Letters To The Editor

LOCAL RACES

Bamonte outshines the competition

Regarding Dorothy M. Knechtel’s letter of Aug. 13, John Goldman and Mark Sterk seem to be good officers but sheriff material they are not.

I will not vote for Tony Bamonte for sheriff because he solved the oldest murder case in Washington, although it showed dedication to his job and brought peace to the victim’s family; nor because he has a talent for writing and his interest lies in the history of our community.

I will vote for Bamonte for sheriff because he has 25 years’ experience in law enforcement. I will vote for him because he has chosen as his undersheriff Larry Hart, a former deputy chief of the Washington State Patrol who managed a department of 2,000 people and who served as a personal aide to former governors Dixy Lee Ray and Booth Gardner.

I will vote for Bamonte because of his dealings with criminals; his dedication and investigative skills have led to a 98 percent conviction rate of the cases he has handled.

I will vote for Bamonte because he has a sociology degree and a master’s degree in organizational leadership.

Bamonte has compassion, ethics, honesty and a commitment to victims’ rights. He believes that victims and their loved ones deserve more protection and support from the law than the perpetrator.

I will vote for Bamonte because as sheriff he plans to concentrate on pursuing and convicting the most dangerous predators in our community and on making the streets safer.

Let’s elect a really qualified man for sheriff: Tony Bamonte. Mary Austin Spokane

Bamonte exceptionally qualified

The Aug. 13 letter by the well-respected Dorothy Knechtel cannot go unchallenged. She touts for sheriff John Goldman and Mark Sterk, who are both probably fine officers. But she attacks Tony Bamonte with political manure. She obviously favors the good-oldboy system but fails to mention the best of the good old boys, John McGregor.

As to experience, Tony has already announced his undersheriff, Larry Hart, retired deputy chief of the Washington State Patrol. Also, Tony was sheriff in Pend Oreille County for 14 years, 12 years as its chief. He was with the Spokane police eight more years. He has a degree in sociology from Whitworth College, a master’s degree in organizational leadership from Gonzaga University and he is a published author.

Tony’s history and present attitude is that of a sheriff who listens and goes the extra mile to aid victims. He’s a high achiever whose opponents are jealous. I’ve often seen this professional jealousy in my career in law enforcement. Tony will not stoop to it.

Tony Bamonte is head and shoulders above the other three candidates in qualifications. Dale McLeod Otis Orchards

Bamonte would better serve us

Dorothy Knechtel (Letters, Aug. 13) tries to increase John Goldman’s stature by saying he is Larry Erickson’s protege. Her statement, “Larry Erickson has done an excellent job,” is, to say the least, conjecturable. The consensus is that Erickson has done a mediocre job, at best, of managing a department that has become largely unresponsive and inefficient. If the voting public wants more of the Erickson genre of law enforcement, then by all means elect John Goldman.

Let’s consider Tony Bamonte, the man she excoriates. To imply that he was less than adequate as sheriff of Pend Oreille County is to denigrate the voters of that county. After all, they elected Tony three times. This has not happened in the 76-year history of the county.

Tony did solve a 54-year-old murder, a crime committed by a 35-year-old Spokane police detective. If this seems insignificant, tell it to the elderly children of the town marshal who was gunned down in 1935.

Yes, Tony Bamonte wrote a column in a Valley newspaper about old crimes. Most people found it fascinating. This is known as history, Dorothy. You may have taken history in school.< A discerning voter shouldn’t find it hard to admit that we would be better served by a sheriff who is a war hero, an experienced city policeman, deputy sheriff and sheriff of a neighboring county than by one who is but an understudy of a long-tenured sheriff who just hasn’t kept up. Ed Meadows Spokane

Only Sweetser has needed experience

I am surprised to learn that out of all the candidates running for county prosecutor, only Jim Sweetser has criminal prosecutor experience. I find this absolutely unnerving.

With all the gang and crime problems facing Spokane this is not the time to vote for someone who many not have the experience to do the job.

I’m voting for Jim Sweetser for county prosecutor. D.C. “Jack” McManigal Spokane

THE PRESIDENCY

Foes wrongly try to leverage setback

In light of the defeat of President Clinton’s crime bill, it appears that certain factions within our society are seeking to discredit his administration.

