Letters To The Editor
WASHINGTON STATE
First things first, then stadium
If I have the facts, the public would be footing the bill for $300 million for a new Seahawks stadium, plus another $300 million for debt servicing, on top of the approximate $300 million committed to the Mariners stadium, in addition to the $5.2 million annual debt payments on Kingdome roof repairs. The Kingdome will be demolished, although $130 million of its debt remains unpaid. The existing debts on the Kingdome would be magically retired upon its demolition.
This is a heap of public money to build an outdoor stadium to replace an indoor stadium in a city noted for its continuously soggy weather.
Two obvious questions arise:
Why can’t the Mariners and Seahawks share the new Mariners stadium?
Why can’t soccer be played in the Kingdome? (The notion that soccer players actually enjoy inclement weather is false.)
According to “Major League Losers” by Mark S. Rosentraub, the sports industry is healthy, wealthy and not in need of corporate welfare. That’s a thought worth pondering after recently enacted welfare reforms in Washington limit the time that welfare recipients can receive assistance.
The welfare reforms hinge on quality, affordable child care that’s in short supply. Public schools juggle finances and cut back on services while many students attend classes in portable classrooms that are uncomfortably hot in late spring and often cold the rest of the year.
On my next skull-rattling ride over potholed roads, I’ll remind myself that I have no problem with another stadium if all our basic obligations are met first. Penelope B. Rundle Mead
Read pamphlet and vote ‘yes’
The Spokesman-Review properly endorsed Referendum 48 for the Seahawks stadium. The newspaper could help its passage more by merely publishing, verbatim, the arguments pro and con on Pages 4 and 5 of the voters pamphlet, edition 2, and the effect set forth on Pages 5 and 6.
Reading the entire text of the referendum will only confuse most people. At first, it confused me.
Paul Allen’s statement is factual, candid and reasonable.
But the statement against is an insult to our intelligence. It appeals only to vulgar emotionalism and rank jealousy.
The Allen rebuttal is concise, truthful and devoid of invited sarcasm.
As a native Spokanite, I want to be proud of Spokane. When I went to Gonzaga University, our team, under Pecarovich, beat or tied Washington State College (now Washington State University) several times. We were proud.
I want to be proud of the Seahawks - our team.
It will not cost me a dime; I’ll see them on TV.
Read the voters pamphlet. Get the truth and you, too, will vote “yes.” Paul Arthur Clausen Spokane
Finally, a pothole can pay off
While bicycling in Le Tour de Spokane on Sunday, my fellow rider and I came up with the perfect alternative to the Seahawks stadium. Simply select one of Spokane’s famous potholes, build bleachers in it and plant grass. Voila! Instant stadium! It would be inexpensive and would save the road crews from having to fill it with asphalt. Bernie Armstrong Spokane
IN THE PUBLIC EYE
Wood entitled to choose
Re: “Tiger, lose the attitude” (letters, May 30):
Since when is it mandatory for an athlete - or any person, for that matter - to accept an invitation to the White House?
It’s called freedom of choice, and Tiger Woods, like any other person, should be granted that freedom without fear of persecution.
Tiger Woods is a welcome, fresh addition to a sport that typically has been a good old boy domain. Randy J. Laird Spokane
We see through the phony dignity
Two thousand years ago, a gentle deity refused to pass judgment on a woman accused of illicit sex. Instead, he challenged her accusers to throw stones at her if they themselves were without sin.
The never-stated truth of the matter is that only those who participate (and God) know if the action was lust, joy, love or murder.
However, society has gained nothing as in that time, as now, no men were brought forward to stone. But what is so obvious is that while those with sin walked away, our Air Force would have us believe them to be a bunch of lily-whites. Perhaps they think we believe it only takes one to tango. What is so disgusting is that we always understood that those who pretend and point fingers are the worst of the lot.
Now come on, you fat-cat flyboys, the only reason you are attacking this woman is because you got left out or she is a female who either beat you or matched you at your own game. We see just another case of a scarlet letter and foolish witch hunt.
Come off the phony dignity; we’ve got you figured. You all deserve our rocks. Robert R. Root Spirit Lake, Idaho
Robinson a hero and a Republican
Did you know that Jackie Robinson was an active member and supporter of the Republican Party?
Last month, on the 50th anniversary of Robinson becoming the first black major-league baseball player, President Clinton, representing the nation, honored Robinson’s feat in breaking the color barrier. It was 50 years ago that Robinson, a UCLA graduate, signed with the old Brooklyn Dodgers as a second baseman, becoming a very successful player.
Until he died in 1972 at age 53, Robinson was active in many areas, including carrying out and living the role of a true civil rights leader. He was the son of a poor black sharecropper, the grandson of a slave, and grew up under severe Jim Crow traditions. He knew firsthand the sting of racism. In desegregating baseball, Robinson became a true civil rights symbol. Despite indignities from other players and all the epithets hurled at him by bigoted fans, he never lost his dignified demeanor.
In the tens of thousands of words used by the media in hyping the 50th anniversary, not one was said about another side of Robinson - that he was an ardent supporter of the free enterprise system and the Republican Party. He actively campaigned for President Richard Nixon.
In his autobiography, he showed himself to be a capitalist when he wrote, “Business people dig black power when it coincides with green power.” Robinson was truly a great man. Hugh P. Mills Cheney
OTHER TOPICS
Human cloning threat to mankind
Cloning of humans is immoral and will disrupt the natural order of society as we know it. We all were born individuals and we definitely should take advantage of that instead of trying to reproduce our own uniqueness.
When I think of a world that allows people to clone themselves, it probably won’t be long until humans can be made in laboratories. Similar to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” I think our society would become a bunch of mindless, machinelike people. We eventually would lose all sense of individuality, and everything that each person stands for would be washed away in a repetitive ocean of identical human beings.
I hope cloning is never allowed to happen outright in our society. While there may be some positive aspects to having cloning available, the negative possibilities outweigh anything good that could come of it. Ryan Anliker Bonners Ferry, Idaho
V-chip not the whole answer
Advertising today feeds on people’s insecurities and the negative self-images they hold against themselves. Many messages and tactics the media use today glorify immoral ways of life as well as violence.
Chevrolet had a frustrated woman giving the finger to a passing trucker. Chevrolet defends this by saying that at the end, she’s shown waving. If you are OK with young children viewing that, how about the theme of violence that pro basketball players demonstrate to them? Again, the level of anger and rage grew high enough that an upset player tackled a referee to the floor over a call the referee had made. This teaches children and others that if you have enough money and notoriety, the way to deal with someone who doesn’t give you your way is to slap the person around.
What is the television industry doing about it? The V-chip was invented last year so parents can censor what programs can be viewed on their television sets. V-chip installation will start in 1998.
If corporations and individuals fail to censor the messages advertising and the media exhibit, the government must step in. Then, by default, we relinquish our freedoms. Is free enterprise above responsibility to society? Gina Bianchi Bonners Ferry, Idaho