Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Boost minimum wage? Right on < Leave it to (Business columist) Frank Bartel to tell it straight, however, unpopular. He’s right. Sharply raising the minimum wage would be the best poverty-fighting measure the nation could possibly undertake.

Are the decision makers listening? Probably not. It’s too simple.

We could eliminate most federal and state assistance programs practically overnight if people who want to work - and most do - could only make decent money. This would produce a whole new working class of people with soaring morale. At last they could glimpse a future. This would also be a great crime-fighter, since poverty is the primary crime-breeder.

Of course, those of us who buy Big Macs would have to pay more for this to happen. I for one would be glad to. Most fast food is ridiculously underpriced as it is. I recently returned from Japan and, believe me, most Americans have no idea what truly inflated food prices are! Another dollar for a Big Mac would be nothing compared to what the Japanese now pay.

The Clinton administration wants to raise the minimum wage by a piddling 90 cents. That’s ridiculous. It needs to be doubled to something like $8.50 an hour to really do some good. This will never happen, of course, while the current batch of self-satisfied politicians prefers to look down on a struggling underclass.

I know: it’s Utopian. A pipe dream. Pure fantasy. But a realistic minimum wage would lift millions out of poverty. How great that would be for the whole nation, rich and poor. Jack Jennings Spokane

From New Deal to dirty deal

We must ask hard questions about Republicans’ vision for America’s future. Since they attack Roosevelt’s New Deal, we assume they want to return America to economic and social conditions that prevailed before the 1940’s.

We doubt they want a return to the Depression-era 1930s, so it must be the 1920s or earlier. Now we have a clearer picture.

The 1920s were the heyday of the wealthy robber barons - the Vanderbilts, Astors, Carnegies - enormous wealth for a few and grinding poverty for the many. Eighty-five percent of the nation’s wealth was in the hands of a wealthy 15 percent. It was a time of U.S. congressmen accepting payment from the wealthy few, of Tea Pot Dome scandals and Pullman car massacres of working people.

It was a time of low wages, the six-day, 60-hour work week and no paid holidays, 10-minute breaks, sick leave or sick pay. Pollution of air and water was the norm. Working conditions in mines and forests killed and maimed workers as if they were expendable mules. Conditions in Chicago slaughterhouses were enough to gag maggots.

It was a free-enterprise era that let the wealthy control our economic lives and keep the rest of us down. Those were the good old days of small government, no regulation and without the inconvenience of a just distribution of wealth.

The one saving grace for most of us was that most of us lived in rural communities or on farms. No matter how money poor we were, we had a garden, chickens, maybe a cow and a hog. So we could survive.

Most Americans no longer have that luxury. George Thomas Spokane

Trash species act, you endanger us

I find it insulting Sen. Slade Gorton introduced a bill as bad as his Endangered Species Act Reform Bill. It’s a ticket to the morgue for us all, not just the unprotected species, should this bill become law.

Defining harm to a species solely as direct force applied to a member of that species is absurd. No species can survive without water habitat. Try growing wheat on a sidewalk rather than in the Palouse soil. There’s nothing more to species protection, without habitat protection, than lip service.

Gorton’s bill requires recovery plans for endangered species to fit a set of criteria called “conservation objectives.” These vary from full recovery to no direct harm. The decision as to which objective should be pursued rests with the secretary of the Interior. In other words, this will be a political decision.

I don’t believe politicians have our best interests in mind when they make decisions. In addition, they have no way of knowing the political value to humans of the species they might choose to let die.

Who could have foreseen the value of taxol from the “junk tree” Pacific Yew or of a wildflower, the rosy periwinkle, in treating cancer? Probably not even a scientist.

I hope Congress rejects Sen. Gorton’s bill and realizes what we need is a stronger ESA, not an ESA in name only. I hope Congress realizes the ESA protects more than just the warm, fuzzy animals we like and the sort of slimy ones we’d rather not think about.

What the ESA really does is protect us. Mary Aegerter Uniontown, Wash.

