Letters To The Editor

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Again, we see how guns protect

Re: “14-year-old girl killed in accidental shooting,” Aug. 14.

The recent loss of a 14-year-old girl is a very sad and heartbreaking tragedy. Unfortunately, this type of tragedy is repeated over 500 times a year in communities throughout the U.S. And it won’t be the last in Spokane unless we all smarten up about guns and gun safety.

It is quite ironic that people buy guns for protection. Actually, you are made considerably less safe by owning one. For instance, if you own a handgun, you are more likely to commit suicide, murder someone, be murdered by someone or become the victim of an accidental shooting.

If you really want to protect yourself and your family, get rid of your guns. If you persist in keeping your guns, at least have the common sense to lock them up - especially if you have children in the house. Terry M. Cox Spokane

Don’t keep guns at home

How many shooting tragedies will it take for us to get the message?

I’m sure many of us are responsible and educated gun owners who intend no harm to anyone. Still, guns are one of the leading causes of death of the youth of this country. Maybe your guns are for target practice, deer hunting or self-protection. But all the “good” reasons in the world can’t justify the death of just one innocent shooting victim.

We are all responsible for these deaths of our children. We can all stop it. Don’t keep guns in your home. Elizabeth A. Hulse Spokane

LAW ENFORCEMENT

We know all about police indifference

Re: Dee Berisha’s letter, “Crime Check is not a working number, Aug. 19.

Last January, my husband and I returned home one day to find burglars in our house. They ran, taking numerous items, including our checkbook.

Like Berisha, I thought there was little hope of recovery. But that evening, an alert grocery manager (thanks, Rosauers!) got a license plate number on a woman trying to pass one of our checks at his store. He was able to identify this woman from a photo ID lineup at the police station.

At this point, I was told that police personnel had actually gone to the home of the (alleged) check forger. She wasn’t there.

And that was the end of it.

I made many, many phone calls to the police. On the few occasions I was able to talk to someone, their indifference was complete. Like Berisha, I was told seven months that police attention was focused on homicide. I understand that. But when the worst part of having your home torn apart and being robbed is dealing with the indifference and discourtesy of police, perhaps it’s time for a re-evaluation of how the police communicate with citizens. Jean L. Pond Spokane

SPOKANE MATTERS

EMS levy will cost taxpayers more

Re: Doug Bacon’s letter, “Pass EMS levy to keep vital services,” Aug. 14.

Emergency Medical Services are necessary in our great city of Spokane. However, this letter was not accurate and at best a play on words.

In 1993, the EMS levy increased 100 percent, from 25 cents per thousand to 50 cents per thousand. Each year since, the taxes have been increased several times the cost of living (Source: Spokane Budget reports, 1993-1998).

Bacon should have known the state Legislature, in its wisdom, limits the increases cities can raise taxes with a cap. The cap was 106 percent for many years and was further reduced, effective last January, to 104 percent.

The 104 percent cap was enacted to limit cities like Spokane as to the amount of their continuing property tax increases year after year. Spokane thought it should raise our taxes several times the cost of living so it could continue its reckless spending habits.

What Bacon should have stated is that the “current” levy rate will increase 20 percent if the levy rate passes. Why he says “There isn’t an increase of even one penny” is hard to figure.

Blindfold the public. People will never know until next year when they receive their property tax statements. Dick D. Adams Spokane

River there for fish, wildlife

The most important thing to consider in the river level is the wildlife and the fish. Without them there would be no need for the river because they are the lifeblood of our state. If people need water for irrigation, more wells can be drilled as is done in other areas. Dale A. Bartholomew Greenacres

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

Affair not all that’s wrong here

One wonders how matters got this far with Kenneth Starr and how far matters will go.

Paula Jones’ accusations against President Clinton should have been reserved for citizen Clinton. Neither a sitting president nor, thereby, the well-being of the country should be held hostage to a matter so removed from public concerns. Jones’ motivations? Exactly what she has achieved so far- she has become a household name. The source of her support? Clinton’s ideological opponents.

