Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Gingrich should go

I usually vote Republican. I characterize myself as conservative. Much of the time I fall into the group generally referred to as right-wing fundamentalists, although I often cringe at that label.

Regardless of how I might categorize myself, I attempt to step back and assess an issue on its merits, rather than wait to see what the stance of Republicans or fundamentalists will be.

Apparently, many Republican representatives in Washington do not possess the independence or fortitude to do the same. I refer to the fact that a focal point in Congress and a front page news item on a nearly daily basis is whether or not Newt Gingrich will remain in the hunt for the office of speaker of the House.

How far has our political system deteriorated, when a man can be considered for a position of such power after openly lying to America about his actions? Does any of the backtracking and excuse-making change the fact that he lied? Can we no longer expect honesty and integrity? Do we as a people have absolutes in what we expect of our representatives or are they negotiable?

It is time Gingrich fell on his sword. But that would be an indication of character, wouldn’t it? Stan Cowart Spokane

Airbag issue reveals greater ills

The Dec. 31 Spokesman-Review had a hand-wringing article about a tough choice the federal government has: Should it mandate strongly inflated airbags more likely to knock off kids and save more non-seatbelt-wearing adults? Or should it mandate weaker airbags that save more children but probably not non-seatbelt-wearing adults? And horror of horrors, should it actually let people choose which they want or if they want airbags at all?

It’s a testament to the loss of the American sense of personal responsibility and the growth of unchecked government mandates that such questions are even in the federal government domain and that the government has to work so hard in figuring things out. All sense of personal responsibility for consequences is gone.

Now, the average American sees nothing wrong if a person might say, “Darn, I wasn’t wearing a seat belt, now I’m injured really bad and the government regulations didn’t help me a bit.”

In our forefathers’ times foolish people were allowed to die. Most folks even figured they deserved it. Back then, choosing who to save - innocent children or foolish adults whose actions show they are pretty loose about whether they live or die - would’ve been a no-brainer. Now, people don’t even question the government’s role in insisting that silly people stay alive.

As the overly protective federal government becomes both more intrusive and more rescuing, Americans lose their sense of individual responsibility and become even more thoughtless, demanding, entitled and whining without even realizing it. Foster Cline, M.D. Sandpoint

PARENTING

Critic distorts Rosemond’s intent

Re: Lynne Williams’ letter of Dec. 30 concerning John Rosemond’s column on parenting (“Rosemond has become a control freak”):

I have found John Rosemond’s advice to parents to be generally sound and reasonable. She apparently misconstrued the intent of an earlier column, which I took to mean that children’s feelings can be hurt during discipline without damaging their self-esteem.

Her statement, “many children rarely need to be corrected at all” is ludicrous in any context. I believe the focus of Rosemond’s discipline column was that children haven’t really changed that much over the last few generations but some parents have a hard time enforcing rules consistently.

Dr. Williams, a psychiatrist, may have seen too many examples of dysfunctional behavior with overbearing parents. There is no excuse for physical or emotional abuse of children under the guise of discipline. I’ve never read a column in which Rosemond advocated such abuse.

Williams infers that hurting children’s feelings when enforcing rules is a form of tyranny, another hyperbolic statement similar to her metaphor concerning the Humane Society. By the way, it’s common knowledge that dogs are descended from a pack structure, where discipline is enforced from the top down. Please don’t take that to mean children should be raised as pets; it’s just an example of Williams’ fuzzy logic.

I have to question the credibility of a person who would jump to such far-reaching conclusions as Williams does on the basis of one statement (hurt feelings sometimes equals good discipline). E.S. Bishop Spokane

BUSINESS AND LABOR

Bigger they are the stingier they get

First of all, I would like to wish everybody happy holidays especially to the small businesses here in the Spokane community that gave their employees Christmas bonuses.

I have lived in Spokane all my life and have worked for a major aluminum company in north Spokane for over 20 years. Since the early 1980s we have had to take pay cuts, benefit cuts and more to help this company out, just to stay running.