IN THE PAPER

Charge more and make it big enough

We are aware of the soaring costs of newsprint. However, evidently in attempts to reduce newsprint consumption, you have: 1, reduced the size of print to the extent our household finds it a great burden to read such things as legal notices, deaths, funerals, and, of course, the classified ads; and 2, you have reverted to those nuisance “partial pages” which make normal reading and folding a challenge.

As we age we find reading becomes more and more difficult even after cataract surgery and lens implantation. Surely you, having a monopoly in the Spokane area, also have a responsibility to furnish a newspaper for young eyes and older eyes alike.

If it’s a matter of economics again, consider a raise of rates. We, for one household, would rather pay a higher rate than buy a paper which is only minimally satisfactory. If you are really interested in saving space and therefore reducing newsprint consumption, there are spaceconsuming items of non-news categories that, in our opinion, could well be eliminated.

And thirdly, we are underwhelmed by your revisions - moderations, if you prefer - of about a year ago. We liked the old stalwart Spokesman-Review newspaper format much better. Lee Rivin Spokane

Headline assumption insulting

I was reading the front page of the July 10 paper when I came across an article, “Infant death rate at new low; blacks still have double risk.”

Double risk compared to what? I asked myself. Compared to white babies, as it turns out.

I suspected this is what the headline meant, but I was still offended. The headline assumes the reader will automatically know the standard. White babies are the standard, or the control group, according to the headline. Though the article later explains the comparison, this doesn’t erase the injustice done to all ethnic groups, other than white society.

I have just graduated from Ferris High School, a notoriously monocultural, white school and am myself white. I live in a mostly white neighborhood in a white-geared city. These don’t prevent me from trying to be sensitive to other races and cultures. They shouldn’t prevent the staff of a newspaper supposedly written for all people from being sensitive, either.

Unless our society stops this subconscious racism, the sad statistics on which the article focuses will only worsen as the gap between races grows more and more defined. Christiane Lang Spokane

‘POCAHONTAS’

Reviewer should just describe film

Re: the review of “Pocahontas” by Nathan Mauger (July 5).

I have uncles and aunts who are of Native American origin and have viewed “Pocahontas” and enjoyed it. They even bought a Pocahontas T-shirt for their daughter, who is a Native American. I guess that’s like the Nazis making Jews wear the star of David, in Nathan’s opinion.

Too bad Native American children can’t have a role model to choose from. I guess they better stick with their Barbie dolls.

I was not surprised but was very disappointed to see Nathan totally discredited the movie. I have noticed Nathan recommends the R-rated and more-violent movies for people to see (“Interview with a Vampire,” “Pulp Fiction,” etc.). He says the films made for family entertainment generally have low grades (“Batman Forever,” “Pocahontas,” etc.).

The “happy Disney pop songs” were enjoyable to listen to, and will more than likely be nominated for Oscars.

Nathan should keep in mind that Disney is fantasy and for families that don’t want to expose their children to school yard language, sexual content or extreme violence.

I think when Nathan is reviewing a movie, he should stay for the whole movie and then base his review on the facts, not his own opinions or the opinions of others. Michelle Ostlie Spokane

‘Pocahontas’ has positive side

I was reading people’s comments in the paper about “Pocahontas” (July 12). Shannon Finch mentioned that in each Disney movie, women’s waists are getting thinner and chests are getting bigger. I agree with her. Making a character pretty is one thing, but making them sex symbols is another.

On the other hand, this movie is also sending out messages to children to respect one another and take care of the earth. That’s very important because they’ll soon be adults.

This movie is a good way to get this point across, because the characters are interesting and appealing to children. Margi Pringle, 11 years old Spokane

Film gives kids wrong impression

Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that “Pocahontas” is historically inaccurate.

Those at Disney adopted the attitude of the conquering Europeans. That is, they knew this film would meet with opposition, so to placate opposition they hired a few people with Native American ancestry to play some of the roles .

The attitude toward Native Americans with respect to the removal policy and other policies has always been to do it anyway, regardless of how Native Americans are affected, emotionally or in their living situations.

Yes, this is a film for children and that’s what saddens me. It’s apparent children are becoming tools of this oppression. This film is wrong historically; and it’s wrong morally and ethically to convey the subtle messages in this film to our children without some kind of disclaimer at the beginning. Tim Collins Spokane