Letters To The Editor

SPOKANE MATTERS

Don’t reject critics out of hand

A recent Community Partners report tells us the degree of discontent with and distrust of elected officials and city management runs high, possibly giving lie to what the council would have us believe about the so-called gang or group of nine, or anyone voicing a concern or disagreement with the city fathers.

Risking an appearance of pandering to the establishment, I feel a few comments are in order.

The Community Partners articulated citizens’ concerns of the past several years. They strongly recommended, as have numerous others, grass-roots volunteerism essential for revitalizing our community.

It now falls to the council to continue the process of involvement. It’s time to put the hurt and anger of the past behind us and go forward in constructive partnership.

Such partnership by definition should include those with differing views as part of the equation for revitalization. We should welcome opposing views and alternatives to the stereotypes of the past.

The people, presented the truth, can and will make just and proper decisions. Give them a chance. John Talbott Spokane

Arrested man jeopardized own life

The unfortunate death of 28-year old Mario Lozada is disturbing. However, his passing was brought on by himself. If in the course of the arrest he had cooperated with the officers, he’d be alive today.

Police officers are experiencing an increasing amount of violence to themselves when arresting suspects. What other recourse do they have when confronting a known vicious, HIV-positive felon?

We can only hope that in the future this doesn’t occur again. Given the increased amount of violence on our streets, this is unlikely. Kevin Chandler Spokane

IN THE PAPER

Good to see story on disabled

Wow! I thought your article about disabled people holding jobs was spectacular. My father is disabled, and it’s hard for him to get a job he’s capable of doing. It’s tough when you want to work and can’t.

I’m glad more companies are hiring disabled citizens to work for them. It’s about time someone realized we all have workable abilities. Thank you for bringing the hard work of The ARC to our attention. Jennifer Dickison Spokane

Clark unencumbered by facts

Doug Clark, as a proponent of the Pacific Science Center, is entitled to his opinion. He misrepresents the facts at the expense of others in his Oct. 5 column.

I was at The Spokesman-Review building to drop off a letter to the editor when Doug Clark yelled twice for me to come over and talk to him and another reporter. I had no idea what they wanted but consented. They were disappointed and unhappy proponents of the Pacific Science Center, and I was an informed opponent.

I did not “gloat.” I only stated the facts. The group of nine-plus did the referendum on the science center to give voters a choice. We thought that the proponents would then answer all of the questions. They never did, and they still haven’t.

I knew the facts because I had attended all of the meetings and had the contract and feasibility study and all of the material that was not presented to the voters. We did not have the finances or news medium with which to present the facts. We did the best we could.

Doug Clark is kicking the democratic process with his name calling. We, too, are entitled to our opinion.

We all know that Doug Clark’s employer is a proponent of this project. Hopefully, his column got him some much-needed brownie points. Mamie L. Picard Spokane

Clark column could’ve been worse

Re: Doug Clark’s Oct. 5 column, “Who needs science? You’ll never use it”:

The only good thing I can say about it is, at least it wasn’t another endless plug for Riverpark Square. Who needs Riverpark Square? It would just add more dimwitted service jobs to Spokane’s economy. M.E. Coleman Spokane

BUSINESS

Writer had bad analysis day

I must respond to Judith Marie Jones’ letter of Oct. 10:

Whoa! You have it backwards, lady. I agree, incompetence is rampant in the workplace. But it is because employers are not allowed to hire the most-qualified people first. They have to take, as you put it, the dark-skinned, female or over-40 person and not the most qualified person.

I suggest you stop whining and open your eyes. You missed the point 180 degrees. Mark Haas Spokane

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Nethercutt sells out environment

In November 1994, the people of Spokane and surrounding areas took a stand against Congressman Tom Foley’s liberal views on social and environmental issues. They (not I) accomplished this by voting George Nethercutt into office.

Nethercutt has proved himself to be the exact opposite of Foley. He voted this summer for a bill that would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s permit system for air pollution, shield polluters from prosecution, block efforts to prevent raw sewage from going into the nation’s rivers, and force EPA to ignore the Delany Clause, which prohibits traces of cancer-causing chemicals in processed foods.

