank Bartel and his column of May 10, “Lack of accountability leaves community at mercy of bureaucracy.”

This column should be required reading for every high school and college student, and suggested reading for all adults.

Maybe, just maybe, the citizens of our city will get the message and demand changes.

Albert Einstein is credited with writing, We are fools to try to solve big problems using the same methods that created them. Ray O’Keefe Spokane

End ‘weird rules’ for phone calls

In your editorial of May 9, “Let state agency decide phone issues,” you forgot to mention some key points:

1. Yes, we have to dial access codes to use certain long distance companies if we are calling within Eastern Washington.

2. No, we cannot use U.S. West or GTE to call between Spokane and Coeur d’Alene because they can’t carry calls across state lines.

3. Yes, if all of these rules didn’t exist, we would see more competition and lower prices.

4. Yes, the long distance companies would like to see the access code thing mentioned in No. 1 done away with.

5. Yes, Nos. 1 and 2 should be addressed at the same time by Congress. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction over both.

6. Yes, legislators should override the governor’s veto of ESSB 5156 to encourage No. 5 to come true.

Confused? Tell Congress to eliminate all of these weird rules so we can make long distance calls with whomever we want, wherever we want to. Neta Percifield, president of operations Energy Control Industries, Spokane

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Bush right to quit NRA

To say that the National Rifle Association has miscalculated the current mood of the country is an understatement.

In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the NRA refused to take the high road of reason and, in an act of unfortunate defiance, has further fueled the mood of distrust festering in the dark corners of our nation.

Former president George Bush is to be commended for his resignation from the NRA. It was a reasonable and brave response.

Today’s NRA bears no resemblance to the original organization which represented true sportsmen and individuals who owned a firearm for their personal protection. The NRA today reflects a growing membership and philosophy associated with hate, racism, arsenal building and organized violence.

Hats off to Bush. I only hope that others in public service - here in Eastern Washington and nationally - who are in “debt” to the NRA will renounce the organization in the same dignified manner. Yvonne Lopez Morton Spokane

Hitler wanted gun control, too

A well-known historical figure who was a strong supporter of gun control said:

This day will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future. - Adolph Hilter, 1935 With its usual skill, The Socialist Review managed to plant a few barbs in the National Rifle Association with a May 9 lead article. Ralph E. Hewes Kettle Falls, Wash.

Problem is one of government abuse

Why was it OK for President Bill Clinton, Vietnam War protestor, to exercise his First Amendment rights and speak out against his government during those turbulent years, but not OK for groups to speak out against abusive government actions today?

Clinton today feels this type of revolutionary rhetoric is causing a serious division in America, causing hate groups to spawn and do harm to American government. This type of too-much-government talk may even cause a revolution in America like we saw during the Vietnam War years.

Remember when some of the protesting “left-wing” students at Kent State University were killed by government troops. Remember when Randy Weaver’s “right-wing” wife, armed with her baby, was killed by a government sniper.

How do Americans react to such abusive government actions?

Vietnam War protestor Clinton reacted with words. Others, unfortunately, react violently. Abusive government action will usually be followed by citizen reactions. Would there have been riots in Los Angeles if Rodney King had been handled humanely?

During Clinton’s protest years, the left wing was considered the enemy of the government. Today, the enemy is the right wing. All this “enemy of the government” shifting from left to right diverts attention from the real problem: government abuse. The more government grows, the more government abuse we see.

It’s ironic that Bill Clinton leads the government he once protested and now hints of curtailing our First Amendment rights. Violent reactions to government abuse should never be condoned.

Hopefully, the First Amendment won’t be the government’s next enemy. Enver Apaydin Spokane

IN THE PAPER

‘Plot’ story was bad journalism

I was astonished at your complete lack of professional journalistic judgment in printing “Texan labels Waco siege Clinton plot” (May 12).

The article violates almost every basic journalistic standard: It uses only one source, doesn’t include any other point of view and doesn’t ask for documentation or support of the charges. It belongs on the editorial page.

The editors may have thought most people would easily see through such transparent charges, and they may believe that Steve Stockman’s position as a U.S. representative exempts him from meeting the standards of proof applied to other sources. Neither excuse is valid.

