Letters To The Editor

Thu., April 30, 1998

SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION

Teach phonics to end reading problems

In a recent television report, Gov. Gary Locke announced a new plan to improve reading levels among elementary students in Washington. It includes bringing in business people to act as volunteers to teach kids to read. While watching this report, I didn’t hear any mention of a tried and true method of learning to read: phonics.

In announcing this plan, Locke doesn’t have the guts to admit that the current method of teaching reading is a huge failure. Instead of teaching phonics, what and how are kids being taught? Why are reading levels so low? Why recruit business people to teach kids now to read?

If the Washington Education Association would let teachers teach phonics, reading levels would increase. The WEA recently criticized a House-passed education bill requiring phonics to be taught in schools. They said teachers should not be mandated to teach certain methods. Excuse me, they already are - by the WEA and methods that don’t work.

If parents today learned how to read via the phonics method when they were their children’s age, why isn’t it OK for their children?

Mark E. Duclos Spokane

Perfection isn’t to be made fun of

Re: “Perfection isn’t all it’s cracked up to be” by Jim Kershner, April 18.

This column was sarcastic and full of stereotypes regarding what type of teens receive 4.0s in school. Kershner’s use of the term “kiss-up” and calling teens “drudge without a life” was offensive and in bad taste.

As parents, we encourage our children to do their best. We make a big deal about their good grades. High achievement at the elementary, middle and high school levels can lead to high standards in college and the workplace (real world). With the high dropout rate at the high school level, it’s important to reward those who strive to excel. How dare you ask students, “Who wants to be a 4.0 student, anyway?”, implying it’s a bad thing.

Kershner didn’t berate the schools with his column, but he did berate a lot of hard-working, well-rounded teens who deserve the grades they receive - students who should be proud of their accomplishments. Tammy L. Whitbeck Spokane

SPOKANE MATTERS

Praise be to Clark and Marr

Oh! Praise God for a voice in the wilderness of pro-downtowners! I’m speaking up loud and clear for my favorite columnist, Doug Clark (April 26, “If Eugster club has code, it’s hard to crack”).

Also included in my song of praise is Chris Marr, who has the guts to dig up some truth around here about one-track Steve Eugster and his Spokane Research and Defense Fund. I am so tired of reading and hearing about all his redundant lawsuits against the city that only causes more delays, more costs, more legal fees, ad infinitum.

I am well-traveled and certainly underscore the need for a beautiful, updated downtown core. I challenge Eugster to walk through the rundown core of Los Angeles. (Don’t forget to pack a Saturday night special - you’ll need it).

And by the way, Marr, if you ever run for anything in city government, you sure have my vote! Mary E. Thompson Spokane

I’m reserving judgment about bridge

With regard to Doug Clark’s column of April 26, chronicling my frustrating attempts to gain membership in Steve Eugster’s “Spokane Research and Defense Fund.”

Although it accurately states my position in support of River Park Square, I have never taken a public stand on the Lincoln Street bridge. Like many other citizens who seek to balance a desire for a fiscally responsible solution to traffic problems in the downtown core with our concern for the river gorge, I await the findings of the City Councils’ mandated study of the Lincoln and Monroe Street bridges before making any final judgment.

Isn’t it ironic that Clark’s column appeared as Japan Week was just concluding? Eugster would do well to consider that example of ideological diversity and inclusion, and incorporate those same elements in his own efforts to improve our community. Chris J. Marr Spokane

Let’s hear it for Sabey

Let’s give some credit where credit is due. David Sabey came to town when Spokane wasn’t exactly booming and built a beautiful shopping mall on his own. He did not get a loan through the city or ask it to build him a parking garage. He had the foresight and courage to arrange his own financing to rebuild Northtown when it was badly needed.

I think we, as citizens, and the city fathers owe Sabey a word of thanks. John W. Bartol Spokane

THE MILITARY

Past time to take lid off compensation

The April 22 Spokesman-Review carried a report about problems the Air Force is having retaining pilots. As a retired Air Force attorney, I support doing what is necessary to attract enough pilots to stay in the military.

Behind this story, however, is a larger problem. All military members are being tasked to do more while suffering depressed pay due to caps on annual cost of living raises meant to keep pace with private sector wage increases. Increases have been capped in 11 of the past 15 years. The total is about 14 percent.

The president’s FY 1999 budget proposes to cap active duty pay raises for the foreseeable future. Congressional leaders seem focused on either tax cuts or spending programs. Individuals like Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. George Nethercutt sound supportive about paying the troops fairly, but they, and all other federal politicians, need to be pushed to do more than talk.

Members of the Spokane Chapter of The Retired Officers Association are taking on the issue of active duty pay equity. How we treat active duty military members should be a top priority for the country. Please, everyone, ask your Congress members and federal candidates about active duty military pay equity. Demand that all the troops be paid fairly and that COLA caps be ended. Charles E. Latimer, Lt. Col, USAF, retired Spokane Chapter, The Retired Officers Association

BUSINESS AND LABOR

Kaiser wastes millions on consultants

The April 23 business section included an article on Kaiser Aluminum posting profits of $12 million for the first quarter. Yet when my husband comes home from work, it’s doom and gloom.

Kaiser Trentwood tells workers they have to save an additional $45 million in the next three years to stay profitable. Kaiser hired outside consultants to retrain their managers and present an action plan to achieve their production goals plus $45 million cost savings. To date, these consultants from the Southwest have been paid more than $8 million. It doesn’t appear they have told Kaiser anything the company doesn’t already know, or how to manage.

