Letters To The Editor
PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Unfunding CPB purely politics
Our family was very disheartened to hear the Republican leaders in Congress say they want to “zero out” funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In fact, they have made it one of their top priorities during their historic first 100 days.
Don’t we have more pressing problems, like health care, crime and education?
The Republicans are using the disingenuous argument that in times of fiscal restraint, the government needs to cut, and in some cases eliminate, programs such as CPB. I certainly agree that government must make many difficult fiscal decisions, including cutting and eliminating some programs. But why CPB and why now?
I’m afraid the answer to that question is “politics.”
Republicans don’t want to support an independent public television and radio broadcast system that does not comport to their conservative views, even though the government subsidy for this broadcast system only constitutes approximately 18 percent of its total costs. Don’t be fooled by Republican claims that eliminating CPB funding is a fiscally responsible thing to do.
Since 1968, the CPB has been one of the best social investments we could make for ourselves. For approximately $1 per person per year we get the benefit of a superb service that enriches all segments of society. The CPB subsidy has enabled PBS and NPR to deliver wonderful programming for children and adults alike. All of the shows are informative and entertaining.
If the Republicans are successful in wiping out CPB, millions of public television viewers and radio listeners will lose something very special. Terry Cox Spokane
Dump Gingrich, not PBS
Why, in this age of information, would the leaders I elected attempt to limit my access to information?
I am appalled to hear that our elected officials would even consider restricting our access to information by jeopardizing public broadcasting’s ability to function. It would be bad social policy to eliminate public broadcasting and it would demonstrate poor judgment on the part of our elected officials.
Write your representatives and senators and tell them not to reduce or eliminate funding for public broadcasting.
What type of honorable moral authority would have the audacity to propose such an absurd idea? Let us consider limiting this individual’s access to power.
With an ego that overpowers rational thought, common sense and reason, I seriously doubt the leader of Congress has the ability to function in the capacity of speaker of the House. Throw him out!
In the United States of America, we will not have any person or political party arbitrarily restricting our access to knowledge or information. To even contemplate such an action causes me to question the intelligence and intent of the speaker of the House. N.G. Hannon Spokane
Gingrich plan’s a real saver - not
House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed to cut funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Let’s look at this situation logically.
If Newt were to cut out public broadcasting, we could no longer have television or radio with an unbiased opinion. We would also have to pay large fees for cable, which Newt states will take the place of public television.
He says he wants to save our money by not taking 80 cents a year in taxes to pay for public television. Instead, we will be forced to pay high cable rates. Is this in the best interest of the citizens of the United States of America? John Carlson Coeur d’Alene
Speak up for important service
We are in danger of losing an important part of American life. I refer to government funding of public broadcasting and National Public Radio.
The cost to taxpayers for both these programs is just over $1 per person per year - a ridiculously paltry sum to support intelligent, enlightening programming.
Is public broadcasting promoting an elitist, liberal agenda? Only if the definition of liberal is the ability to present information to the public without the fetters of biased sponsors and commercial motives.
In-depth, intelligent news reporting, innovative educational programs, classical music, worldwide art appreciation, thought-provoking entertainment - how can these offerings do anything but uplift and enrich the lives of the people they reach? We should be expanding public broadcasting, not cutting it!
Our nation needs more sensitivity, intelligence and appreciation of what makes us human, and this is the agenda of public broadcasting. I fear a government that is afraid of informed, sensitive citizens.
I support NPR and PBS with annual contributions. However, not everyone has the luxury of discretionary spending and listener contributions are not enough. The tiny part of the national budget that goes to public broadcasting makes a huge difference in this vital, efficiently-run corporation. We must keep public broadcasting for the people, by the people, not by commercial interests.
If losing public broadcasting would create a void in your life, please do something to prevent its loss. Write your representatives and senators today. Use your power. Lisa Wallen Switzer Spokane
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Dellwo’s ‘baby’ really a monster
Staff writer Lynda Mapes did a great job of eliciting sympathy for Rep. Dennis Dellwo, as he watches the new Legislature examine the health care package he coauthored.
But before you cry for Dellwo, look at another side of the story that Mapes doesn’t address with the same empathy she extends to Dellwo.
