Letters To The Editor

PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Keep educational PBS as it is

I am following with interest the debate about cutting federal funding for public broadcast systems. As a native of Great Britain, which has no fewer than two public TV channels and four public radio stations - for a population one-fourth that of the United States - I am familiar with all of the arguments that have been put forth by Cal Thomas (Opinion, Jan. 20) and by the overzealous congressional budget cutters.

Of course, PBS could come up with $285 million to replace federal funds through commercial advertising, but do we want it to? Don’t we and our kids have the right to some commercial-free educational broadcasting?

Mr. Thomas claims that PBS promotes a “onedimensional point of view” and that it has “served its purpose.”

The purpose of PBS is primarily education (That’s what schools do, remember? Are we going to pull federal funding from them, too?) and so it can never have served its purpose.

As for the point of view it promotes, all I can say is that Mr. Thomas has obviously never watched or listened to the incredible variety that PBS offers. I implore him and all those who support this misplaced budget-cutting zeal to do so before making any further contributions to this debate.

Perhaps they might learn something. James Hunter Spokane

Public subsidies should end

Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the 30-year-old National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for over $175 million a year or the 28-year-old Corporation for Public Broadcasting/Public Broadcasting System for just under $1 billion a year.

Although everyone is taxed, only a few benefit from government-funded arts endowments. Perhaps if television, arts festivals, theaters and museums were to depend on commercial advertisers for financial encouragement, they would be more accountable for the content of their “art.” How many sponsors would have invested in PBS’ documentary, “Tales of the City,” which glamorized promiscuity and drugs of the homosexual community in San Francisco and included nudity and obscene language?

We need to tell these agencies to use the millions they raise to pay for their own leftist liberal agenda. CPB pays corporation heads $500,000 or more a year while we foot the bill for the programs.

Over 1,000 PBS stations are using our tax dollars to ask people to urge their congressmembers to support public broadcasting. Promoting their own political agenda in this way is unfair.

The Constitution authorized Congress to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. There is no justification for the funding of individual grants, often used for creating pornography, anti-Christian bigotry and pro-homosexual “art.” For years, Congress has rejected attempts to bar federal money from “promoting, disseminating or producing obscene or indecent material.”

This issue isn’t a question of censorship but rather of sponsorship. Contact your congressman and Bob Livingston, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. Penny Lancaster Spokane

POLITICS AND THE MEDIA

Talk radio plays to narrow segment

With Republicans currently whining about the mythical “liberal media,” let’s examine their claims with regard to talk radio.

The ownership of talk radio stations is nearly 90 percent conservative, older white males. Of the over 1,000-plus talk show hosts nationally, over 85 percent identify themselves as conservatives. Their sponsorship is also 85-plus-percent conservative, medium- and largebusiness interests.

While the army of Limbaugh wannabes claims to reflect “the views of the majority of Americans,” they compete for a total of roughly 15 percent of the total radio audiences. They instead generally represent conservative white males, who are demographically not the majority of Americans.

Along with Rush Limbaugh, the “Pillsbury doughboy of the far right,” Richard Clear and Todd Herman debate with local audiences such pressing issues as “Is Bill Clinton a murderer?” and “Is Tom Foley gay?” Those two prove only that there is no firm bottom in a cesspool.

America is a broadly diverse nation, with viewpoints to match. The constant right-wing verbal effluent outfall of talk radio tends to present only one main primary view, while attempting to squelch other dissenting views. If the conservative viewpoint is too fragile to stand up to debate and the glow of scrutiny, then it is really not worth a damn.

Conservative talk radio is living proof of something Mark Twain once said: “Always get your facts straight, then you can distort them as needed.” Stacy H. Waller Nine Mile Falls

Fringe-right mouths loaded, cocked

After President Clinton’s excellent, uplifting state of the union address, I felt really good, had so much pride and confidence in our country and where we’re going.

Too bad the optimism won’t last. Right-wing reactionary hate radio is waiting to pounce, to do what it does best: destroying, demeaning and lying, setting groups of Americans against each other.

It’s only a matter of time. Our good president will be dragged through mud spewing from the mouths of talk show hosts uncaring about the damage they’re doing to America, concerned, by their own admission, only with ratings and paychecks. Dividing and wrecking our country pays very well.

Their champions in Congress will make a lot of money, too. Did you notice the new speaker childishly sneering from behind as the president asked Congress to “just stop taking money from lobbyists”?

