Letters To The Editor

BUSINESS AND LABOR

Private sector breeds slackers, too

This letter is in response to Jim Shamp’s Dec. 3 guest column about breeding slackers. I have to agree that President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the 1960s were poorly conceptualized and implemented. However, I wholeheartedly disagree that those programs are to blame for today’s poverty.

There are people of all income levels who have destructive lifestyles and do not value personal responsibility. More importantly, there are people of all income levels, including the poor, who value personal responsibility and care about their families and their community.

As Shamp must know, with his economics and business background, big business plays a major role in ensuring poverty. I don’t believe that people must be paid only $5 an hour for a business to remain competitive. And the U.S. government hasn’t helped the budget deficit by giving major tax breaks to multinational corporations and bailing out the banking industry periodically.

I know many people on welfare would rather work. Where are the jobs? Big business leaders in this country need to start taking personal responsibility for their role in the condition of poverty today. Christine Brooks Coeur d’Alene

THE MEDIA

Claypool story well worth telling

In regard to the Dec. 7 letter, “Why tell about Claypools?” by W. Richards, I think it is totally disgusting that this person feels it was a waste of this newspaper’s time.

Joyce Claypool is a very strong person. It takes a lot to admit your downfalls. The things that she went through with her daughter I could never have gone through with mine and still had faith.

People need to look at the overall picture, not just the bad things she did in her life or the mistakes that were made. Look at how she educated people about AIDS and how it made everyone understand the disease a little better.

If there were more people like her in this world, people who would take the time to care and openly tell people about something, maybe this world would be a better place. Robin Swanagan Spokane

A paper that will live in infamy

With 58 pages available in the Nov. 7 paper, editors of “The Good Paper” deigned not to remember or even acknowledge Pearl Harbor Day. Not a single word. What a sad commentary (or lack of it).

This, on a day when thousands of military men and women are being sent to Bosnia by a president who not only shirked his obligation but has also refused to comment on the “day that will live in infamy.” I haven’t forgotten and profoundly honor and thank those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Frank R. Schoonover Spokane

Pearl Harbor Day all but overlooked

I am appalled that the only mention of Pearl Harbor day I saw in the whole paper (on Dec. 7) was in the Slice. I wonder if any of the X generation knew it was Thursday?

I don’t know what letter of the alphabet my generation is, except maybe MDC (Medicare), but believe me, we do remember. Everyone in our generation had someone in the service, and in those days we stood together and were proud of our country. We made sacrifices - a word not in the vocabulary of many of the X generation, I’m afraid.

It’s sad to know that these sacrifices, the memory of this day in history, have been ignored by our one and only newspaper. Doris Sims Spokane

Poll evidence media slant news

In a recent national poll, only 22 percent of people asked, picked the right answer (out of four) about the Republican Medicare Plan - that it increases spending from $4,800 to $6,700 for each participant. Seventy-eight percent of those polled thought the plan either reduced spending, kept it the same, or they didn’t have a clue.

When told the plan increases spending 45 percent over the next seven years - twice the expected rate of inflation - only 2 percent thought we should spend more. Ninety-eight percent thought the increase was either too much or about right.

First Amendment protection carries with it at least an implied obligation to tell the truth, which can be defined as a proposition that accurately describes a state of affairs. Instead, much of the media, including The Spokesman-Review, decides what the public ought to believe and tries to persuade them by the so-called news it reports.

That’s propaganda. Journalism is the direct presentation of facts and events without interpretation. The poll numbers above are a measure of how bad a job the media are doing as journalists, and it’s pathetic, shameful and a disgrace. The growing hatred and distrust of the mainstream media, and The Spokesman-Review in particular, is deserved. Ed Davis Spokane

Paper lackey of Earth despoilers

Obscene best describes The Spokesman-Review’s publication of the oil industry propaganda piece, “Global warming vs. global cooling vs. neither vs. both,” written by the American Petroleum Institute’s executive vice president.

The Review devoted less than nine column inches to a recent U.N. conference that concluded global warming is a reality and revealed consensus among scientists that humans are causing global warming. Yet the Review devoted 16 column inches to oil industry lies. Why? Because the editors would rather support big corporations than print truth.

Fact: Antarctic icecaps are melting, spawning Delaware-size icebergs. Yet The Review publishes oil industry lies. Why? Because the editors care more for oil company profits than the planet’s health.

Fact: Global warming will change ocean currents and destroy rich feeding areas where cold waters well to the surface. Yet The Review publishes oil industry lies. Why? Because the editors care more for oil company profits than the life of the oceans.