This $8 million left the Northwest economy - $8 million that could have been invested in Trentwood to increase productivity and profits, to ensure jobs for us and others in the future. With this and a contract coming up Sept. 30, Kaiser management seems to be pushing toward a strike.

Kaiser management is not honoring its own agreement and is pushing workers to extreme limits. How much money does Kaiser need to make at workers’ expense? How much money is Spokane willing to see leave the Northwest? How long will Spokane leaders sit back and watch the loss of 2,900 jobs? Wendy S. Wise Hayden, Idaho

We appreciate public’s support

As president of the Lake City Employees Association, I would like to give all the citizens who supported us in our effort to retain Ordinance 1752 our heartfelt thanks. We appreciate your giving us your time and your support in letters, phones calls and comments.

We felt confident Coeur d’Alene’s mayor and City Council would reconsider repealing Ordinance 1752, which gives us the ability to collectively bargain with them, when they listened to all who supported our cause. We felt confident that when they listened to us and heard we were willing to meet to review, revise and fix Ordinance 1752 to make it work better for all of us, that they would recommend working together to fix it.

However, that is not the case. Their decision was made, but not from lack of support from you. Paula J. Payne Post Falls

LAW AND JUSTICE

Amendment’s language precise, clear

Walter Becker (Letters, April 22) wisely suggests that we dispense with “legal gobbledygook” in order to better understand the Second Amendment, but then spews forth such absurd rhetorical mumbo-jumbo as to make even the most convoluted legal gobbledygook sound like common sense by comparison.

Ask any accredited professor of the English language to parse the statements that comprise the Second Amendment and they will tell you this: the introduction that refers to the militia is an introductory dependent clause and is incomplete and cannot stand alone. The main body of the amendment, however, is a complete sentence and consists of a subject, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and a predicate, or main verb phrase, “shall not be infringed,” which is a flat command in the imperative form of the verb.

If we aren’t willing to follow the fixed rules of our own language, then there can be no intelligence discussion.

A U.S. congressman once tried to give me the same bogus argument about the Second Amendment not meaning what it says. I said, “A bill currently pending in Congress would repeal the Second Amendment. If it passes, would it mean the National Guard, which you say the amendment applies to, could no longer be armed?” He replied, “I don’t know how to answer that question.”

The battle for the hearts and minds of the American people is often fought unfairly. All too often it’s a battle of wits fought against the witless waged by those no less ignorant but only more skilled in making fabrication sound like fact. Ron Yorke Spokane

Militia not the National Guard

Walter Becker (Letters, April 22) fails to consider the definition of militia when he denies that the Second Amendment applies to individuals.

What is the militia? Becker, I’m sure, believes it to be the National Guard. That, however, is the organized militia. George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, made a clear distinction between a “standing army” and a “militia” composed of private citizens. Co-author James Madison wrote, “Americans (have) the right and advantage of being armed - unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

The founders also believed that states had the right to maintain militias composed of armed citizens. (Samuel Adams stated, “The militia is composed of free citizens.”) This explains the peculiar phrasing of the Second Amendment.

According to the very old federal law, all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not government officials, or already in military units, constitute the “unorganized militia,” are subject to call out in times of emergency, and are required to bring their own weapons and ammunition. Thus, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously, if men don’t have guns they can’t do much for the security of the state.

Incidentally, the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant us rights, it acknowledges that we have them and prohibits the federal government from interfering with them. That’s why it’s so important to preserve it. To surrender one piece is to jeopardize all. Curt Messex Cheney

Law not with guns opponent

The legal gobbledygook Walter Becker derides in clinging to his delusionary interpretation of the Second Amendment (Letters, April 22) consists of at least the following U.S. Supreme Court cases concluding just the opposite of his belief.

U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the first review of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. It arose from a Ku Klux Klan conspiracy to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including Second Amendment rights. The court held that the right to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Constitution and independent of it, and the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from infringing on that right.

Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Standing alone, the Second Amendment only applied to actions by the federal government. The states were nonetheless prohibited from interfering with Second Amendment rights, lest the United States be “deprived of their rightful resource for maintaining public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

U.S. v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) found that to be protected under the Second Amendment, a firearm must be of a military type, and that not only card-carrying militiamen enjoyed that right. Militias were defined as consisting of all able-bodied men, not just card-carrying members of an organization.

Our military uses true assault rifles, semi-auto pistols and shotguns. I’d say the Brady Bill is unconstitutional.

Also, several state supreme courts have overturned weapons laws they considered overly restrictive. Size limitations of this format prohibits citation. Brehon K. McFarland Colville, Wash.

Meet Our Journalists

Jesse Tinsley

Meet Jesse Tinsley. As a certified drone pilot, this veteran Spokesman-Review photographer often can be seen capturing beautiful aerial photographs of our region. Sometimes though, the job requires getting down with the dogs.
Jim Meehan

Jim Meehan is no stranger to Zag Nation. As the lead writer covering the Gonzaga men’s basketball team, he tells the stories behind the game and gets fans a bit closer to their favorite players.
Molly Quinn

There is no artist in Spokane like Molly Quinn. Her whimsical style is instantly recognizable to readers of The Spokesman-Review. She has painted gorgeous illustrations that instantly elevate the journalism accompanying it. She brings to life the stories that defy photography. She makes our pages better.
Rob Curley

Spokesman-Review editor Rob Curley loves to talk with people and learn about their lives, whether it's a best-selling author or a stranger he meets downtown on his walk to lunch. It's that inquisitive nature combined with a playful sense of storytelling that helps make our newspaper different than most.