Letters To The Editor
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Biased assumptions made clear
On a recent night, on the way home from work ,I was involved in a car accident in which a 16-year-old female ran a red light and ran into me. I am a 41-year-old African American male.
The police officers who arrived at the scene did not inquire as to whether I had been injured in this accident. They asked me if I had a job, as opposed to where I work. They also asked me if I had a phone, as opposed to what my phone number is.
On the other hand, they asked the female where she worked and they asked her for her phone number.
I think this was an obvious discrimination situation in which they assumed the negative about me. I am outraged by the way the police handled this.
Curtis Hampton Spokane
Concern was for others’ safety
I read Siobhan de Sam Lazaro’s March 4 letter, “WSP vehicle bias unwarranted,” regarding her experiences with her lifted pickup with concern.
She sounds like a very responsible person as regards her pickup maintenance schedule and safe driving habits. However, as she wrote about the safety of riding in lifted pickups due to their monster tires and the proper use of seatbelts, it occurred to me that she may have missed the point of the Washington State Patrolman’s remarks as to high-bumper injuries.
I believe the officer’s reference was to injuries suffered by folks in other vehicles in the event of a collision with a lifted pickup. High bumpers are, indeed, potential maimers and killers. Human flesh and blood just can’t compete.
I have had some very real concerns for several years regarding lifted pickups and ask all owners of those vehicles two questions:
When you are driving behind me at night, where do you believe your headlights are aimed? Answer: Directly into my mirrors and thus, directly into my eyes.
When you are driving toward me at night, where do you believe your headlights are aimed? Answer: directly into my eyes.
This is extremely dangerous and sets up an accident waiting to happen.
I am sure Ms. de Sam Lazaro would agree that every person traveling on our roads, whether in a lifted or nonlifted vehicle, is as precious and important as the next one. Leveling the odds is what it’s all about. Joyce D. Atkinson Hayden Lake, Idaho
Officer right to scrutinize truck
Re: Siobhan de Sam Lazaro’s letter of March 4, “WSP vehicle bias unwarranted.” I wonder how some family would have fared if her “one-time accident” had ended in a head-on collision with a vehicle with conventional suspension? Her family may have been spared because of her vehicle’s suspension, but is she not also obligated to think of others?
If only our own safety is important, then perhaps I should purchase a Sherman tank or an armored personnel carrier for the family car.
The State Patrol’s concern is for the safety of all who use the roadways. It doesn’t take a Harvard graduate to visualize what could happen if you have a head-on with one of these monster trucks. Most of the bumpers are at a level that would impact a normal vehicle at the windshield.
The pickup driver and passengers would probably be OK. The occupants of the vehicle hit stand a good chance of being killed or of finishing life as a vegetable.
I have looked in my rear-view mirror and seen only the bumper of one of these monstrosities. Most are driven by young males who apparently get an ego boost from being bigger than the other guy.
Lazaro’s pickup may be legal, but I venture a guess that more-rational heads will soon make such vehicles illegal for uses other than originally intended - off-road and competition use. There is no place on public roadways for a personal vehicle that has the potential to cause so much destruction. Harold J. Benson Elk
SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION
Clark’s de-bunking was right on
Although I agree with only about 5 percent of Doug Clark’s columns, I am writing to praise him for his excellent column of March 5, “Self-esteem: Classroom fad we didn’t need.”
Clark has hit the target of truth in the bull’s-eye. I don’t believe I have seen such an eloquent statement of one of the follies of our public education system printed before in the mainstream media.
I only question his statement that more and more Spokane schools are recognizing that emphasizing false self-esteem is a failed experiment and must be stopped. Are they? I hope so.
Incidentally, I have known Don Kolb since he was one of my Scout leaders in grade school. He is truly the kind of person we would like all of our children to emulate. Dwight “Buck” Aden Spokane
Critic doesn’t understand reforms
Andy James’ fears about school vouchers (“Beware of trendy education schemes,” March 7) give new meaning to the term “arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”
While people are graduating illiterate and companies can’t find graduates competent enough to train, James worries about paper work! Does paper work change the immense amounts of money wasted on failed education?
