Letters To The Editor
IDAHO VIEWPOINTS
Real hunters defend forests
Re: “Forest roads policy lambasted,” (March 20).
I thank the Forest Service for finally starting to protect our forests, not decimate them for the trees.
Real hunters, not people only concerned with logging, know that the forest in its natural environment is extremely important to the animals that depend on it for habitat - those that thrived in that environment before man started destroying their home, leaving only stumps behind. Forests criss-crossed with roads may be convenient to drive through to blast away at wildlife by so-called hunters, as the roads destroy any chance the animals have to run for cover.
Many people hunt for sport and challenge. There just isn’t any challenge in pursuing half-starved animals with no shelter to hide in, by pickup truck, through road-destroyed forests. Our forests are not about jobs, they’re about trees, wildlife, wetlands and nature. Nancy Lynne Coeur d’Alene
Dombeck falls for single-use line
The chief of the U.S. Forest Service says his priority is “restoring watersheds,” which quickly translates into an end to logging on public land. Exhibit A: the USFS proposal to stop road building and access to public lands.
Has Chief Mike Dombeck forgotten he’s not in the single use business? That he is mandated to provide a variety of uses on our public lands? By isolating a single issue, he has oversimplified the challenges we face and forced people to choose sides.
There is no question that the public wants clean water. There is disagreement regarding how big our water quality problems are and how to fix them.
Rather than embrace the range of opportunities available, Dombeck has abandoned all that we know about forestry science and joined forces with extremists who seek an end to all commercial activity in national forests.
It’s depressing that the head of a multiple-use agency has embraced such an exclusive, selfish and politically motivated viewpoint. Cindy Eccles Lewiston
Barking dogs gone? Good riddance
I read with interest the article about Dean Marshall’s attempt to rid himself of Geri Foster’s barking dogs. He stole them, took them elsewhere and abandoned them. For this heinous crime he is now paying $2,030 in damages.
We Americans have a special spot in our hearts for our poor little doggies. We allow them to do their thing anywhere, in spite of the fact that in big cities, this is a continual source of pollution. We keep in our hot clutches the possession of killer-dogs that maim and dismember children. And we leave our dogs outside for hours, to bark and bark. They are our darlings, aren’t they? And how dearly we love them. Surely, all our neighbors must love them equally? So, why should the barking of our precious doggies bother them?
How many times I have lived near people with dogs that love to bark. To all these people, I say, this is no longer the Old West. When people live cheek-by-jowl, it’s necessary to remember the Golden Rule and perhaps observe it a little more stringently than you would have in the days of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett.
I don’t want to listen to barking dogs. Apparently, there is at least one other person out there who agrees. Betsy A. Rosenberg Coeur d’Alene
Hate enables those who indulge
Re: “Jews see lesson in Aryan march,” (March 15).
Yes, there is hatred, not only in America but everywhere. It will not go away, but those of us who deplore the haters’ violence and arrogance must not retaliate in kind. Violent reactions won’t help anyone.
I, too, feel revulsion at the thought of these people marching down a street in my home area. I think, how can this be allowed? Yet, we do live in America and there still is freedom. Even these people have the right to march. Should we try to deny them that right, we might be denied our right to demonstrate for a cause dear to our hearts.
I have a real problem understanding how the Aryans can possibly call themselves Christian and espouse the doctrine of hatred for people God called his own! It’s difficult to not feel a hatred toward them and I think maybe this is what they are trying to stir up.
If we show hatred toward them, they can justify their fanatical zeal to obliterate those who are different or who do not agree with them. Shirley V. Hethorn Oldtown
BUSINESS AND LABOR
Writer would render unions inert
Re: “State’s forced membership law an engine of corruption,” Street Level, March 22.
Cindy Omlin’s dismay with her union sounds like a personal problem. It’s unclear from her piece whether Omlin actually has any experience as a union member. Maybe if she had actually participated in the union, Omlin would understand that the political arena is where the union’s most urgent work lies.
The anti-union, corporate takeover of Congress and, in many cases, state legislatures in the 1980s and ‘90s caught unions unprepared for the attack that has followed. The union movement’s real failure was in not responding sooner with more dollars invested in pro-union political campaigns.