Nethercutt is not satisfied yet. He has voted for cutting the EPA’s budget, which will weaken the Clean Air, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species acts. He votes to weaken these laws and sleeps like a baby at night, believing big businesses will just follow these laws anyway.

Either he is incredibly naive or he is thumbing his nose at his constituents in favor of big businesses - not unusual for Republicans.

I would rather spend a few extra dollars in taxes and live in a healthy, environmentally-sound area than save a few bucks at the expense of the environment and my own health.

Which is the lesser of the two evils, taxes or unhealthy living conditions?

I know how I am voting in 1996. Karen Diveley Pullman

Not square with Constitution

Regardless of Rep. George Nethercutt’s apparent “sharper political profile,” which our Spokesman-Review says is emerging, Nethercutt is standing on what can amount to political quicksand.

Let’s look at the real contract with America: our U.S. Constitution. If we are to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, can any other contract be superior? No.

Based on our Constitution, let’s look at Nethercutt’s legislative score. From the Conservative Index, George stood on our Constitution only 47 percent of the time.

Look at an even more interesting approach: Using eight issues of over $1 billion in spending; on the final vote Nethercutt stood on our Constitution only three times. That’s only 37.5 percent.

How can Nethercutt defend those percentages? Do you see the quicksand? A constitutional stand is a safe and defensible stand.

Unfortunately for our entire House of Representatives, the new leader, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, associates with the same political club as did Rep. Tom Foley. Gingrich is a member in apparent good standing of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Most if not all of President Clinton’s cabinet heads are CFR members. They’re also of the very liberal persuasion. Is Gingrich really a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Perhaps you should find out for yourselves.

In the meantime, persuade Nethercutt to remember the real contract with America and his oath of office. On entering office, all Congress members take an oath to support and defend our U.S. Constitution. It is time to honor that oath. George Durkee Spokane

Third party? Bah, humbug

In response to Frank Bartel’s column of Oct. 8:

A majority of people interviewed favor returning power to the people - a beautiful concept, indeed, right up there with mother love and safe streets.

But which people will it be? Those who pay taxes or those who receive welfare? Those who sign paychecks on the front or those who sign on the back? Those who claim to be discriminated against or those who are accused of discrimination? Or is it all of the above, and if it is, how do our leaders find out what the people want?

Vote for me, the candidate cries, and return power to the people because I am one of you and I will do what you want. Who said that? Was it Lowry, Clinton, Castro, Hitler? It could have been any or all of the above.

Every candidate claims, and many may believe, that their values and beliefs are those of the people. But the people have about as much power as they are apt to get unless they pick up guns, rocks and torches and take to the streets (as in Paris or Los Angeles). Power is at the election booth but too many choices fragment the power and the result is an ineffective government, as in Italy or France.

Three might be better than two, but do not be deluded into thinking that a third party will reflect the will of the people any more than do the two that we have. Paul J. Allison Spokane

LAW AND JUSTICE

Whites’ reaction to verdict appalling

I am shocked at the public reaction to the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial.

First, the American public needs reminding that our system of justice presupposes innocence until guilt is proven - something a vast number of people, including those with a public forum (Rush Limbaugh, Richard Clear and others) have clearly forgotten.

Secondly, the system is set up, in part at the expense of possibly setting a guilty person free, to safeguard against an innocent person being wrongly convicted.

It’s clear from the horrible, racist remarks by all those who disagree with the acquittal of Simpson that the only thing they dislike more in this country than a black man is a rich and successful black man.

Suppose this case had been somewhere other than Los Angeles, with a poor defendant, death as the penalty, a guilty verdict with reports of mishandling of evidence, a Sixth Amendment right violation, illegal search and seizure and a corrupt policeman. There would have been legions of people lining up for such a “cause celebre.” Would there have been reasonable doubt then?

