Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Nethercutt U.N. vote shows ignorance

Re: “Nethercutt votes to give boot to U.N.” (June 11):

Rep. George Nethercutt’s vote to pull the United States out of the United Nations demonstrates the congressman’s ignorance of international affairs and expresses a blatant disregard for the voice of his constituents.

For over 50 years, the United Nations has proven its ability to prevent and resolve conflicts, protect the environment, promote democracy and prevent oppression - all, incidentally, objectives of U.S. foreign policy. It has done this not as a world government, as some people believe, but as a voluntary association of 185 sovereign states working together toward these goals.

U.N. programs directly affect the well-being and quality of life of Spokane people. Peacekeeping is a small slice of what the United Nations is all about. Over 80 percent of U.N. operations are humanitarian in nature, not necessarily do-good programs in Third World countries but programs that directly affect American families. The United Nations’ worldwide immunization and disease program protects American children as much as Asian or African children. Other essential programs are implemented to create sustainable environments and eliminate nuclear weapons.

It costs each U.S. citizen about $6 per year to keep us as a contributing member - a small price for peace and well-being in a troubled world.

Congressman Nethercutt, like an adolescent drawing attention to himself by making irrelevant noises in the back of the class, has created a flutter of commotion, but to what end and by what motivation? His objectives are far removed from the needs of the American people. Debbie R. DuPey, president Spokane Chapter, United Nations Association of the U.S.A.

GOP still bleeding middle class

Republicans have long pursued Reaganomics. This theory believes in easing the tax burden on the wealthy. The rich will then invest and opportunities will flourish, with wealth supposedly trickling down to all levels of society.

After 17 years of policies based on Reaganomics, people in the wealthiest 1 percent of the population have seen their inflation-adjusted income double. Meanwhile, those in the bottom 60 percent, have seen their inflation-adjusted income decrease.

The economic pie has grown larger but the wealthiest 1 percent has gobbled all that growth, plus, it has taken bites out of the middle class slice.

Due to Republican tax cuts, the federal government decreased spending on highways, education, etc. State and local governments are forced to make up shortfalls. Property taxes have skyrocketed to keep our schools open. Since homes are the largest investment for middle class people, property tax increases affect them much more than they affect the wealthy. Those who cannot afford a home face ever-increasing rent to pay for their landlords’ increased tax burden.

Gas taxes and vehicle registration fees have risen to maintain our roads. Increased tuition at our state universities has become a severe financial burden for middle class families. We have seen increases in sales taxes and outdoor recreation fees. The list of increased fees, state and local taxes goes on - all affecting the middle class much more than the rich.

Republicans are again seeking to cut taxes as part of their budget package. Make sure you know how these cuts will really affect you. Vern P. Stevens Moscow, Idaho

Promoting welfare now a racket

Our Constitution includes a government role to “promote the general welfare.” Our current government has gone out of control. It doesn’t just promote, it provides and guarantees welfare of all kinds. Can we trust our government to comply with the Constitution?

Isn’t it ironic that our society often objects to even mentioning God in any public setting, claiming that this is in violation of our Constitution in regard to church and state? But playing God in welfare problems and natural disasters is OK. I think we all agree that our government should not force a religion upon anyone and it should also not stop us from being religious.

Is our government our charity of choice? Are we really encouraging volunteerism when we pay people to do community service with taxpayers’ money? Has the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) replaced God, private charity and private insurance?

Why should anyone pay for disaster insurance if the government is going to bail them out anyway? I believe that disaster relief should be privatized - that is, covered by private insurance of choice and private charities.

Programs that distribute money, for whatever reason, generate greed, a moral factor. Greed leads to fraud, which is prominent in all such programs. If we could eliminate fraud generated by greed, I believe that all levels of budget would be balanced.

Where is the leadership needed to correct our social system? Floyd Damman Colbert

Nongovernmental charity lacking

I agree with Sam E. Cathcart (“Government can only give stolen goods,” Letters, June 12) that the cause is the cure. However, the cause is deeper than the welfare state. The problem is a heart problem.

