Letters To The Editor

CONSUMER ISSUES

You can turn back telemarketing tide

Recently, a kind and knowledgeable gentleman from Spokane shared some sound advice on how to escape the constant barrage of annoying phone calls from representatives of the telemarketing industry. I’ve followed the suggestions and calls have dropped off dramatically.

However, this morning at 6:53, I was awakened from a sound sleep by a telemarketer. Expecting an apology and a graceful exit after politely informing the man I was still in bed, the telemarketer abruptly hung up, as if disturbed by the inconvenience of my repose.

For others who may be bothered by unwanted calls, I suggest some solutions to crude and rude telemarketing.

Let the telemarketer finish the first paragraph of his or her spiel. Write down the name of the person calling and the company represented. Then, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Title 47, U.S. Code), ask to be placed on the company’s “do not call” list. Subsequent calls may result in fines of up to $500.

Demand a copy of the company’s “do not call” policy.

Keep a list of companies you have advised not to call again. If one such company calls you, speak immediately to a supervisor.

To have your name and phone number(s) removed from other telemarketing lists, contact Direct Marketing Association, Telephone Preference Service, P.O. Box 9014, Farmingdale, NY 11735; (212) 768-7277. This service is free.

You will be amazed at how suddenly you become the person-in-charge when you say the words, “do not call list,” to a telemarketer. Try it. Tell your friends. Let’s all get some peace and quiet. D.C. Griffiths Jr. Libby, Mont.

Better planning, discipline than credit

Lillian O. Forster’s recent letter in response to the book review of “The Overspent American” reveals a foolishness that cannot go unchallenged.

Forster lists emergency home-safety expenses, sewer expenses, losses on real estate sales, bills for arborist services, dental expenses, unexpected nursing home expenses and expenses for funerals and premature babies as perfectly normal charges to ring up on one’s credit card. Ever heard of an emergency fund, Forster?

Sadly, the pervasive use of credit is not questioned in our society. The constant credit advertisements, conveyed by all manner of media, are intelligently crafted to make us think that consumer acquisition - or the dispatching of unpleasant bills - is painless. Like lemmings, a growing segment of America is being led over the cliff of financial ruin by the credit card companies and their seductive and incomplete messages. Forster’s plastic prescription for unforeseen expenses is at once laughable and sad. Either she’s employed in the credit industry or she’s the lead lemming.

Let’s give ourselves permission to opt out of this “Charge it!” culture. If the word “budget” causes you to curl up in the fetal position, call it a financial plan.

Plan for major purchases and, yes, for unforeseen expenses, like when the family car’s transmission gets smoked. It is this planning, coupled with the discipline to execute the plan, that will enable you to pay cash and avoid finance charges - a fundamental yet important step toward financial well-being. Rick Thornton Spokane

THE JUDICIARY

Reierson’s name claim valid, fair

Recent letters to the editor about a District Court election have twisted the facts. Jim Reierson did not say it was unfair that Harold Clarke III’s father, Harold Clakre, is a well-known, respected retired Superior Court judge - that is just the point. Voters should know who they are voting for.

The father ran as Harold D. Clarke in elections, the same as the son’s signs. The Yellow Pages list the son as Harold Clark III. The candidate has been listed as Harold Clarke III on literature from the Spokane County Bar Association and court papers from 12 years ago. Candidate Clarke admitted the decision to delete the III from his campaign signs was a “calculated” tactic, chosen by him, not by Reierson.

Both candidates are attorneys who have agreed to the highest degree of ethical conduct. The one elected judge will be responsible for that conduct on the bench and from attorneys practicing before them. To be fair on the bench, you have to be fair in how you get there.

Reierson’s point was a completely honest one - that he is running against Harold Clarke III and, in a fair race, should not have to run against Clarke’s father. A court is not an inherited throne or trade name.

Reierson’s concern for fairness and playing it straight is why he will make a good judge for the people of the city and county where he grew up. They deserve a level field. Bill Edelblute Veradale

Reierson’s argument is laughable

Re: the July 23 article concerning Harold Clarke’s campaign signs.

