Letters To The Editor

RULES OF DEBATE

Parent’s opinion debatable

I am responding to the letter by a Mead High school parent expressing anger about the new rule for debaters. The rule says schools may send only four people to state finals. It has been enforced in many other sports to allow each school the opportunity to send people to state.

In his letter, William A. Gast Jr. said many things to discredit other schools, such as, “The real world has winners and losers” and to devalue other debaters’ successes, saying, “Their victories are hollow.”

Well, the real world also has rules. The reason this rule was suggested and implemented was not to limit Mead’s success but to give others the chance to succeed.

The “select group of educators” he spoke of included every debate coach in the Greater Spokane League. It was a unanimous vote, with the exception of the Mead coach.

Gast’s letter made it sound as though Mead was the only school worthy of attending state finals. This is only an illusion. Mead has many good debaters, as do Gonzaga Prep, Central Valley, Ferris, North Central, University and Lewis and Clark high schools.

Remember that we are representing the Greater Spokane League at state, not just Mead.

Gast, I’m sure that America’s school system will not be the laughingstock of the world because your daughter can’t go to state. For you to indirectly insult our debaters from Gonzaga Prep simply because you are upset is inappropriate and rude. Every debater tries their hardest and no one is a “loser.” Phoebe Trombley, debater Gonzaga Prep

GSL rule makes sense

My daughter, a debater at Central Valley, and three of her teammates are going to state with very high marks. There are many qualified debaters and speakers in the Greater Spokane League.

Limiting the number of people per school attending the state competition promotes an atmosphere where all are encouraged to participate.

Most districts in Washington have such programs. One West Side district allows 16 slots per event but only two may be occupied by any one school. That discourages a winning-is-everything attitude and prevents larger teams from discouraging participation by smaller ones. (Team sizes range from 10 to 60).

Debate is a subjectively judged sport, rivaling the judging in ice skating. Every debater knows about winning and losing,. They may place first at one tournament and sixth at the next due to subjective judging.

Debaters spend hours on research and preparation. They also deal with the pressure of being one-on-one with the judge. This takes a lot of courage. The Gonzaga Prep students have worked hard for their achievements and have demonstrated excellence all season, proving their skill.

The GSL realizes that limiting the number of students schools may send promotes healthy competion and debate itself. If one school is allowed to dominate by team size, what’s the point for the students from other schools? Hard work, not economic status or team size, sends students to state.

All debaters are achievers. The most qualified speakers will go to state. The GSL will be diversely represented. That’s not a travesty, but an honor. Nienke Crick Veradale

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Selective enforcement laid bare

If Bob Grothe, a naturist who was caught sunbathing at a known clothing-optional beach, is considered lewd, what is Officer Chris Honaker considered?

Honaker was doing nothing about people drinking alcohol in the hot sun, then driving the streets of Spokane. He was doing nothing about the people camping and trashing the area, which the naturists clean up after each day.

If Spokane was having such a slow crime day, surely he could have called for backup. Honaker didn’t find three topless women drinking beer lewd, so why did he cite a man who was sleeping in the sun?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines lewd as lustfull, obscene, wicked.

Lewd is defined in Middle English as ignorant and vulgar. A sleeping sunbather doesn’t fit that definition. It’s less certain about whether Officer Honaker does. Jeffery Eirls Spokane

Better late than never

I read with some interest Gita Sitaramiah’s article discussing the Spokane Police Department’s Sexual Exploitation Unit (Feb. 28).

The existence of this pro-active child sexual investigative unit gives the impression that politicians running local law enforcement and their ambitious underlings were interested in aggressively saving sexually abused children and stopping the abusers. This was not case, however.

The unit exists because of work done by my partner, by me and by former mayor Vicki McNeil’s Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect. Local law enforcement’s response to the work of my partner and myself in this effort to rescue unreported sexual abuse victims was initially one of apathy. This was followed by actions that hindered, delayed or obstructed our efforts.

The final response was one of out-and-out resistance to our knowledge, training, abilities, experience and, finally, our desire to help these politically valueless victims. The resistance in part was based on the fact that my partner and I dared go outside law enforcement to force it into establishing such a unit. The fact that we were trying to save children meant nothing.

