Letters To The Editor

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

Letter was most revealing

Thank you for publishing the Nov. 19 letter of Fred A. Schweighardt, who questioned the bravery of his fellow St. Maries resident, Vernon Baker, who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor for his World War II courage. The letter is a clear example of just how far we have come in this country to be so far behind!

As a 27-year military veteran, I find it disgusting that Schweighardt has the nerve to state that he “knows enough about the Medal of Honor to feel insulted and belittled if I was ever recommended for it,” and further questioned who recommended Baker for the medal.

I suggest that Schweighardt remember that the Medal of Honor ribbon is blue and white - not black and white.

He has insulted all veterans, regardless of their color, as we all bleed red.

There are many reasons for failure but not a single excuse. Courage can only be understood by the brave.

Thank God for Americans like Vernon Baker. Pat D. Kilpatrick Post Falls

Baker deserving of honor, money

It’s a little early for Christmas, but it looks like Scrooge is alive and well in the recent letter from Fred A. Schweighardt concerning Vernon Baker.

For the record, most people in the St. Maries-Benewah County community are very proud of Baker. We also recognize that all the fuss over him was not only due to his heroism under fire, something that many servicemen exhibited, but rather the correction of a past injustice of not recognizing his and other servicemen’s heroism simply because they were black.

What President Clinton and Congress did was to redress this injustice. Unfortunately, this was done too late for several other black servicemen. They received their awards posthumously.

The $64,000 was part of this effort to give Baker the money he would have rightfully been eligible for if he had received the Medal of Honor at the time, rather than 50 years later.

Those of us who know Baker are proud of him and happy for the effort our government has made to correct racism of the past. Scott F. Burpee St. Maries

IN THE PAPER

Rescue groups gets short shrift

On Nov. 22, the Spokane City-County Search & Rescue Council hosted a show and tell at Franklin Park. This was a function for the public to come out and meet the various search and rescue teams, and see how they perform. It’s too bad a newspaper like yours cannot show any interest in this.

All of these groups are unpaid volunteers and many of them have to buy their own equipment.

It was just a year ago (with Ice Storm ‘96) that many of these same groups spent hundreds of hours helping the citizens of this region. Too bad we only rate page 19 of the Weekend section, and you need a magnifying glass to read it. So much for the Good Paper. Jerry J. Goertz Spokane City-County Search & Rescue Council, Mobile Emergency Operations Center

GLOBAL WARMING

Key U.N. report was hijacked

Both Robert E. Forman (Letters, Nov. 19) and Business Week need to get their facts straight.

The 2,400 scientists Forman refers to were presumably the authors of the May 1996 report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), often cited as a “solid consensus” on the validity of global warming and mankind’s contribution to it. The reality is that no such consensus exists.

Several prominent scientists, including Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, have denounced the summary of the 1996 report (which is all that most people outside the scientific community have actually read) as misrepresentative of its conclusions. These critics claim the leaders of the IPCC altered the technical report after it had been approved by the scientific board of advisors. The report actually indicated that, in spite of innumerable studies, no clear evidence exists to prove the validity of global warming or mankind’s contribution to it. Yet the IPCC summary gave the exact opposite conclusion by adding or omitting key statements.

Who were the IPCC leaders? Government bureaucrats such as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth and lead author Dr. Benjamin Santer, both well known for their environmentalist agendas.

Global warming is not an established fact. It is, however, a very useful tool for those who shamelessly seek to frighten people into giving up their freedoms, property rights and the rewards of capitalism for the sake of a dubiously threatened environment. Jason C. Lee Spokane

Costs won’t matter when it’s too late

A recent letter to the editor by a concerned citizen encouraged readers to stop the signing of the U.N. Climate Change Treaty in the U.S. Senate by contacting their representatives. The letter reasoned that signing the treaty would cost every American $4,000 more per year for energy, 60 cents more per gallon of gas and 40 percent more for home heating. The letter indicated global warming is “a supposition not based on acceptable scientific research.”

The letter did not recognize the United States constitutes less than 10 percent of the world’s population yet uses up more than 40 percent of its resources. U.S. automobiles, factories, etc., send more than 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. This is twice what any other country does. Per capita, the U.S. and Canada emit three times the CO2 of any other two countries in combination.

If something is not done to stop, or at least slow, this trend drastically and soon, the costs of energy, gasoline and heat will be of little significance. Once most natural resources are used up and clean air and water become very rare or nonexistent, not much will really matter.

We probably will not see too many letters complaining about the cost of things. We will probably not see too many clueless statements like “global warming is a supposition not based on acceptable scientific research.” Daniel W. Semler Colton, Wash.

Public opinion is being manipulated

People who conduct surveys often have a hidden agenda. By choosing and framing certain questions, they can get a sample of the public to say whatever they want. Then they use the survey results to tell the entire populace what most people believe - which just happens to coincide with their agenda.

This scenario was played out in a recent Pew survey described in The Spokesman-Review (Nov. 21). Twelve hundred people were asked whether they would pay five cents more per gallon of gasoline “to fight global warming.” Of those polled, 73 percent answered yes. When the ante was raised to 25 cents, 60 percent still said yes. What are we to make of all this?

On the one hand, environmentalists saw the results as giving President Clinton the go-ahead when he meets with world leaders next month in Kyoto, Japan. The conference’s aim is to set up mandatory national quotas that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. My take on the poll is different. I think those surveyed made no connection between the proposed gasoline price hikes and their annual fuel consumption. Driving less never entered their minds. However, that’s the key issue - assuming global warming really results from a greenhouse effect enhanced by CO2 emissions.

So, if pollsters really wanted the truth in this matter, they would have asked, “How high would the price of gasoline have to go before you would drive less? And would you accept that increase?” You can bet the global warming crowd wouldn’t be trumpeting a survey based on these two questions. Edwin A. Olson Spokane

HEALTH CARE

Ads downgraded dental hygienists

I’m a Registered Dental Hygienist and want to clarify a few things after the recent barrage of negative publicity surrounding the Initiative 678 campaign.

I’ve practiced for 11 years, working for general dentists and a periodontist. I received my undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University and my hygiene certificate from Pasadena City College. I passed a rigorous national licensing exam and two state board exams that tested for clinical competency.

Here are are the functions of a licensed RDH under the state Dental Practice Act: scale and polish teeth; apply fluorides and other preventive agents; take X-rays; place and carve/finish fillings; record health histories and vital signs; do oral inspection and evaluate periodontal pockets (probing); perform nonsurgical gum treatment; inject local anesthetic; administer nitrous oxide and oxygen; and develop dental hygiene plans.

Media ads portraying dental hygienists as uneducated, incompetent providers who “need” a dentist’s supervision to assure that patients receive safe care offended me. The dentist I work for is happy with me as a part of our dental team. She is comfortable with my performing all hygienist functions. When she is out of the office, I continue to practice the functions allowed by law - unsupervised! Victoria L. Daggy, RDH Nine Mile Falls