Fact: Global warming will cause desertification and consequent starvation on an unprecedented scale. Yet The Review publishes oil industry lies because the editors care more for oil company profits than human life.

When will The Spokesman-Review stop printing lies? Credible scientists agree humans are causing Earth’s climate to change. Neither the evidence nor the consequences are enough to cause the Review to quit its blind, murderous and literally insane support of big business. Vicki Lopez Spokane

PEACEKEEPING MISSION

President taking a big chance

Our esteemed president has decided to send American troops into Bosnia. Obviously, the man isn’t a student of history.

After defeating the Yugoslavs in May 1941, Hitler had to keep 40 crack divisions in that country until the end of the war. Those 40 divisions might have brought Germany victory when it invaded the Soviet Union a month later.

After the Nazis’ defeat, Marshall Tito became the leader of the Yugoslavian people, openly defying all directives from Stalin in Moscow. Stalin realized the difficulty Germany had subjugating these people and wisely left alone a potential war he couldn’t win. He never hesitated sending the Red Army into Poland, Hungary, Romania and other countries. However, he permitted Yugoslavia to govern itself.

This was not a magnanimous gesture on the part of Stalin, whose butchery even exceeded Hitler’s. He knew that he couldn’t bring the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats into line. This area is a powder keg that makes the situation in Middle East seem mild by comparison.

Now our President believes he can do what no one else has ever done. For the sake of our men and women going there, I hope he succeeds. However, I believe this will be his undoing and he will have lost all chance for re-election as the the number of body bags mounts. I hope for the best, but fear the worst. Edward M. Devlin Garfield, Wash.

President is just a coward

In response to recent letters from people who believe President Clinton has provided military service as president, I would like to say a few things. The supreme act of every coward is needlessly sending others to their death to save his own cowardly life. Bill Clinton did this in the 1960s by failing to serve his nation. He forced someone else to go in his place.

Today, he proudly sends others to take action he does not have the personal fortitude to complete himself.

In the military you must first complete an order, then criticize it. It’s not surprising that 20 years later many people decided Vietnam was a bad idea. At the time it was “of vital interest” to the liberal president that the military go to Vietnam. They supported him to the best of their ability.

The people of Balkins are violent racists and bigots. They have killed each other with glee since the time of the Roman Empire. If you would like to save them, please feel free to go yourself and take Bill Clinton with you. Eric Schaffer Spokane

Advance, with nine-iron drawn

After watching C-SPAN coverage of deliberations for 35,000 Americans to enter Bosnia for peace, I have this suggestion.

George Washington rode his horse into battle, accompanying his troops. Since Bosnia is only a corridor with no escape route, one mile in width between the fighting sections, the Serbians, Bosnians and Croats, I suggest that the president lead this parade with his golf cart, showing good faith on all sides. Angela Eudaley Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Too quick to involve military reserves

With full-time military forces supposedly trained and capable of handling our military needs, why must reserves be called up for every job our military is called on to do?

We go into Panama, we call up some reservists. We go into Somalia, we call up reservists. Now we’re going into Bosnia and already 3,800 reservists are being notified that they may be called.

I would think our military forces could handle a 20,000-man force plus their rear echelon support quite readily from active-duty units. Do reservists have training or capabilities lacking in the active force? Very unlikely. Is it less costly to send reservists? Very unlikely. Is it more efficient to send reservists? Very unlikely.

I served 28 years in the military and I don’t recall ever feeling that a reservist should be called to do a job I could do. A lot of money could be saved, a lot of job disruptions and mission-oriented training could be avoided if military undertakings like those in Somalia, Panama and Bosnia were left to the active forces that are trained and equipped to handle them.

I realize the reserves must train and practice their specialities as a matter of preparedness. They were needed in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and, I guess, the Gulf War. But must the reserve be called up to augment 20,000-man forces?

We’re wasting a lot of taxpayer money and needlessly disrupting a lot of civilian lives for duties the active military should be doing. That’s why it is there. William Reynolds Spokane

Skip one-size-fits-all solution

All the controversy here in Spokane regarding the troublesome question of whether to ban smoking in public eating places should be ended with a law at once.

A simple solution would be to let business managers decide what’s best for their individual businesses, because they’re the ones who know. The yays and nays are just about equally divided. Let the customers decide where they want to dine.

Let each business display a prominently placed sign, “No smoking permitted” or “Smoking permitted inside.” The decision would rest with each customer. That would, without a doubt, please them. Bruce Milbourn Spokane