The news media’s job is to provide readers with enough information to come to a reasoned judgment on their own.

That the article was printed at all will be seen by many as validating Stockman’s claims. That it was prominently displayed on the front page implicitly states that the story should be taken seriously by readers.

The fact that Stockman is a U.S. representative makes it doubly imperative that the media hold him accountable. Otherwise, the power of his position gives him too much opportunity to persuade - and mislead.

Stockman’s tactics are a disturbing echo of those used by Sen. Joe McCarthy during the communist witch hunt days of the late 1940s and early ‘50s. The media failed at that time to vigorously demand that McCarthy substantiate his charges. Years of needless horror resulted and people’s lives were destroyed. I’m appalled that The Spokesman-Review seems to be repeating that mistake. Steve Blewett, journalism program director Eastern Washington University

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

European settlers were the black hats

Chuck Cleis’ recent letter to the editor (“No sympathy for Indian Whining,” May 11) scolding the Native American displays a not uncommon, twisted sense of justice. Cleis essentially says that what we Europeans did to the indigenous residents of the Western Hemisphere was fair.

What our European forefathers did was perpetrate acts of genocide just as effective and horrible as those commited against Jews. The indigenous people never committed any act of aggression against our homeland. In fact, they treated us with innocent kindness when we first landed.

We literally confiscated their land, brought sickness that killed over 90 percent of some tribes and with impunity broke treaty after treaty with them. We incarcerated them on utterly worthless and hostile reservations and forbade them to practice their cultural and spiritual beliefs. When they resisted, we slaughtered them with superior technology.

Perhaps the worst part of this is that we refuse to admit or accept that we perpetrated a terrible mistake.

Sure, American Indians fought amongst themselves. We had pushed entire nations off of the Eastern Seaboard into the interior of North America. This caused all kinds of territorial conflicts.

But the real point is that we do ourselves a terrible injustice by ducking our accountability for this history. By what right did we take their land and subjugate them? Furthermore, having done this, by what right do we piously claim that they should assimilate into our society?

Most of this we cannot undo, but we surely can strengthen our compassion for our fellow human and be honest with ourselves. John E. Bentley Post Falls

We need to build better future for all

In response to Chuck Cleis’ letter of May 11:

We are not a rapacious race. History has proven that. We have one of the strongest family values the New World culture could possibly have or wish to have.

Yes, we did fight with our Indian neighbors, but it was not to conquer or to make them extinct. We were all put on this planet for one reason: to live. The land was not given to us or anybody. It was given to nature. Like it or not, everybody is a part of that nature.

Cleis’ view of (Indians’) sovereign nations as a total disaster is not entirely true. Just like any new government there will be problems. It was a failure at first. Was it originally planned to endure this long? I think not. It took a lot of hard work and determination of both past and present tribal leaders to bring tribal government to what it is today. A tip of the iceberg. We want to be free from government assistance just as much as Cleis does.

For me, the past is in the past. We look back, learn from the mistakes, then move on. We Indians and nonIndians have more important affairs to accomplish than to argue back and forth about who did what and so forth. We have to look to the future together, to make sure that the lives of our children’s children will be the best that they can be. Matthew W. Stensgar Tensed, Idaho

Stating facts is not whining

Our American ancestors believed in living life in proportion. I did not see Sofie Leonard’s letter as whining, only stating facts.

It is hard for the Americans to admit that the native people were here before the Europeans arrived. And as long as there is one native left, they will be reminded.

I’ve been a hunter all my life and have seen many hunting practices that are obscene and disgusting. I’ve never wasted any part of the game that I’ve taken. I was taught that way.

What makes Mr. Cleis think we wanted to conquer one another? Of course we fought amongst ourselves and established territorial rights; that is a very human trait. But we did not try to exterminate or crush entire tribes. There was a balance between strife and harmony.

Many people have a warped view of what it is to be Indian/native.