Small businessmen fought a bitter fight opposing Dellwo’s mandated program. Their warning that adding yet another government-mandated expense to their payrolls would force small employers to dismiss many full-time employees in favor of part-time help was catalogued as scare tactics. Coincidentally, SpokesmanReview Associate Editor Frank Bartel wrote a column one day prior to Mapes’ in which he condemned business for ducking benefits by using part-timers instead of fulltime employees.
Mapes portrays the opposition to universal health care as large insurance companies and big business - two entities that everyone loves to hate. But the real losers under Dellwo’s “baby” are not the insurance companies or big business. The losers are the thousands of full-time employees who have lost or soon will soon their jobs because small businesses cannot afford the legislators’ attempt to continue to shift personal responsibilities onto their backs.
Voters recognized this problem last November and made quite a statement about their feelings. But Dellwo’s baby is more like Frankenstein. And, like the monster it is, it should be dispatched before it can do any more harm. Hal Dixon Spokane
Dellwo-Moyer plan deserves to die
You seldom see a grown man cry, but there was poor Rep. Dennis “Hillary” Dellwo crying all over the front page Jan. 19 about the possible loss of the outrageous Dellwo-Moyer police state health care legislation. That was one of the major reasons for the big reversal in the House of Representatives last November.
He should have listened to the post election comment of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said that the Democrats made the mistake of listening to the 15 percent who don’t have health insurance instead of the 85 percent who do.
Canadians have discovered that free medicine is very expensive and can bankrupt a nation. This Dellwo-Moyer monster would do as much for Washington and give us poor care just like Canada’s at the same time. We may have been rescued from a fate worse than death.
I say “may have” because there will be no cooperation from Democrats on this and a veto by the governor is likely. Fortunately, Rep. Jean Silver and the House Republicans have a way around this. They can simply put no money in the budget for this turkey. The money can’t come from anywhere else and the governor can’t veto what isn’t there. Dick Bond Spokane
Realignment calls for refund
It saddens me to learn that Spokane County Commissioner Steve Hasson has been troubled by feelings of hypocrisy. To have professed to be a Democrat when he was really a Republican must have been very painful. I am sure nothing less than a total purging can restore his Republican soul.
To that end, Steve Hasson should exit the nearest opening, run to the county election office and acquire complete copies of his campaign financial reports. Then Steve must return the money contributed by each Democratic supporter. Clearly, this must be done since Steve is acutely aware that many Democratic supporters are people of modest means. I am sure he cannot sleep at night realizing he took money under false pretenses, money that paid his campaign debt so he would have more personal funds to pursue cultural experiences such as the recent Rolling Stones concert in Seattle.
Come all the way clean, Steve, and do the right thing! Kathy Reid Spokane
I welcome Hasson’s switch
As a lifelong Republican and one who had published numerous letters to this newspaper in which I had fun with some of Spokane County Commissioner Steve Hasson’s past actions, I was pleasantly surprised with Steve’s party switch and welcome him to our grand old party.
As I am certain he is aware, as a Republican he will be under even closer scrutiny from Democrats and the liberal-leaning editorial propensity of this newspaper. I am certain Milt Priggee is sharpening his favorite Hasson art pencils and neatly rearranging them into the GOP bin, as well as carefully studying his collection of past Hasson caricatures.
I’m sure Steve is aware his switch will be regarded as nothing but political expediency. However, I am prone to accept as his most important consideration that his political beliefs have evolved over the years to be more aligned with Republican principles than Democratic. I encourage my Republican friends to welcome him into our Republican family.
As to any future questionable behavior similar to incidents of the past, I will continue to express my opinion without regard to his new party affiliation. As with the current new Republican legislative majority, he will be monitored closely by all of us, but for more than the next 100 days, to asses his sincerity and credibility. Ken Van Buskirk Spokane
Retain state liquor monopoly
I am deeply concerned about Gov. Mike Lowry’s shortsighted plan to close the state liquor stores.
Hard liquor is a unique commodity that causes more social damage as consumption increases. It is an addictive hazard, not a basic necessity. It can’t be effectively outlawed because people will find ways to get it anyway. So I believe the best course of action is to limit the availability and capture the profits for necessary public services.
I think Gov. Lowry’s plan to close the state liquor stores is just a sneaky way to transfer head counts, to avoid cuts in the number of bureaucrats in other state agencies.