For example, many of the religious right have unleashed vicious attacks against our beloved president, particularly in regards to sexual liaisons - most of which are entirely unsubstantiated. Even if true, these events occurred before Clinton was elected and should have no bearing on his current administration.

Republicans, led by Sen. Bob Dole, have from the beginning of Clinton’s presidency sought to discredit him or have adamantly opposed measures which might have benefited the American people.

The media have overstepped their boundaries in relation to the Whitewater affair. The ongoing investigation has produced no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Polls show that only 13 percent of the American public really cares about this matter, since it occurred long before Clinton became president.

Wouldn’t it make better sense to focus on those issues that impact our everyday lives, namely domestic crime, health care reform, mental health, homelessness and the breakdown of family relationships, which I feel is the underlying cause of many of our problems?

The Democratic Party has produced such notable men as Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and now Bill Clinton. These men sought the presidency not for selfish gain; rather, they believed that our nation needed to “move in a new direction,” whereby economic and social opportunity would be afforded to all, not to just a privileged few. Can the Republican Party in good conscience make that boast? Gary Remington Spokane

Immunity concept being twisted

If this is the “rock and roll presidency,” then our theme song should be Steppenwolf’s “The Monster.” President Clinton has elevated the blatant misuse and abuse of public position for personal gain to a new high. The idea that anyone should be free of prosecution or civil litigation by virtue of holding public office would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic that this is being seriously presented as a defense.

As a member of the U.S. Air Force, it was driven home time and time again that the regulations apply to everyone - from commander-in-chief down to the newest recruit. We were told that the system will not work if anyone exempts himself or herself from following the rules. Look at any number of institutions and countries that ignore this rule and see where they are.

I admit I am not an expert on constitutional law, but the way I remember this concept being explained in high school civics class was that the president is immune from any prosecution or litigation resulting from consequences pursuant to exercising the powers or performing the duties of the office.

I hope the court will reject this fatuous argument and hold President Clinton’s feet to the fire, just as it would in the case of any other American citizen. John P. Annal, Jr. Mead

POLITICS AND tHE MEDIA

It’s about revealing agenda

I would like to dispute the Perspective article of Aug. 14, “Spewing hate: Is conservative talk radio’s emphasis on controversy and ill will poisoning Washington politics?”

Strangely, the article did not talk about talk radio or even give specifics as to this “spewing hate.”

What the article did talk about was how Sen. Patty Murray was upset because people were protesting Hillary Clinton and her socialist plan to take over health care.

In my opinion, the print and television media are running scared because people are finally understanding the issues. Talk radio does not spew hate; rather, it informs people on the issues.

Sen. Murray’s biggest enemy is not Rush Limbaugh or C. Gordon Liddy. Her greatest enemy is the American people, because they are finally waking up to her agenda. David Anthony Spokane

Don’t judge all by excesses of a few

I was struck by the irony of Les Blumenthal’s viewpoint in “Spewing hate” (Perspective, Aug. 14). His writing, terrifically slanted toward the liberal, presents one of the most closed-minded attitudes about those with a differing opinion I’ve ever read.

The views of Blumenthal seem to be most closely related to a can of SPAM in substance. If one is to open a can of SPAM, one finds two things:

First, there is the gelatinous, slimy substance that clings to the SPAM. Much like the liberals of the ‘60s, this lacks any focus or form, constantly sliding around without purpose.

The liberal Blumenthal seems to have forgotten this as he criticizes conservatives for being outspoken, jeering and obnoxious to those in power. He speaks of a few radicals as if they represent all conservatives. Has he forgotten the liberal peace protesters who blew up ROTC buildings and libraries in their zeal?

There will always be a few fringe people in any group who act in an antisocial, destructive manner. To judge the group on their actions is a mistake.

If the writer would examine the conservative movement he would realize it is more like the meat in the SPAM can: solid, able to stand on its own merits, repelling criticism by its flexibility.

Some conservatives are radicals but the majority are solid citizens who care deeply about their country.

If people would be accepting and kind about others’ views, as the First Amendment urges us to do, the United States will be a much happier place. John Klapp Spokane

Timing of events prompts suspicion

On Monday, HBO gave us a rerun of Michael Douglas in “Falling Down,” the one where he went over the edge and starting shooting everything and everybody. The advertising said, “Michael Douglas stars as a defense worker who loses his job then snaps, going on a violent rampage.”