Oh yeah, 1996 will be the year I’ll never forget, when the old Scrooge finally came out of the woodwork. Not only did we not get a bonus, this million-dollar-a-day corporation even took our yearly Christmas hams away. And I’m talking about more than 1,000 employees.

I was brought up to believe that Christmas is a time to give, not take. Richard Bower Spokane

Food store needed downtown

I wonder why there are no grocery stores in the downtown area. With the many apartment buildings in this section - the Park Tower, the Delaney, the Coeur d’Alene and numerous apartment hotels - where is a market?

Thank heavens for Payless Drug Store; canned foods on some of the shelves and, luckily, sometimes a couple of overripe bananas or a bruised tomato can be found on a shelf.

How about a market or bakery shop opening up in a couple of all those empty stores along Riverside and elsewhere downtown? Myra M. Crocker Spokane

SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION

Oakland idea was to get more help

Thank you for the extensive editorial and news coverage on Ebonics as a recognized language controversy. You’ve exposed us to all the arguments, pro and con, in a balanced way.

It’s unfortunate that some of the rhetoric got pretty hot, implying racist thinking was involved. I don’t see racism in the Oakland school board’s actions. I do find suspect the board’s reported claim that it was not at all motivated by the desire to get more federal funds. Always follow the money in a public issue.

The board identified a need to help a large number of black youngsters in Oakland schools do better in learning standard American English. (Doing the assessment by using test scores, etc., doesn’t seem racist to me.)

If the Oakland schools had more federal money, they could hire additional English as a Second Language teachers. That would result in more individualized attention - a sure factor for academic success - which would help youngsters who need extra assistance.

So, someone came up with the idea of Ebonics as a way to get additional federal money to meet a real need and the board adopted the idea. It backfired because it wasn’t politically correct.

Using non-federal money, the board should experiment with giving youngsters extra individualized attention and see how it works. Maybe they could call it “tutoring.” Charles Latimer Spokane

WASHINGTON STATE

Residency requirements unfair

During the past few months we have listened to President Clinton and governor-elect Gary Locke concerning building a bridge toward the 21st century by creating new jobs through education and retraining. Locke has been endorsed by Washington Education Association for his views on education.

These people don’t realize that laws have been put in place by local and state education officials restricting or preventing individuals from retraining or continuing their education at community colleges. Current laws require that an individual must establish residency for at least one year before attending the local college.

These laws were passed to prevent individuals from commuting to different states to obtain an education not offered in their state of residence. When an individual satisfies the requirement by establishing residence (i.e. purchasing a home, voting, children attending local schools), a waver should be provided on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, this is not the situation. A refugee can obtain a waiver to attend college and pay the standard tuition, while a nonresident has to pay three times this amount.

Due to frequent relocation during a military career, it is difficult to maintain a permanent place of residence. Upon completing a military career, the service member should not be penalized for not having a stable environment in the state in which he chooses to reside.

Gov. Locke and the WEA should re-examining current laws concerning waivers for establishing residency in Washington. Stephen M. Erickson Deer Park

THE WAR WITHIN

Democratic future in doubt

Regarding “The War Within” by staff writer Bill Morlin (Dec. 29-31), your objective, informative coverage of terrorism from within is another wake-up call. Democracy as we know it is in danger from within.

There also exist foreign powers that would, without hesitation, provide the most hideous means of mass destruction of Americans. Those who have organized destructive opposition, intending to overthrow the government, will soon find themselves expendable and helpless against that foreign power.

We read that a democratic government cannot last, that too many liberties are the cancer of any real democratic government. But democratic principles and liberties aren’t the problem. Abuse of power by people in government and defiance by some individuals of all civil law and order are the problem.

I am not confident justice will be done. Anarchist murderers live on, protected by the same civilized social structure and government they terrorize and wish to destroy. There lives a current of defiance against the established principles of law and order and government at all levels.

May God help us. Ray Aleman Osburn, Idaho

Be careful how you fight terrorism

In fighting domestic terrorism, we should not negate the First, Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment, especially, is under continual assault.