It was good to read that at last the people who fought the unit are now beginning to see the importance of its function. Hopefully, Detectives Jerry Keller and Jerry Poindexter will be able to do more pro-active work and thereby identify currently unknown abusers and their victims. Robert W. Webb, retired detective Chattaroy

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

Earth First!ers hardly benign

Your article on the rendezvous of Earth First! activists in the Cove-Mallard area did not provide a balanced view of this issue, being entirely favorable to the Earth First! members.

Gary Mcfarlane of Cove-Mallard was quoted as saying the rendezvous will be “fun,” have “good-natured rabble rousing” and that the “cultural hostility” of the area residents would create some interesting interaction.

The article also quotes Craig Benneville describing “god-awful timber sales.”

Why didn’t you interview some timber industry officials or local residents? Could their “cultural hostility” stem from the fact that a group of idealistic “intellectuals” who are, for the most part, not native to the Pacific Northwest, descend upon their town to disrupt their livelihood, vandalize private property and commit other acts of malicious mischief?

The Earth First! activists who protest every year in Cove-Mallard are not brave people practicing civil disobedience in an effort to right a wrong. They are people who commit criminal acts to cause damage and disrupt the livelihood of decent, hard-working people.

Your article made light of their wanton acts of vandalism and cast the timber industry in a very poor light. I work for a forest products company and know firsthand the effects of these eco-terrorists. While they place a strain on the workers of an already strained industry, they also endanger the lives of decent people.

Ask an Earth First! member if they’ve ever been standing near a band saw when it hits a spike and pieces of jagged metal fly out of the machine. John Scott Moscow

Old Testament mischaracterized

George D. “Martin” Maloney, in his Feb. 28 letter, brought up three positions: 1, The “superior” morality of the New Testament over the Old Testament; 2, approval of homosexuality by enlightened Christians; and 3, the purpose of marriage.

Evidently, Maloney has a very limited knowledge of the Bible. The basic concepts of Christianity are all laid out in the Old Testament, as can be seen by the very high morality of practicing Jews. The Golden Rule may be found in Lev. 19:18. The basic foundation of grace may be found in the second chapter of Isaiah.

Judeo-Christian literature defines the practice of homosexuality as sin and is consistent in both testaments (see I Cor, 6:9). Homosexuality is complex and I shan’t discuss it here. I will point out, however, that irrespective of sexual orientation, promiscuity is a sin because of the great damage it has caused. Without promiscuity and sharing of needles AIDS would be stopped.

The sacrament of marriage provides a safe and secure place for bringing up the next generation. It is not designed as a means to legitimize sexual activities. Indeed, one might conjecture that the pleasures in marriage is God’s gift or requiring two virtually incompatible people to live together to raise the next generation.

Others who would like to live together can set up a contract in any way they want. It is not a marriage, however, as the prime and sacred purpose of marriage is for raising kids. Robert L. Dunning Spokane

Bible clear about homosexuality

Re: the opinion expressed by George “Martin” Maloney in the Feb. 28 Roundtable, “Old Testament types in decline.” I suggest that if he reads the New Testament a little more closely, he will find that it also strongly condemns the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

In Matthew (chapter 19), Jesus, while directly responding to a question about divorce, gave the only acceptable definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

At the same time he made it clear that a sexual relationship is acceptable only in the context of a marital relationship between a man and his wife. Also, Paul writes in the first chapter of Romans that God condemns the homosexual lifestyle.

By the same token, nowhere in the scriptures do I read that God hates the homosexual or that He hates anyone, but that He does hate the sin. Instead, He reaches out in love to draw us to Him and to free us from the chains that bind us, be it homosexuality or any other kind of sin that separates us from Him. Jerry Ham Spokane

Scriptures not for convenience

From the Feb. 28 letter by George “Martin” Maloney you can tell he’s certainly not of the East Christian faith, and I can see why we need more than the Bible alone. We need the creeds and the teachings of our early church fathers.

I believe we should love people but not all that they do. The perversion is the way the scriptures get twisted, just to say anything we want them to say. Janis Naugle Medical Lake, Wash.

Bible doesn’t endorse gay marriage

I would like it if George D. “Martin” Maloney (Roundtable, Feb. 28) could give me chapter and verse of the scriptural reference in the Bible that promotes same-sex marriages.