The worst part is that the wreckage won’t stop until the voters wise up, when the damage is so extensive and obvious it will take many years to repair, if repairs are still possible. Then, the rabid reactionaries will behave as though they’ve only achieved good and their biggest victims, the easily angered, easily fooled followers of these malevolent liars, will vote against themselves again.

The last election was a great one, people. You fired the cure and hired the disease. Good luck. We’ll all need it. Bill Quinn Spokane

LAW AND JUSTICE

People behind system inadequacy

Doug Clark certainly missed the point in his recent column about Kevin Boot. The “softy judges and the incompetent juvenile justice system” didn’t fail to punish Kevin Boot. The people of Spokane city and county must accept some of the responsibility.

Three times, juvenile court has gone to the voters for permission to increase the bed capacity of the juvenile detention facility. Three times, the voters have turned down the request. The county considered purchasing and adapting a particularly good facility near Colbert to increase detention space but the citizens of that area vetoed the idea.

A recent article on Kevin Boot’s history emphasized that part of the problem in locking up the Kevins of the world is the lack of space. Unfortunately, it made the point in the last paragraph.

This newspaper reported the closure of treatment beds at Morning Star Boys Ranch and Excelsior in this area, in favor of a Seattle-based for-profit organization that “might sub-contract to Morning Star.” The community has already lost St. Joseph’s Children’s Home, Galland Center for Teenage Girls and Cannon Hill Home for Boys. How do we expect to contain juvenile crime if we lose the facilities that work with our young people?

Voters of the 5th District elected a representative who opposed controlling some of the firearm madness we see in our country.

Before pointing fingers at those who work daily to stem the tide, we all need to ask what we can do to affect a change in the rise of violent juvenile crime. Catherine Trembley Spokane

Soft judicial system at fault

In rebuttal to “How can Clark sleep at night?” (Letters, Jan. 22):

Clark, sleep tight. Doug, your column on Michael Nall was not only just, it hit the nail on the head. It’s about time the public gets fed up with the soft judicial system and goes over its head to seek justice.

Roger Webb’s letter states that a judge and jury will decide Kevin Boot’s fate. Well, Roger, how will you sleep at night when crime number 19 puts Kevin back out onto the streets via the judge and jury, and crime number 20 is aimed at a loved one of yours?

It’s time to stop the Kevin Boots of society dead in their tracks by any means. It’s not only our right but our obligation to society. John Mundy Coeur d’Alene

Lawman’s critic quick to judge

Regarding Margie Middendorf’s letter (“Officers must be trustworthy,” Jan. 25), why would any decent, lawabiding citizen take the word of a juvenile delinquent over that of an officer of the law? I know for a fact that Gary Alvarado is innocent of this charge. Ms. Middendorf has apparently lost sight of one of the many, many things that make our country great: “Innocent until proven guilty.” M.J. Jones Spokane

SPOKANE MATTERS

Consultant not needed

I strongly disagree with the decision to hire a consultant to ensure that Fairchild Air Force Base will not appear on the base closure list in March.

I’ve never met General Allen and I’m not questioning his expertise. But I do feel very sure about what the decision will be based on.

I was chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Armed Services Committee when Fairchild got on the list in 1993. Three things were very apparent:

1. If the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) had been given accurate information in the first place, Fairchild would have never been on the list.

2. By far, the major factor that determines if a base will be closed is its mission. If the base is critical to national and international defense and the infrastructure is in good shape, it will remain open.

3. The economic impact of closing a base has no part in the final decision. Base closures around the country have had a far greater impact on the surrounding community than Spokane would have if Fairchild were to close.

In 1993, our community made a presentation to BRAC. We did it with local business and professional people. I think it was a very good presentation. I don’t know what else could have been done. We also did it at no charge.

In my mind, there is no doubt Fairchild will not be on the list. But if it is, I am convinced Gen. John Allen’s efforts will have no impact on the final decision.

Let’s spend that money on something that will benefit the community. Wm. J. Hiatt Spokane

Solutions weave a tangled web

If memory serves, it was about two years ago that the traffic department down at City Hall came up and put a huge cement island right in the middle of the 29th Avenue and Pittsburg intersection. This action accomplished many things.

It made it so that people traveling south on Pittsburg had to make a long detour west before continuing homeward. It made it so that people traveling north on Pittsburg toward downtown also had to make a long detour clear over to Southeast Boulevard to continue northward. It also made travelers heading west on 29th detour clear over to Perry before again turning south. Conversely, folks going east on 29th could no longer turn north on Pittsburg.