In prewar Germany, the Nazi media vilified and dehumanized Jews until the Jews became the objects of hatred. Now, America’s liberal media continually vilify gun owners, National Rifle Association members and Second Amendment supporters.

In actuality, most gun owners are as innocent and harmless as the Jews who were marched into the death camps.

Realistically, repressive gun laws have little impact on terrorism. England’s citizenry has been disarmed by Draconian gun bans, yet terrorists in the United Kingdom possess every kind of weapon imaginable, including surface-to-air missiles.

Let’s not dismantle the Constitution in our efforts to combat domestic terrorism. Curtis E. Stone Colville, Wash.

MARIJUANA

Marijuana policy absurd

The debate about the medical use of marijuana is absurd when I think about my mother who died from lung cancer in 1979 at the age of 60.

She “legally” smoked cigarettes for 40 years, which eventually caused her death. But she found relief from the disease by smoking marijuana, which was illegal.

No, she didn’t become a raging drug addict in her last days - something many people would like to believe. Instead, the marijuana decreased her nausea, helped her eat, be more comfortable and remain mentally present and available to her family for a longer time. The alternative was for her to take pain medications that can cause nausea, mental lethargy, drowsiness and many other unpleasant side effects.

My 14-year-old son, who never met his grandmother, sees the absurdity in cigarettes being legal, even though studies have shown them to cause lung cancer as well as other health problems such as asthma, bronchitis, coronary heart disease, decreased healing of bone and so on. However, medical use of marijuana remains illegal, even though studies have documented its benefits to people dying from cancer, as well as helping many others who suffer from nonfatal illnesses such as glaucoma.

Hmmm. Cigarettes kill people but are legal, whereas marijuana helps people but is illegal.

Now tell me, what’s wrong with this scenario? If a 14-year-old can see the absurdity, why can’t our society and government see it and make medical use of marijuana legal? Jeannette Murphy Spokane

Drug policy tramples states’ rights

In California and Arizona the issue is no longer one of legalizing marijuana. It has become one of states’ rights.

Here is a case where the voters of those states have made a moral judgment of their own. But the federal government is seeing fit to ram its own moral judgments down their collective throats.

This is not a matter of whether the Clinton administration, you or I think that smoking marijuana is good or right, or has some medicinal purpose. This is a matter of the voters of the states of California and Arizona making a decision about how to live their lives.

Using this case as an example it is not hard to figure out why fanatics across the nation have formed militias in response to a government they see as being unresponsive to the needs and wants of the people. This action is merely feeding the fears of these left- and right-wing terrorist groups.

This case also helps explain voter apathy. The catch phrase, “Your vote does count,” does not seem to apply here; it seems contrary to what is happening here.

I say, let Californians and Arizonans smoke their collective little brains out. This may prove to be one of the most effective weapons in the war on drugs. Dennis B. Mossburg Spokane

BELIEFS

Bible and its message misread

Bruce Evans and Lori Belnap (Letters, Dec. 29) take to task letter writer Hal Robinson’s statement, “It’s not about love but Jesus’ will” regarding homosexuality. They seem to think they know the Bible better than Robinson.

Well, excuse me, Evans and Belnap: Jesus’ teachings are found in Leviticus and all through the Old Testament. Although he had not been born into mortality yet, make no mistake about his identity in the Old Testament. He, the premortal Christ, appears again and again, teaching the prophets and people of that time as Jehovah, the Lord of the Old Testament.

Jehovah, the premortal Christ, and Jesus, the mortal Christ, taught much about love, kindness toward others, forgiveness and not being judgmental. But he also taught over and over again about the necessity of repentance.

If homosexuality is a sin among a host of sins then it requires repentance within which is an inherent turning away from that sin. And therein lies the crux of the matter. If people in the throes of this deadly sin accept Christ as Lord and savior, they turn away from this sin and no longer are numbered among the homosexuals. Diane Augustine Kettle Falls, Wash.