The idea behind vouchers and charter schools is to allow citizens to choose schools and teachers more like the way they choose hospitals and doctors.
Of course, choice always results in two tiers - better choices are different from poorer ones. Those who remained on the Titanic had different outcomes from those who left. John M. Michels Spokane
FIREARMS
Gun ban never the way
Jeri McCroskey (“Law-abiding gun owners, until…”, Roundtable, March 4) hates guns.
Must 13 million women handgun owners who finally have a viable means of defense turn in their firearms at the nearest federal building because someone took a shot at McCroskey?
Millions of Americans are hunters. They’ve spent millions for wildlife habitat. Shall we stop hunting because McCroskey’s friends saw a deer shot illegally?
Armed Americans thwarted 2.5 million criminal acts last year. Do we disarm them due to McCroskey’s fear?
Florida allows its citizens to carry concealed handguns. The abuse rate is a whopping .018 percent. The firearm homicide rate is down 34 percent. Should we end these programs because McCroskey is afraid of being blown away?
Will a “fed up population” take action to curtail gun ownership, as McCroskey claims? A May 1995 U.S. News & World Report survey found that 75 percent of Americans feel they have an individual right to bear arms.
In Presser vs. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot prohibit the people from bearing arms.
McCroskey would likely affirm that the First Amendment is an individual right, yet she implies that the Second Amendment is meaningless and that it applies to some obscure collective group. Hundreds of constitutional scholar would disagree.
Let’s concentrate on ending the misuse of guns, not the communist-style disarming of millions of honest people. And let’s acknowledge that most gun users are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Curtis E. Stone Colville, Wash.
It’s the criminals, not guns
The issue of violence and gun control remains a hot topic locally and for good reason (“Law-abiding gun owners, until…”, Letters, March 4).
I was deeply moved when McCroskey told of being shot at and having friends shot by irresponsible persons. This saddens and at the same time warns me of the increasing criminality and lawlessness that inflames this argument against our keeping arms.
There is no justifiable argument against the right to keep and bear firearms. It is carefully regulated, preventing felons and others from legal ownership or use.
We must understand, however, that we have a very open society, allowing us a tremendous level of personal freedom. Unfortunately, the moral, ethical and legal decline in America over the last generation has allowed the number of lawless to grow. Thus, our nation’s increase in crime and filled jails and prisons.
Widespread lack of restraint in thought or deed has directly contributed to a nation on the edge of collapse. Anarchy is not virtuous and will lead to societal chaos or strict regimentation.
I prefer neither over liberty. I agree with McCroskey that Second Amendment advocates must actively seek real solutions to gun violence. I suggest we start with character definition. People raised to believe it’s OK to do your own thing and that they have a right to everything they want are inclined to treat others with disregard. Society today is characterized by this selfish credo, at the expense of personal responsibility. Selfishness, greed and hypocrisy prevail over duty, honor, integrity and virtue.
If we train people to be ethical, virtuous citizens, in fear of God almighty, criminal activity would lessen and gun ownership would protect citizens from criminals as well as the threat of subversion from tyranny, as was originally intended in our Constitution. Robert Spaulding Post Falls
IN THE PAPER
Coroner target of ‘hatefulness’
I am angry over The Spokesman-Review’s hate messages toward Dr. Dexter Amend.
Several weeks ago The Spokesman-Review published an article (The Hot Seat, Opinion, Feb. 11) wherein a phone number was provided for the citizens of Spokane County to call Dr. Amend and, per The Spokesman’s statement, “tell him to get the hell out of office.”
What kind of journalism is this? It certainly is not informative or necessary and shouldn’t even be classified as journalism.
The Spokesman-Review, as usual, is using the paper to promote its own hatred. If Dr. Amend’s life has been threatened or is harmed in any way, I hope the abusive reporter who wrote the garbage that encouraged or fueled the hatred is held responsible.
In last Sunday’s Review, your pathetic excuse for a story once again attacked Dr. Amend with personal feelings, referring to him as a “crummy coroner.”