You know that there is a heart problem when food banks receive only enough food to help each poor family with one week’s worth of food each month at the most. You also know that there is a heart problem when Chris Cathcart (Letters, June 12) says that poor children have no right to food or health care.

I disagree with Chris Cathcart about our moral duty to help the poor. I consulted the most important source of guidelines, the Bible. I encourage the Cathcarts to read Ex. 22:22-27, Lev. 25:35-37, Dt. 14:28-29 and 15:7-11, Neh. 5:9-11, Ps. 41:1, Prv. 14:31 and Amos 2:6-7.

My father worked hard, long hours to support us. We were still poor. My husband works hard, long hours today. We are poor. In our case, if we didn’t have food stamps or health care assistance, we would risk losing our children to foster care because we wouldn’t be able to care for them properly. Sam and Chris Cathcart, have you been faced with that scenario?

Perhaps when citizens give enough food to the local food banks for poor people to eat more than just one week each month, we won’t need government intervention. Becky L. Sessions Spokane

Matter of right not addressed

In reply to Kelly Reinlasoder’s June 18 letter (“Champions of selfishness don’t know”) in response to my earlier letter, I submit that Reinlasoder did not answer my point namely, that there is no “right” to food.

Reinlasoder alludes to problems allegedly generated by “today’s capitalistic world that (I) am so proud of.”

First, we are not in a capitalistic economy, but in a mixed economy with a significant level of taxation and regulation, which are arguably the cause of the very problems Reinlasoder mentions. Second, this does not address the point that, in spite of these problems, there is no right to be provided something simply because one needs it.

Also, Reinlasoder remarks that under government programs, “no one is taking anything away from anyone.” If this is the case, then I might ask, where does the government get the means to provide these programs? Chris R. Cathcart Spokane

ETHICS

Experiments ‘pure malevolence’

Thank you for exposing the federal government’s abuse of power in “Names given in Cold War tests” (June 8). Sixty-four prisoners had their testicles irradiated with massive amounts of X-rays to answer questions about fertility raised by Dr. C. Alvin Paulsen and the Atomic Energy Commission.

These devious experiments, like the Hanford downwind incidents, expose a heart of pure malevolence.

As soon as the inmates were convicted, they lost their humanity, only to become guinea pigs for a twisted, evil system. The prisoners were promised follow-up medical care for their participation in these horrendous experiments. However, they were denied even the most basic care.

Such appalling experiments would seem to come straight from the pages of books such as “The Nazi Doctors; Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide,” by Robert Jay Lifton, which documents that in 1942 Horst Schumann began work with X-ray castration-sterilization at Birkenau. Approximately 1,000 prisoners were subjected to barbaric abuse in these experiments and many were then disposed of in gas chambers.

How will history consider Cold War crimes committed in the name of national security? Ronald D. Stewart Cheney

Professor was way out of line

The June 9 article by staff writer Eric Sorensen concerning the dismissal of Valerie Jenness at Washington State University drastically minimized the nature of the charges against her.

Sorensen refers to the offence as helping a graduate student write a paper. The verb “helping” is used throughout the article to refer to the activity which resulted in Jenness’ dismissal.

Jenness admits to writing large parts of the paper which was then submitted under the student’s name. Assisting a student to commit plagiarism, is a serious offense in universities or any institution in which intellectual work is valued. Helping is the wrong term for assisting a student to cheat. In most universities, plagiarism is grounds for flunking the course in which the offense occurred. In some universities, it is sufficient reason for expulsion.

Faculty members should not, indeed cannot, be held to a lesser standard. University students and their parents deserve the assurance that instructors will not only be knowledgeable but fair, equitable and honest in measuring student performance.

The failure to call a spade a spade adds to public and faculty confusion about the charges against Jenness. Even more serious is the inference in the article that such activities are commonplace.

If the type of fraud to which Jenness has admitted occurs frequently on this campus, it is incumbent on Sorensen to provide more proof than the vague innuendoes presented in the article. Irving Tallman, professor Pullman

MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS

Library not there to guard morals

In response to Penny Lancaster’s June 18 guest column, “Public library should block offensive on-line material”:

I disagree with the contention that our public library has a public trust to protect the welfare of our youths. The library’s public trust is to provide information reflective of the popular culture its serves, without being a final arbiter censoring whether the information is repulsive.