Any scriptural references regarding marriage that I have been able to find in the Bible refer to marriage as a union between one man and one woman, not of male to male or female to female.

Marriage and the scriptural provisions for it are detailed in the Bible in both old and new testaments, and these definitely do not include a reference to the perversion that includes marriage to same-sex partners.

These people may be seeking acceptance of a way of life in both the realm of public opinion and the political arena, but they definitely can find no scriptural basis for acceptance. Fred L. Hoefer Spokane

Think, then act responsibly

There have been numerous media reports lately about divorced men who object to paying support for their children.

It seems that this, as many things in life, is a matter of choice. If a man feels he can’t or won’t support any children, then surely fathering them is a case of extreme irresponsibility. The cost of a vasectomy is small compared to the cost of raising a child.

Your children are your responsibility, not the taxpayers’. So stop whining and do what you must.

Why would a man who has children he can’t support choose to have more in another marriage?

If a woman chooses to marry a man with children, she must realize that she will have to help support those children, even if it means that she can’t have any of her own.

Life can be tough. We have to consider our choices carefully. S.W. Ross Spokane

HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE

HMOs bad news? Not around here

During the past many months there have been numerous articles concerning medical care. All about how the people on Medicare would be getting shortchanged because doctors would refuse to treat them because of the low fees Medicare pays. About how doctors and hospitals would lose so much money that Medicare and Medicaid patients would become unwelcome.

Well, let me fill you in on the other side of this coin. My wife was recently diagnosed with cancerous growths in the abdomen. I can testify that there is much more to medical care than just money. The caring and teamwork was fantastic, from the health care providers to the hospital staff to the surgeons. They couldn’t do enough to help Eileen. It was as if she were part of their very own family, a beloved grandmother.

She has come through surgery and is recovering, and the caring from the health care staff and doctors is still there, strong as ever.

Thank God for medical people who sincerely care like this. This kind of caring surely puts the lie to the doomsayers. Whatever Congress finally does to us, good, caring people like these will pull us through it. The fine medical care will still be there.

All the trips to the doctor, the tests, diagnosis and treatment since have made us believers in HMOs. Group Health Northwest has been with us all the way. James C. Osman Spokane

Healthy diet too expensive

I recently visited a health food store to purchase some organic food products. I was overwhelmed by the prices.

I hear doctors constantly stressing the importance of healthy eating and promoting organically grown food. I want to eat organically to cut down the risk of disease, but my limited budget can’t handle this extra expense.

If there was a bigger supply of organic food products health food stores wouldn’t have to charge their consumers so much. If the demand is going up, why isn’t the supply? Gail Nitta Cheney

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Public sector workers pay taxes, too

In his recent Roundtable letter, “Government a drag on the economy,” Jeff Schaller wrote that “all tax revenues originate in the productive private sector.”

That claim would likely be disputed by the millions of military personnel, school teachers and other public employees who pay taxes on their labor. In fact, a great deal of private production is spurred by the needs and investments of those publicly paid taxpayers.

Schaller also mislabeled our current economic system as “socialist.” By definition, socialism is government ownership of the major means of production. A socialist would advocate that the government purchase General Motors, Boeing, Microsoft, etc.

Actually, our nation is a corporate welfare state in which our taxes fund the creation of consumers and expanded markets for American business.

Harvard Professor of Government Michael Sandel has written that one of the tenets of Republicanism is that concentrated power is a threat to liberty. Liberal democracy was our republic’s response to the concentrated power of shortsighted global corporatism.

“Conservatives who rail again big government,” says Sandel, “wrongly assume that rolling back the power of the national government would liberate individuals to pursue their own ends, instead of leaving them at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control.” Chris Farnam Spokane

Good to read columnists’ views

Just when I thought The Spokesman-Review was sinking into the liberal think tank, it was refreshing to see it publish on Feb. 16 Cal Thomas’ column, “Liberals worship plants, animals,” and Jeff Jacoby (of the Boston Globe) commenting on Louis Farrakhan. It was great to read the truth on both subjects. I salute The SpokesmanReview for printing that. Stuart E. Smith Coeur d’Alene