Tobacco is a health and safety hazard which I believe the majority of voters would like to avoid. By limiting tobacco sales to state liquor stores, we could reduce the availability of tobacco products to young people and help balance the state budget.
We can have lower property taxes and better health for our children. Call or write your legislators. Ask them to keep the state liquor stores and add a monopoly on the sale of tobacco products. R.L. Brown Richland
LAW AND JUSTICE
Our system stands trial
The trial of O.J. Simpson will be a trial of the American criminal justice system, not a trial of the guilt or innocence of O.J. Simpson.
The state of California has the historic burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt to a panel of 12 jurors that O.J. Simpson committed these heinous and brutal crimes.
A team of national legal experts in the field of criminal law, in defending O.J., seeks to exclude by every conceivable means any fragment of potential incriminating evidence.
The defense team has moved to exclude the DNA tests, the frantic, desperation 911 call by the victim and even the bloody glove which the defense team alleges was placed on the defendant’s property by police officer Mark Fuhrman. The only evidence produced by the defense team in support of this move was that Fuhrman had used racial slurs.
The defense team has moved to place the police department on trial without having submitted a scintilla of evidence to support its suppression of the bloody glove as evidence.
Conviction or acquittal of O.J. Simpson is contingent upon a unanimous verdict of the 12 jurors - both blacks and whites. A single dissenting vote would result in a hung jury and potential new trial.
The exclusion or inclusion of incriminating evidence by Judge Lance Ito and the racial issue in this trial have placed the American judicial system on trial. Victor J. Felice Spokane
Distorted notions defy justice
Rusty Nelson (“Execution only repeats the crime,” letters, Jan. 18) would have us remember Felicia Reese and forget justice. He’d have us forget this was the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.
He’d have us forget that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are inalienable rights that must have the highest priority in any free society. He’d have us remember mercy and forget murder.
Does Nelson seriously believe that any of us who watched the interview with one of these “dazed children” can accept that they are either dazed or children? Does he truly believe the family, friends and fiancee of Felicia will ever forget the victim’s name?
The so-called ghosts of so-called state violence may still be with us, but not a single one of them who was tried, convicted and executed for their crime(s) according to the law will ever return to wait in the cowardly secrecy of a dark parking lot for a young, defenseless woman to be their next victim.
There are no cries to lynch Felicia’s murderers but a multitude of voices are crying for justice according to the law.
“We know that the law is good if a man uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers” (Timothy 1:8-9)
The law is good. When Felicia’s murderers are tried, convicted and executed, then justice will have been done for Felicia and mercy shown to those who remain. Carl R. Smith Otis Orchards
Officers must be trustworthy
What has become of the concept that police and sheriff’s deputies are supposed to protect and help women and children?
As a child I was told, and have since told my children, that if you are in trouble or need help, you can always turn to a police officer.
How is it that a 16-year-old girl who accepts a ride home from a uniformed deputy sheriff is put in the position of having to say “no” or having to ward off sexual advances from that deputy? (Spokesman-Review, Jan. 14)
I know from my years of social work that there are young girls who are worldy-wise and experienced beyond their years. But, even if this had been the case with this 16 year old, or even if she had been over 18, it still would have been inappropriate for the deputy to have done what he is alleged to have done.
If the allegations are true, it means that in his role as a uniformed officer of the law who had offered her the protection of a ride home to Deer Park, Deputy Gary Alvarado misused his position and failed to perform his duty.
If there is no law that can be used to convict him and to prevent other instances of this sort from happening, then it’s time that we get some new laws that can. Margie Middendorf Veradale
Fingerprint all who drive
A few days ago, I read where one state has made it mandatory for all teenagers getting drivers licenses to be fingerprinted. Well, it took them long enough.
We in Washington should have imposed this years ago, not just to fight crime - which to me is a fantastic idea - but also to save lives in case a child is lost, or found and no one knows who he or she belongs to.
I really think we should try to get this on the ballot. I would even go along with making fingerprinting mandatory for all drivers. If they have nothing to hide, what harm would it do?
Correct me if I’m wrong but juvenile crime in Spokane has really gotten out of hand and we should think about this very seriously. Judy House Spokane