On Tuesday, CBS put on a rerun called, “I Can Make You Love Me: The Stalking of Laura Black.” This bloody show had a mentally unstable young man pursuing a disinterested girl. He also “snapped,” bought an arsenal of weapons and loads of ammunition, then went on a violent rampage, killing some of his co-workers and killing the girl.

Both shows were on during prime time.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives debated and voted on the Crime Bill, with the socalled assault weapons ban.

Coincidence? L.D. Standard Walla Walla

SPOKANE MATTERS

Don’t be swayed by flak barrage

The preponderance of opposition to establishing an ecosystem integrity area (EIA) in Mount Spokane State Park indicate a fear that less than one-third of the total area would be unavailable for public use. This is totally false.

The proposed area, excluding activity corridors, isn’t being used by the public now because terrain doesn’t allow easy access. The proposed EIA would provide access into these areas for the more active hikers, educators and outdoor enthusiasts who want to enjoy the quiet, pristine environment without degrading the ecosystem. This large but less vocal segment of our population must now travel long distances for such an experience.

These areas would be opened up to everyone, with restrictions only on mode of transportation. Trails could provide wheelchair access into the more spectacular segments of this unique ecosystem.

The misinformation put forth by special interest groups is causing unfounded hysteria among those who would believe that any restriction is taking away their rights. One cannot drive a snowmobile on a Nordic or alpine activity area, but that doesn’t exclude one from utilizing the ski area. Where’s the difference? Some activities must be regulated because of safety, potential environmental damage or reduction of a quality experience.

The derision exhibited by some opponents of any changes to the park emphasizes the fact that these people have no consideration for others who may have other ideals and outdoor interests. Such behavior is counterproductive toward a meaningful dialogue. A strong, unified voice is needed to articulate the proper course of action for the park. Bill Birk Spokane

Let’s not deny park to people

Following the Aug. 9 public symposium hosted by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, it appears obvious that we have before us a distinct choice between two proposals.

On one hand we have alternative “x,” a plan based on selectivity and exclusiveness as well as a self-serving approach. The educators and scientists who support this proposal do so in order to provide themselves a laboratory or, as they call it, an “ecosystem integrity area.” They offer no plan to either enforce their preserve or to maintain it.

On the hand other, alternative “y” seeks to continue to keep open nature’s gift to all of us. Rather than banning the citizens of this area, alternative “y” recognizes the original purpose of this park as well as the dedication of those users who have provided the care and maintenance of the mountain in both thousands of dollars and hundreds of volunteer work hours.

How would the voters of this state respond to the question: “Do we lock up this beauty without a plan to care for it and protect it, allowing only a few selfappointed exclusionaries access? Or do we continue to provide a lovely park for all our citizens, with the current caretakers expanding their role of nurturing the mountain and educating its public?” Charlotte Mangan, vice president Spokane County 4-H Horse Leaders

Museum sets itself up for mediocrity

Spokane has a terrible history of devaluing its best people. The latest example is Beth Sellars, who as curator at the Cheney Cowles Museum has finally given up the fight to bring the museum and its trustees and director into some semblance of comprehension of what a good museum can and should be.

After 12 years of beating her head against the wall, she’s leaving in understandable frustration at those who think the museum is just fine. In fact, no museum worthy of the name would give as little space and money to its art collection as does the Cheney Cowles. No museum worthy of the name would continue to focus on historical tableaux and decade-by-decade artifacts of Northeast Washington, or find it so hard to accept and exhibit a major work by Ed Kienholz.

When the Cheney Cowles lets Beth go, who will replace her? When the best person leaves, she can only be replaced by the second best or third best - if the museum can even persuade that second- or third-best person to come here. We’re more likely to get the 42nd- or 43rd-best.

The strongest institutions have learned that when you have a great employee of talent, taste and ability you give that employee their head and support them in every way you can. Obviously, that lesson has been lost on those who manage the Cheney Cowles.

Isn’t it time the museum’s trustees took a hard look at themselves and their vision of the museum to see where they went wrong? Robert Glatzer Spokane