I think it is more the responsibility of those who define the popular culture to disseminate or censor information. Of course, I realize there will always be disagreement about who best represents our collective mentality and morality, and I suspect that the public library’s role is to serve as a repository for the broadest spectrum of debate, as a result.

Mass marketing values have the most impact in selling such antisocial mores as unrealistic expectations, instant gratification, instant wealth, instant status, selfindulgence and selfishness, although I know that it hardly ends there.

In any case, I hope we do not see selective censorship of the library as I fear that, when it starts, who knows where it will end? “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” notwithstanding. If we are ever going to learn to trust one another, we’ll have to begin by trusting ourselves first. Philip J. Mulligan Spokane

Worry about violence, not smut

Penny Lancaster (guest column, June 18) is so obsessed about smut that she wears blinders as to what else is available on the Internet. When you can find bomb-making how to’s, the screwy thinking of racists and militias, smut becomes less of a problem.

By comparison, smut is of much lower priority to the welfare of the community than the fact that the “innocent” kid learned how to build a bomb from the Internet and then carried it to school.

People who continually harp about smut don’t have anything better to do with their time. Joan E. Harman Coeur d’Alene

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

So young to be so intolerant

Re: “I won’t honor this ungodly nation,” by Andrew J. Schrag on June 16, 1997.

I doubt a 13-year-old wrote this letter by himself. This proves the old point that bigotry is a taught belief. How can any 13-year-old be so homophobic and so far into the religious right?

I was brought up around two gay men who were friends of my parents. To me, there was nothing different about them. They didn’t try to convert me or molest me (the notion they would is another superstition about gays).

I value that I was brought up this way so I don’t judge people by their religion, color of skin, disability, or sexual preference.

If we stop this cycle of taught hatred, this world would be a better place. Ben M. Watkins Spokane

Youth expressed right idea

Hooray for Andrew J. Schrag, age 13. His letter of June 16th (“I won’t honor this ungodly nation,” was excellent.

More kids need to be educated about the truths of how this country was built and the personal lives of the men who were the leaders.

I love to fly my flag and am proud to be an American. We have to do more than sit back and watch the decline of America.

It’s been said that for evil to triumph, it’s only necessary for good men to do nothing. We need more kids like Schrag. Chuck J. Thiel Spokane

Young critic has much to learn

Re: Andrew J. Schrag’s letter of June 16: If this country is so bad, perhaps he should live in another country.

Andrew has obviously been listening to some religious fanatic. He doesn’t think women have rights, believes President Clinton is a draft dodger for doing what thousands of others did, and that Clinton is a drug abuser because he smoked pot.

Get a grip.

This young man should wait until he has experienced life before sounding off. Dick A. Hall Spokane

THE ENVIRONMENT

Companies shirk responsibility

On February 14, 1905, the Spokesman Review published a front page story regarding Idaho Sen. Dubois’ call for congressional investigation of mining pollution in the Coeur d’Alenes. The senator’s call for action followed the release of studies showing the damage to crops and wildlife in the region below the Silver Valley.

Ninety-two years later, the mining companies continue to call for more and yet more “studies” of contamination sources while the pollution creeps closer and closer to our daily lives. Yet, when the studies do not reflect very favorably on their legacy of contamination and the continued serious threat it poses to human health and wildlife, they complain that there is too much studying going on (Spokesman-Review, June 10).

The companies decry litigation filed against them by the federal government as diverting their resources away from cleanup, yet they fail to tell us that the lawsuit - according to Holly Houston, spokesperson for the companies - was filed only after the mining companies’ offer of $1 million as their “fair” share of cleanup costs was rejected by the government. That’s $1 million out of a cleanup bill estimated to cost $600 million to $1 billion. Even the mining companies’ own self-protective estimate runs to $120 million.

As Dan Audet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said, lead contamination does not seem to be getting any better. Indeed, a comprehensive cleanup is overdue.

It’s time for the mining companies to join with the citizens in acknowledging and acting on the problem. Mark D. Solomon Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Spokane