Omlin’s demand that members be consulted before dues are used for political campaigns is a transparent attempt to politically neuter the union. No large group of people is ever going to agree on every priority. To say that the union must consult every member every time it wants to donate union funds derived from membership dues to a political campaign is absolutely ludicrous. The elections for which the funds are needed would be long over before the polling of union members was completed.
Unions elect representatives specifically so they can respond to these kinds of needs without a long and expensive plebiscite. If I have a difference of opinion with my union leadership, I can use the union’s own electoral process to force a change, assuming I have a case.
In this case, Omlin doesn’t. Jim Wavada Spokane
Support statewide minimum wage
The dire predictions of job loss, inflation and bankrupt businesses are nothing but scare tactics and mythology perpetuated by businesses that don’t pay workers enough to survive.
Studies have tracked the effects of minimum wage increases ever since a minimum wage was instituted. What the studies show is economic and job growth following wage increases. The predictions of gloom and doom just don’t happen.
The value of the minimum wage has deflated so dramatically that the taxpayers subsidize low-wage workers through food stamps, state health care, day care subsidies, housing subsidies and a range of other government services for the working poor. Full-time workers earning $5.15 an hour bring home less than $10,000 per year.
Who earns the minimum wage? Two-thirds are over the age of 20, one-half are between 25 and 65 years old, 70 percent are women and one-third are the primary wage earner for their families.
People who work shouldn’t live in poverty.
I intend to support the Statewide Minimum Wage campaign Initiative 688, to raise the wage to $5.70 in 1999 and $6.50 in 2000. Join me in supporting the working poor. It is the right thing to do for working folks. Eric Graham Spokane
Hope Kaiser will take a lesson
It was great to see that the nurses and management at Sacred Heart Medical Center have reached a tentative contract agreement. One has to agree that both sides exhibited hard work, patience and flexibility. They also must have had a strong desire to work together with maturity and respect. Hopefully, they didn’t overlook any good opportunities to listen to each other and to learn from each other. The Spokane community must surely admire those qualities on both sides.
On Oct. 1, the United Steelworkers and Kaiser Aluminum will reach the end of their current labor contract. Hopefully, Kaiser management can find ways to be sensitive to reasonable requests from its labor force. If they, too, can allow the employees’ input in any proposed staffing changes, overtime and shift scheduling, it would show Spokane that they would not let indifferent pressures from outside forces cloud their judgment.
Surely, we who live in the Spokane area and make it a caring community would love to have another victory to boast about. Ken Koentopp, member United Steelworkers of America Local 338, Spokane
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Medicare reforms crucial
I recently had emergency bypass surgery and received outstanding care at Kootenai Medical Center, on the air ambulance and at Sacred Heart Medical Center. We are fortunate to have such quality care available. However, I am concerned that first-class medical care will not continue to be available, given the amounts Medicare approves for payment.
I was appalled at the extent of the discounts Medicare took. Medicare approved 65 percent of Kootenai Medical Center charges, 92 percent of the air ambulances charges, but only 39 percent of the surgeon’s charges. Why such discrepancies? If Medicare hadn’t covered me, my private insurance under a preferred provider agreement with the same surgeon would have paid 73 percent of his charges.
What Medicare is paying highly skilled surgeons is not fair. I understand that Medicare plans a further 35 percent cut for cardiac surgery. With Medicare taking a discount of more than 60 percent, why would a talented surgeon continue to accept Medicare patients? I’m concerned the kind of care I received won’t be available in the future. Surgeons will have to subsidize the government by increasing charges to private payers - not a viable solution.
Congress and the administration must act, but simply reducing the amount Medicare pays health care providers will inevitably reduce the quality and ration health care.
Congress should cap medical malpractice payments and limit trial lawyer fees, and the government must reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud. While this certainly isn’t the total solution, these two issues would help reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. James Wogsland Hayden Lake, Idaho
No excuse for Stewart corruption
Re: “GOP donor admits campaign violations,” News, March 19.
Thomas Stewart’s mild punishment for serious campaign violations illustrates how powerful, well-connected people buy their way out of trouble. The long-running, conspiratorial misdeeds of Stewart and his cohorts should have drawn stiff jail time, disbarment and heftier fines, instead of the $5 million fine and the token “house confinement” imposed.
Stewart’s illegal contributions to candidates and legislation shows his disrespect for the system, the process and the public at large. His contrived acceptance of responsibility, apology to the community and avowed love for this country only serve to magnify his disrespect for the system that enabled him to build his empire.