Not everyone is going to agree with all politicians all the time, but The Spokesman-Review goes too far in continually trying to shove the opinions of its employees down the throats of readers. Do you consider your readers so pathetically stupid that they are incapable of forming their own opinions?
Stick to reporting only the facts, not your staff’s personal hatefulness. Let your readers make up their own minds based on accurate facts. Linda Becker Veradale
AT&T access can cost more
The recent barrage of free advertising for AT&T’s Internet access under the guise of news articles is unfair to competitors.
The stories add insult to injury by being factually incorrect. The March 1 front page article states that rural customers will benefit from AT&T’s service by “avoiding long-distance charges.”
Customers who do not have local access to one of the 200 POPs (points of presence) will have to call an 800 number that costs an additional $4.50 per hour on top of the $20 monthly rate. Ten hours of use would cost $65.
Concentric Network Corp. offers 800 number service to rural customers for $5 per hour with no additional monthly fee. Ten hours of use would cost $50. This wellestablished service is available now. Keith Bell Republic, Wash.
ENVIRONMENT
‘Eco twinkies’ relatively pacific
Before anyone takes up Staff writer D.F. Oliveria’s challenge to go head-bashing in the Cove-Mallard forest this summer (“Earth First! takes fun out of logging,” Opinion, March 3), I recommend that he or she first take time to read “Green Rage” by Christopher Manes. At least one will know why, in Oliveria’s words, there are “hell-bent radicals” having “fun” in the woods.
It is not the kind of “fun” Oliveria implies. There is no fun in hearing the last vestiges of wilderness and old-growth forests come crashing down.
Earth First! members can hardly be likened to abortion clinic bombers. There is no record of anyone ever having been injured as a result of their activities. On the contrary, many a protester has been hurt - one incident gleefully retold in the editorial.
The mischief Oliveria describes seems rather mild when compared with the violence of the timber and mining supported and of the politically encouraged, right wing Wise Use movement.
Unlike members of the Wise Use movement, “eco twinkies” have never threatened the lives of U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Game agents or their families. Nor have they blown up federal buildings. Johan Bahlmann Spokane
Agencies just serving themselves
I applaud your March 3 article, “Caribou transplants usually don’t survive.” It was very informative and objective.
Too often society takes whatever our government agencies say as gospel truth. Your article reports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Wildlife say they aren’t finding much opposition to the plan. In fact, people are pushing to bring back caribou, agency officials say.
I’d like to know who these people are who are pushing this effort. A recent survey of north Pend Oreille County mentioned in last week’s Newport Minor has only 8 percent of the people in support of the program.
I believe these agencies have insulated themselves from the people they are harming and are promoting selfserving boondoggles that bring money to their biologists and harm the local economy. The time has come to get the buy-in from the local citizenry, instead of waving laws such as the Endangered Species Act to justify ridiculous behavior. Don Guenther Spokane
PEOPLE IN SOCIETY
Make faith lessons honest, complete
The article “Lessons of faith” (March 4) encouraged parents to teach their children to believe in God. The article stated that parents who try to teach their children high moral standards without reliance on God are mistaken.
Tell me which Judeo-Christian standards of morality you wish to impose on children. Shall we teach them, as Southern Baptists do, that gays and lesbians are inherently evil and not welcome in their churches?
Shall we teach them, as the Catholic faith does, that women are not as capable of spiritual leadership as men?
Shall we teach them, as some Christian churches do, that skin colors other than white are marks of disfavor from God?
It seems far more important to teach them that there are many paths to morality and many different ideas on the existence of higher powers, but what is important is that they learn that all people bring gifts to this world and that the dignity of all life should be respected.
Finally, we should teach them to work to end injustice here on Earth, not to simply trust that someone upstairs will punish wrongdoers in a Judeo-Christian afterlife.
Yes, teach them the history of Judeo-Christian faiths, but teach them the entire history, the good and the bad.
Don’t saddle them with guilt about God before they’re old enough to decide for themselves. And please, could we have less pandering to the faithful from The Spokesman-Review? Gary Barlow Spokane