I challenge all who are upset, if ever they are in front of a jury, to ask their attorneys to ignore possibly compromised evidence and any constitutional violations. I doubt that they will.

I also hope that if ever I’m in front of a jury, none of you racist hypocrites are sitting in judgment of me.

I never thought I would be embarrassed to be white. I am. Raymond A. Becket Coeur d’Alene

Take on trial, its outcome offends

I am deeply offended by the thrust of the editorial written from a black perspective (“Jury goosed justice system,” Oct. 6, by Kevin Blocker) which approves the O.J. Simpson jury’s sending a message to “Take that, white America!” The judicial system did not select that jury to “send a message.” The jurors’ only responsibility was to determine whether or not O.J. Simpson was guilty of a double homicide.

We can all decry the racial injustice in this country and we can work hard - as individuals and as organizations - to eliminate bigotry and racism. But using the murders of two young people to atone for past inequities is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just as black people resent being stereotyped, so do white people resent being lumped in with Mark Fuhrman and his buddies. Cheering and laughing and “dancing a jig” as Shirley Simpson called it, is not the way to level the playing field and achieve justice for all. Fran Polek Spokane

Acquitted? Just keep trying

When the jury in Simi, Calif., found the defendants in the Rodney King episode not guilty, millions of Americans took offense. In fact, the resultant furor and rioting was so severe that the federal government stepped in, re-arrested those found not guilty and tried them again on re-worded charges. The guilty verdicts which ensued placated those displeased with the original verdict.

Why can’t the same thing be done now? The O.J. Simpson verdict of not guilty has aroused anger and disbelief in millions upon millions. Although they have not rioted destructively, their anger and fury is enormous. That anger and fury has been fueled by the dismal comments of many of the members of the jury since the trial concluded.

Perhaps the federal government should assemble panels of objective, unbiased criminologists, scientists and legal scholars to review the evidence and testimony. If they find, as so many millions already believe, that the verdict is unsupportable and Simpson is indeed likely to be guilty of these vicious murders, then it would be singularly appropriate to try Simpson on slightly different charges, such as denial of civil rights to Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

That action would be consistent and it would be just. Leonard M. Melman Spokane

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

Victim’s mother sets good example

In the cacophony of unrecognized racism pouring from the airwaves and printed pages, one calm and reasonable voice has spoken with dull, white clarity. Nicole Brown Simpson’s mother, Judith Brown, currently taking care of O.J. Simpson’s children, has accepted the jury’s verdict. “I have moved on already,” she has been quoted as saying. “He is their father.”

She has lighted the way for a population obsessed with dark thinking.

A retired police professional expressed to me his opinion that the Los Angeles Police Department blew the case deliberately, which I cannot lightly dismiss.

What the dissatisfied need to do, however, is set their racist preconceptions aside for a moment and consider the possibility that, despite the hype and hysteria, Simpson might actually be innocent.

We here recall that we were guilty by association in public opinion for a full day following the Oklahoma City blast.

Jumping to conclusions is so popular in America that it should be included in the Olympics. Sheikh Dawud Ahmad Springdale

Jury undermined brotherhood

If a racist white jury can find white cops not guilty of beating a black man we shouldn’t be surprised that a racist black jury found a black man not guilty of murdering two whites.

This wasn’t a victory for blacks. This is a setback, as it doesn’t end here. That Simpson won’t be charged with violating the civil rights of his victims further harms the black race.

There won’t be riots screaming for justice. No, there won’t be much public display. However, some whites who rarely use the “N” word will begin to use it more often, in private, with other whites, usually in the context of a “black” joke. The movement to roll back the civil rights gains of the 1960’s will gain a little more favor in Congress. It will become easier on the conscience not to hire a black, even if he’s qualified.

Some whites will be a little more accepting of white hate groups and it will be easier to convict black men by white juries.

The jury had an opportunity to gain the moral high ground, but failed to do so. However, it succeeded in hammering another nail into Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s coffin. So the war goes on. V.T. “Jack” Galloway Spokane