A few people rant that Clinton must not be above the law. Others whine that his promiscuity violates the higher standards we are to expect of him. Yet if one looks at the histories of famous men and women, one finds merely that Clinton is less like Jimmy Carter than he is like most everyone else. Sexuality in all its forms is as much an underpinning of life as hunger. Nor is absence of desire or lack of opportunity to be confused with virtue. Who pretends to understand sexuality in its inwardness?

Candor regarding sexual issues isn’t anything we should expect, any more than we can expect other people to conform to our notions of virtue. No doubt there are forms of sexual acting out that the public cannot and should not tolerate. But in this case, now is not the right time and Washington is not the right place. Richard Mendola Spokane

God doesn’t do parsed explanations

For his inaugural on Jan. 20, 1993, Bill Clinton chose a King James Bible given to him by his grandmother, opened to a passage: “He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.”

Aides said Clinton selected the passage for use during the swearing in from the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians.

President Clinton has and will continue to deceive the people who voted for him. I don’t think he will fool the one who counts. Joe Wollman Odessa, Wash.

Liaisons compromise security

President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky - just sex! Let’s consider this little scenario. I am the leader of a country hostile to the United States and want to infiltrate the U.S. government at the highest level possible. Or, I am a member of a group in this country that wants to stop legislation or get information that would help me to get bills passed or otherwise affect government policies. So, I start researching for weak links to approach. It wouldn’t be the first time information was divulged at a weak moment while engaged in just sex. Alva Dubois Colfax

Hey, ‘definitional’ works for me

I must come to the defense of President Clinton. He has brought us into a new era. Prior to recent events, we relied on situational ethics to oversee the wanderings of our moral compass. But situational ethics were still so often restricting. Now, the president has provided us with definitional ethics. This is so freeing.

Those facing a possible felony perjury indictment may wish to contact their lawyers about following the president’s lead. I, however, choose to use this newfound principle on next year’s tax return. The president redefined “sexual relationship” to exclude sexual relationship. I have chosen to redefine income to exclude income on my 1040 form.

A recalculation of my taxes shows the IRS will actually owe me. And, if my projections are correct, by merely redifining income to exclude income, the IRS will continue to owe me money - every year. What a breakthrough!

Those who wish to follow the president’s logic and moral ethic in this area may wish to contact their tax advisor about applying definitional ethics to their personal tax situation.

Clintonian definitional ethics - a legacy for the new millenium. Eric S. Hussey Spokane

Clinton, his defenders act childishly

It’s hard to imagine there are more people willing to support President Clinton now than during the previous two elections. The issue is that our president is an admitted liar and in matters of strong personal feeling will place his own interests above his oath of office.

History and each American will judge Clinton, as will Congress. But the continued bleating of the ethically challenged in his defense is the more frightening example of how easy it has become for those whose character never developed beyond the me stage to masquerade as responsible adults.

The honest response to an inappropriate question is “That’s none of your business.” It’s not the easy, childish lie most of us were taught is wrong and have learned through bitter experience doesn’t work. What’s worse, it destroys our ability to be trusted.

The issue is not Clinton’s disregard of his marriage vows, his blatant stupidity in indulging his compulsions or the Republicans’ chances of re-election (what an asinine threat). The issue is simply, did our President commit a felony and hence become ineligible for elected office? Congress will decide.

If he’s impeached, I doubt he would be convicted, but the childish blackmail attempted by his right-to-lie defenders is the real embarrassment.

How did so many of us grow up willing to accept the consequences of being a liar while childishly attempting to use the construct of the law to argue that a wrong has not been committed if a crime has not? Lawrence M. Massey Spokane

End the tantrums and get past it

It’s simply amazing that Bill Clinton accepts public embarrassment by admitting to a sexual fling with Monica Lewinsky - something most married men wouldn’t do. He was immediately attacked by Republicans and pundits. Kenneth Starr has milked the situation for all it’s worth.

In short, Bill Clinton is president of a nation full of 10-year-olds throwing tantrums and expressing intense dissatisfaction over everything. Mature adults would forgive and forget.

Yes, Clinton has his faults. But do his armchair judges have what it takes to be better presidents?