All of this resulted in many complaints. Many people started using quiet side streets, which brought about many more complaints. So to quiet these, these same brain trusts brought stop signs up and placed them willy nilly all over the whole area. Why, some intersections made into arterial stops had as many as six or seven cars a day! More complaints.

So finally, the traffic engineers announced that they would “make a survey” to solve the problem. They also said that the survey would take many months.

Now I have some questions. Has the survey been made? What were the conclusions? Are we ever going to get relief from that ridiculous and unnecessary barrier on 29th and Pittsburg? Hayes M. Sanderson Spokane

Hasson jumps into limbo

I believe that most Republicans are pleased with Spokane County Commissioner Steve Hasson’s move to the GOP.

What this means is that most Democrats who voted for him will be angry and will not vote for him again. We Republicans, who didn’t vote for him, would surely not vote for him just because he has made a party switch.

Good jump, Steve. This one is better than the last. Carole Bonvallet Spokane

Idle kids find way to trouble

I’m writing about a problem with kids and fun things to do.

I’d like to have free school sports, like basketball, soccer, football and baseball. Without sports, a lot of kids get into trouble because their families are poor. The kids get into trouble because they are bored and have nothing to do. Patrick Meese, age 10 Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Again, farmers get bad rap

Frank Bartel’s column, “Farmers should learn to become self-reliant again,” demonstrated the ignorance that is currently so prevalent.

For example, Frank apparently does not know that cuts in farm subsidies are definitely coming because they are required by GATT and because farm subsidies are usually the first things government budget cutters cut.

Frank also seems to complain that current farm subsidy programs produce surpluses of farm products. Due to the effect of unpredictable variations of weather on farm production, there will almost always be either surpluses or shortages of farm production. Which would intelligent consumers prefer?

Frank claims that farm subsidy programs hurt consumers and he bases that claim on the peanut program. However, the peanut program is entirely different from the wheat program. We export most of our wheat production, which definitely helps our consumers by paying for some of the things they import.

Frank finished his column by saying that most of the income of our average farmers comes from off-farm work and called this a “good plan.” Maybe it is for him, for now, but what about the future? How many people will work two jobs just to make money from one so that they can subsidize the other?

Most farmers would be better off if they were to sell their machinery and farms (maybe into nonfarm use), put the money on interest and get an off-farm job. What incentive is there for young people to become farmers? The average U.S. farmer is already near retirement age. Don Druffel Colton, Wash.

Boise-Cascade shoots own premise

It seems that Boise-Cascade is once again speaking out of both sides of its corporate mouth.

Out one side, it is spending thousands, if not millions, of dollars to try to make the people of the region believe that, “at Boise-Cascade, we manage our forests naturally.”

Out the other side, it announces an aerial spray pesticide program over 10,000 acres of its forest land with Sevin, a deadly, wide-spectrum pesticide that will indiscriminately wipe out all the insects in the spray path.

I suppose we are to believe that killing all the insects in a forest is “managing our forests naturally.” And just why is the company’s supposedly healthy, “naturally managed” forest so ill that it calls for such drastic treatment?

Which speaks louder, clearcut actions or pretty words? You decide. Mark Solomon, vice president Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Moscow

Hunting foe hypocritical

I am responding to Mary Cosentini’s emotional letter of Jan. 17 (“Animals need protection from man”).

Each year, many of God’s beautiful creatures die a painful, prolonged death; they simply starve to death. Why? It tends to happen when animals have nothing to eat. When there is nothing to eat, the major factor is overpopulation.

“What is the solution, Mr. hunter, for wildlife management? Kill?” asks Mary. The simple answer is yes.

We hunters do kill, but in doing so, we help keep the game population at levels at which overpopulation is minimized. This is called game management.

Think carefully about what would happen if hunting were to be eliminated. Think about all of God’s beautiful creatures that would starve to death each year.

As a hunter, I do my honest best to kill with one shot, the first shot. I feel better knowing that my animal was killed quickly and painlessly, rather than starving and dying a slow, painful death in the winter. I’m no more or less a man for killing it. I simply thank God and the animal for allowing me to feed my family.

Mary mentions that animals are becoming fewer in number due to human development and hunters. The part about human development is correct. Many areas, North America for one, are now developed, including the area where Mary’s house sits. Does your house sit in an area that was once wild? Almost all of ours do.

If you ask me, I think Mary is a hypocrite. Robert T. Parsons Otis Orchards