Equally shocking was Frank Bickford’s refusal to return the illegal contributions, citing Stewart’s First Amendment rights in the most transparent, self-serving statement in recent memory. Why is there even a question about whether illegal campaign contributions should be returned? Isn’t it required by law or certainly by any ethical standards?
The public should send a strong message to our representatives that we will no longer tolerate the violations of law and public trust that run rampant in of our government, and demand they execute their charge to protect and serve the public.
Hopefully, the Defense Department officials Stewart is meeting with next week to save his government contracts will let his past actions be the measure of his “‘integrity and honesty,” and cancel the contracts as soon as legally feasible. Lawrence V. Corsaro Liberty Lake
Thomas can’t hack independent women
Re: syndicated columnist Cal Thomas’ whiny, right-wing column of March 20 about the CNN series, “A Century of Women: Justice for All,” for Women’s History Month. He says the series is the most one-sided, biased and distorted view of women ever seen on television.
Well, at last.
Thomas’ kind attack women of all political factions with every attempt to educate women about their rights to fair treatment in health care facilities, courts, on television, in a marriage bed or at home, using any medium.Thomas sneers at Jane Fonda, even though her husband no longer solely owns CNN.
He attacks Women’s History Month, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt, actresses Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Glenn Close and Jodie Foster, Maya Angelou, Grace Slick and “R-rated author Erica Jong, who apparently believes true equality for women means being able to talk as dirty as the proverbial sailor.” That’s not lady-like, right,Thomas?
He mentions the grandchildren of Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger in the series, who fought jail, harassment and abuse at the hands of legislators to make women’s health an issue and a recognized right in this country.
I question his statement, “CNN’s treatment is more ideological than documentary. Real history is played out on a wider screen.” Almost all history is written by men. Since when do men record anything notable about many women for public scrutiny without a fight?
Women don’t have to be slaves to the family any more. They nurture and care, naturally, and now are free to contribute their talents to make a family. Thomas is threatened by that. Joanne Peters Kellogg, Idaho
Ivins has it all wrong
Like so many morally numb liberal pundits, columnist Molly Ivins has it all wrong. The feminist chameleons who were out in force for Anita Hill have been strangely silent during the recent White House scandals. They say Clinton’s behavior doesn’t matter. Here is why it does matter.
Far from being meaningless, vices perpetrated in privacy can have real public consequences. If Clinton was unfaithful to his wife, why wouldn’t he be unfaithful to the public? Are we that gullible?
Our moral character is forged in the alleys and back roads of anonymity. If he has done what he is being accused of, our president has failed us. He has denigrated his most important duty of all: marital fidelity. His immoral behavior breeds cynicism and distrust of all leadership.
We cannot neatly compartmentalize private choices by saying they don’t matter. You cannot be a credible leader on moral issues if your own morality is in a shambles. Don S. Otis Sandpoint
OTHER TOPICS
Jury decision incredible, appalling
Re: staff writer Tom Sowa’s March 20 story, “Jury acquits teenager in shooting death.”
I am disappointed in the acquittal verdict the Justin Rogers jury returned. How someone can shoot two people in the streets of Spokane in mid-afternoon and be guilty only of “discharging a firearm within the city limits” is something I am unable to comprehend. What was this jury thinking, that everyone should purchase a handgun? If Rogers was in fear for his life, why didn’t he leave that particular area?
It’s this kind of “I have to be armed with a handgun” mentality that keeps me from using downtown businesses and services after dark. If a 19-year-old says he can’t feel safe during daylight hours and so arms himself, what chance do I have if just my presence on a sidewalk could prove to a jury to be life-threatening to another passerby? Douglas A. Jasmer Medical Lake
Element ignored in China story
The March 15 article on China’s one-child policy was interesting, but mostly for what it failed to reveal. What a benign picture was presented - the communist government merely imposing fines for bearing more than one child.
But the unmentionable was starkly conspicuous by its omission. What about the Chinese government’s longstanding program of forced abortion? Has this atrocious policy been abandoned? If so, when was this new policy promulgated? If not, why was it totally ignored? Are we to dismiss the practice of coerced abortion from our mental data banks, pretending it never existed? In light of this major omission, I wonder why this article was written, much less published. Leonard C. Johnson Troy, Idaho