As for Marj Findley’s claim (Letters, Aug. 19) that Clinton is a socialist, in this country, Democrats regulate private business, are extremely environmental and argue for civil and labor rights. But Republicans argue the reverse of the Democrats’ position and demand the opportunity to regulate the private lives of people. So, who protects us from Rep. Helen Chenoweth? Joan E. Harman Coeur d’Alene

GOP will rue right wing excesses

President Clinton took a private matter and made it public by doing what he did with Monica Lewinsky. Kenneth Starr has a firm basis to make inquiry of him about what went on. As for the seamy details - absolutely not.

The president acknowledged his wrongdoing and took responsibility for it. That’s a lot more than many of us do in our private lives.

There’s good reason why living in denial is ultimately fatal to each of us. Clinton no longer lives in denial. He’ll go on vacation with a soul that’s been cleansed.

The response to his public address by Republicans, conservative commentators and TV reporters is more than just criticism. It’s mean-spirited, which raises the question of whether their position is based on the common good of the nation or the good of the right wing.

The public would be better served by conservatives resigning from their hatred of President Clinton and their jealousy of his political skills and accomplishments.

Clinton should pay the price of a congressional vote of censure for his wrongdoing. Following that, this matter ought to be put behind us.

The early polling tells me that Americans haven’t lost their common sense about this. I predict the right wing response will come home to roost on the heads of the Republicans come November. They will have earned the wrath of the American people at the polls. Gordon L. Bovey Spokane

U.S. AND THE WORLD

Cave in, sell out, be safe, you say?

Re: John A. Clark’s letter, “Here’s how to stop embassy attacks,” Aug. 18.

Yes, Clark, all our problems with terrorism stemming from the Middle East will be solved if we just capitulate to all terrorist demands, be they explicit or implied.

One wonders why we invest in the state of Israel at all when democratic governments are a dime a dozen in the Middle East.

You’re right, terrorism can’t be stopped by punishing the guilty individuals or by censure of their sponsoring nations. What we really need to do is hand out some more weapons to nations like Iran and Iraq, and a few strategically awarded Nobel peace prizes couldn’t hurt, either (a la Yasser Arafat).

We should in no way allow the fact that for decades Israel has been our best ally in that region of the world dissuade us from this course of action. And as soon as the great equivocator, Bill Clinton, is through defending his lifestyle choice, he’ll get right on it. Michael R. Spencer Spokane

Attacks were U.S. state terrorism

Dec. 7, 1941, was truly named “a day that will live in infamy.” While the victors continue to write the history, we can be sure it will remain so. Can we be so sure that Aug. 20, 1998, will never be characterized in such a fashion?

One can be reasonably certain that the Japanese responsible for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor believed they were morally justified. Is it really certain that our surprise attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan were justified? Surely, their morality and even their necessity will be questioned by all thinking people. The attacks inevitably smack of cowardly state terrorism, however characterized as necessary to protect American lives. In punishing wrongdoers, we punish innocent people as well.

One could wish that, at the least, the attacks had been ordered by a president whose background included an honorable military service and a reputation for personal honor. Clinton’s career instead invites the suggestion that his every act is motivated by a narrow self-interest. Don M Barnes Spokane

Border guards courteous

Recent letters you have received identified the lack of interest by U.S. citizens to travel to Canada due to rude handling by the border guards.

We have traveled to Canada several times each year for many years, using various border crossings. At no time were we treated with anything but courtesy. We have found the Canadians delightful people and enjoy our trips to Canada. Alice E. Penna Spokane

GAMBLING

First, let state give up lottery

Re: Jamie Tobias Tobias Neely’s editorial, “City, state need to help gamblers” (Aug. 16).

Neely is precisely right - gamblers need help. But her suggestion of taxing casino revenues as a method of funding treatment for compulsive gambling is idealistic in the extreme and typical of one who looks to governments for solutions.

If one expects the government to initiate remedial measures, the obvious place to begin is to abolish state sanctioned and operated lotteries. Lotteries have done immeasurable damage to the progress of the U. S. by diverting people’s attention from the work ethic, which made our nation great, to the vagaries of luck, fortune, and chance.

Why is such a debilitating practice sanctioned by states and governments? The answer is obvious. Because it gives politicians access to vast amounts of money for which they are not accountable to their constituents. To look to additional sources of revenue, by way of taxes, as a solution to compulsive gambling is supreme naivete. Gene K. Ealy Coeur d’Alene