Do you know who taught the Indian how to “scalp”? I remember when my family got electricity and indoor plumbing. It did make life somewhat easier, but then there was the light bill, which never had to be dealt with before. There’s a price for all luxuries and we all pay for them, environmentally and financially. I am 48 years old and there isn’t anything that I own that I couldn’t or wouldn’t give up - but not my tribe, my people.

Don’t lump us all together and say we hate the white man or wouldn’t go back to the old ways. Yes I would, gladly. And I am very fond of many white people, one of whom is my husband. Jeannie Maki Colville, Wash.

Critic lacks insight and more

Chuck Cleis, you’ve watched too many John Wayne movies. You have no idea of what you are saying. There is no excuse for ignorance. You need to know about history before you make judgments.

When the pilgrims landed, they were freezing and dying of starvation due to poor housing and a depleted food supply. The Indians reached out to other human beings, showed them how to live off the land and to make medicine from roots and herbs. By saving them, the Indians prompted technology. The Indians have made temples that have withstood earthquakes and lasted thousands of years. Not many modern buildings can lay claim to that.

The Boston Tea Party was about taxation. But instead of having the guts to stand up for what they believed in, the whites had to hide in Indian costumes because they were afraid of the repercussions of their actions.

In the Native Americans’ quest for peace, they signed treaty after treaty. These were broken by people who wanted more of what was not theirs to begin with. The Indians were placed on reservations that kept getting smaller when something of value was found on their land.

From reading your letter, it’s no wonder racism continues to exist. I suppose you also think Hitler was right in exterminating millions of human beings.

How sad it is that you cannot grasp the concept, ideas and heritage of the Native Americans. You have missed out on something truly beautiful. Monica Peone Ford, Wash.

Wrong on one count after another

In “No sympathy for Indian whining” (Letters, May 11) I feel Chuck Cleis missed a very important point in stating “… whining about the white man stealing their land.”

First, Indian people have every right to say “their land.” They were here before Christopher Columbus’ so-called discovery of America.

As for what Cleis feels the white man’s biggest mistake was, well, the American Indians’ biggest mistake was to let Christopher Columbus on their land to take credit for “discovering” it.

Indian people don’t hate the white man or his technology. Cars and electricity are appreciated by people of many heritages, but they aren’t a necessity. The Indian people lived many years without those before the white man came.

As for medicines, they made their own out of plants, bones, herbs, berries, roots, etc. They also had their own medicine men. Again, these weren’t a necessity due to the lack of communicable diseases, which were nonexistent until the white man came.

Cleis forgot to mention the alcohol white man brought to get the Indians intoxicated and trade their furs for guns, which Indians had no idea how to use. White men took their necessities.

Cleis thinks none of the Indians would go back to those old ways. They most certainly would, but they don’t need history to repeat itself and get more taken from them. Enough is enough.

As far as “their whining sounds more like sour grapes,” maybe Cleis should clean his own closet. He wrote a letter also. Jerilyn McCrea Fruitland, Wash.

ABORTION

Editorialist takes the low road

There’s a word to describe John Webster’s editorial on Dr. Henry Foster’s nomination for surgeon general: despicable. Not because he defends this nominee, who gives the appearance of being as competent and reputable as his supporters claim, but because Webster’s defense consists mainly of railing against his own distorted picture of the abortion debate.

There’s a good reason for believing that abortion is wrong, one supported by a long history of both religious authority and secular law. That’s the conviction that a human fetus is a human being, endowed thereby with an inalienable right to life.

The effort to defend the human rights of others, far from issuing from the “obsessions, distortions, imaginings and the religious right,” is the very core of liberalism.

The position of surgeon general is mainly symbolic. Obviously, having someone in this office who has performed dozens of abortions would have the effect of reinforcing public acceptance of abortion. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for those who believe that abortion is homicide to oppose this nomination.

Yet Webster vilifies these opponents as “modern-day Pharisees who throw stones … from the stained glassed comfort of country club Republicanism” and who are “only playing political games.”

In this malicious caricature, distorting both the opposition to Dr. Foster and his abortion debate as a whole, it’s Webster himself who is guilty of “pretentious shrieking” of a position “fabricated for political purposes.” Chip Piper Sagle, Idaho