Clarke’s opponent, James Reierson, believes “III” should be added to all Clark’s signs because he does not wish to run against the former judge Clarke who retired in 1995 as well as his son. How ridiculous! Does Reierson think Spokane voters will confuse a 70-year-old man with his 44-year-old son? It’s laughable.

Reierson continues, “campaigns today operate on impressions and quick, 30-second advertising.” How cynical. I resent that this man does not trust Spokane’s judgment. Reierson seems to be under the impression that Spokane people do not care about the issues each candidate addresses. According to Reierson, the gullible voters only need to see a nice sign to be satisfied with a candidate. How insulting. If I could vote, it would not be for him. Margaret Scanlon, age 16 Spokane

THE MEDIA

Old lies about valiant war persist

Re: “Escaping Vietnam” (July 21). Staff writer Dan Webster’s facts are as screwed up as his general premise. “A Bright Shining Lie” is about Lt. Col. Vann, not Col. Hackworth.

Regarding our “wrong-minded military policy,” Hanoi admitted in 1995 that it lost 1.1 million dead and 300,000 missing in the war, compared to U.S. losses of 58,000 and South Vietnamese losses of 258,000, a ratio seldom equaled in history before the Persian Gulf War.

As for veterans still tortured by their Vietnam service, a 1980 Harris survey commissioned by the Veteran’s Administration found that 91 percent of those who had served in combat were “glad they’d served their country”; 74 percent “enjoyed their time in the military”; and two out of three would go to Vietnam again even if they knew how the war would end. The only national media report of the survey was an Associated Press story headlined, “One in three would not serve again if asked.”

What sets Vietnam apart from other wars is the news media, which have deep roots in the old anti-war left. Its members avoided service and openly derided those who served as stupid or evil. They professed belief in the benign intentions of the communists. Since a Stalinist regime descended on South Vietnam in 1975, they have pushed even harder to discredit the war. Thousands of journalists have published lies and distortions to make stories fit their bias.

I’m a Vietnam veteran, a former Green Beret and a former journalist. I’m proud of my Vietnam service and ashamed of American journalism. Edwin G. Davis Spokane

Pre-election coverage helpful

I have on several occasions taken exception to statements made or articles written by Spokesman-Review staff. This time, I want to thank staff writer Jim Camden for his fact-filled, informative article on the electoral hiring process (July 26).

The Spokesman-Review’s expanded election coverage could very well become the best candidate forum we have available to us this year. Its success can best be measured by the number of voters asking the questions we expect the candidates to answer.

The staff help and newspaper space are there for us to use or lose. My thanks to The Spokesman-Review and Camden. I hope you have to hire temporary help to correlate the overwhelming blizzard of questions. Jon J. Tuning Spokane

Columnist wrong about feminism

Although I don’t always agree with her, I usually enjoy reading syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd’s essays, and I respect her intelligence. She isn’t one to jump on trends just because they’re trendy. But after reading her column of July 26, I’ve begin to revise that assessment.

In that essay, Dowd finds support in new fall network television programs for the recent flawed Time magazine cover story about the death of feminism. Dowd’s logic is faulty on at least two levels. One, commercial television has never been the most accurate or appropriate gauge to measure the success of social and political movements. Two, her claim that female programming executives in their 30s only want to watch programs about women like themselves appears to be evidence in support of the strength and continuing success of feminism. It wasn’t terribly long ago that this was too small a group to have that kind of influence on network television.

I’m sorry to see Dowd endorse Time’s erroneous pronouncement. How ironic to see newspaper and magazine writers proclaim feminism is dead, while these same media outlets ignore the hundreds of celebrations this summer of the 150th anniversary of the modern American feminist movement. All over the United States, women and men are acknowledging and honoring the legacy of the 1848 women’s rights conference in Seneca Falls, a legacy that includes improved access to education, legal rights, employment opportunities and even to see women like themselves represented in popular entertainment. Elizabeth A. Kissling Cheney