Letters To The Editor
SPOKANE MATTERS
Retro wages here - but not prices
I have a question for Spokane: Why are the wages so low? Especially with the security companies.
In 1988, in Connecticut, I started a security officer job at $6 an hour. This wage was average at the time. Now, they pay anywhere from $8 to $15 per hour.
I recently applied for several security officer positions here in Spokane. Starting wage: $5.50-6 an hour. Does anyone see anything wrong here? Ten years later, the wages here are the same as they were 10 years ago in Connecticut.
I have heard some arguments that it’s cheaper to live here in Spokane. That is not true; in some cases, it’s more expensive. I just can’t figure out how these companies can justify these poverty wages. What happened to inflation?
I have to move back East. One reason is that I can’t afford to live here.
Wake up, Spokane, it’s time to pay real-world wages. Good luck! Jim Nobitz Veradale
The sows shall rise again, annually
While health practitioners are alarmed by the ever-increasing problems of overweight and obesity exhibited by millions of Americans, a celebration of gluttony is held in Riverfront Park. This paean to self-indulgence, Pig Out in the Park, might not be quite so offensive if the name of the event did not bring to mind pigs grunting and snorting at the trough. Isabelle Woods Spokane
THE JUDICIARY
Reierson has gained my respect
I have had dealings with Jim Reierson for a number of years. He is a deputy prosecutor, I am a defense attorney. I respect Reierson and his integrity. I believe he would make an excellent District Court judge.
Apparently, comments have arisen about someone not doing well as a judge until and unless they know which attorneys can be trusted. All of us who have practiced law for any time at all are of the opinions that the great majority of attorneys are worthy of respect and those few who are not quickly reveal themselves by their actions. It’s not rocket science. James E. Barrett Walla Walla
Thanks for fair story on Dunham
My commendations to staff writer Tom Sowa for his fair and impartial reporting in the Spokane County District Court judge race between Harvey Dunham, Harold Clark III and James Reierson.
Many conservatives, like myself, have become leery of The Spokesman-Review’s reporting over the years. As a result, I feared how the paper would treat my candidate, Pro-Tem Judge Harvey Dunham, in recent articles. I sat in on one of the interviews that Sowa did with Dunham and the ensuing article was very reflective of what actually occurred during the interview. It was especially fair considering that Dunham has yet to spend money on political advertising in the paper! Thank you for being fair to Dunham and, I assume, the other candidates. Scott G. Carlon, treasurer Committee to elect Harvey Dunham
DRAWING FIRE
Obnoxious act brought to us by …
Recent letters to The Spokesman-Review have been critical of the paper’s editorial response to the recent City Council brouhaha. Certainly, the person whose behavior resembled one of Richard Butler’s minions deserves no support. But neither does the subject of his artistic effort warrant much sympathy.
I have always contended that people who watch City Council meetings on television need to get a life. Ironically, however, my wife and I found ourselves lingering on this notorious meeting while channel surfing. We had been captured by a speaker striding to the podium and something of his manner caught our attention. So we watched and listened. What we saw was akin to a big city slicker berating the village idiots.
To say this slick Philadelphia attorney was both patronizing and condescending in his manner would be an understatement at best. Simply put, he was obnoxious.
His subsequent remarks regarding tolerance for diversity (treating others as you would have others treat you?) seem totally hypocritical, given his demeanor in front of the council.
Our discovery the next day that he had been invited to speak to the council by Mayor John Talbott only made this latest edition of the City Hall follies even more fascinating. Talbott invited this arrogant act to the council and lost control of what followed. Both his guest and the failure to effectively deal with the malicious oddball in the audience are his responsibility. Spokane should not have a black eye as a result, unless its citizens are foolish enough to re-elect Talbott as mayor. Lance Erie Spokane
Greene’s performance ‘outrageous’
The manner in which Councilwoman Roberta Greene behaved at the Aug. 31 City Council meeting was outrageous and embarrassing to the community of Spokane. Anyone who has no more control over her temper than Greene exhibited has no business or right to be in public service on public television.
I strongly suggest that Greene resign from her office and yield it to someone who has more self-control. Carol A. Ellis Spokane
LAW AND JUSTICE
Defense attorney’s tears a waste
For years I have watched defense attorneys sing the praises of the jury system, as long as they win their cases, regardless of whether justice is administered.
In the Sept. 5 Spokesman-Review, defense attorney Lorraine Parlange is shown breaking down in tears because justice is done in the case of the 72-year-old grandmother, Arctura Warfield, for selling crack cocaine.
How disgusting. She should be ashamed of herself. She probably is crying because she could not come up with a technicality to get her client off. George C. Ragland Veradale
Condemned and rightly so
Re: Jeremy Vargas Sagastegui (News, Sept. 2).
Although I do not condone capital punishment in all murder cases, I am more than pleased to know that such a vile creature as Sagastegui will not be living on my tax dollars. It would be impossible to convince me that, in this case, capital punishment is not necessary.
Good riddance, Sagastegui! Don’t let hell’s gate hit you on the rear on the way in. K.K. Saito Spokane
Constitutional protection wise
Re: the Sept. 3 letter by Dolores Mazurik of Spokane.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The key word in this statement is “respecting.”
In this context it means that the U.S. government is restricted from favoring, promoting or officially recognizing any specific religion in any way “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement means that the U.S. government cannot restrict you from practicing your religion of choice.
The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious choice and practice does not extend to school prayer, Christmas pageants, etc., due to the simple fact that there are people who are not Christians. If we were all Christians, this would be a non-issue. But what about all the Jews, Muslims and atheists, just to name a few? If you want school prayer and Christmas programs for your children, there are plenty of private schools that offer them. In the meantime, how about respecting other people and their beliefs? Erin C. Scott Athol, Idaho
PEOPLE IN SOCIETY
Grifters display poverty of humaneness
If the fake homeless want to make their living by begging on street corners, it’s their business. It harms the genuinely needy, so I am opposed. However, I guess the business that employs them wouldn’t do it if it didn’t pay off.
It does make me angry to see them using dogs to tug at our heartstrings. And today I saw a man with a puppy, holding it in the sun so everyone could see it better. The poor puppy was wriggling and panting and hot, and I didn’t see any water bowl nearby. The puppy was being used only as a prop to try to wring more money from passing drivers. What will their next marketing concept be? Toddlers or babies? Sarah Schoenfeld Spokane
Bigotry hard sell attempt DOA
Edwin Olson’s Sept. 1 letter claimed homosexuality is a “chosen behavior.” This is the case for some individuals. However, evidence (while inconclusive) indicates most homosexual behavior is due to a combination of genetic traits upon which environment or choice has little effect. Also, Olson states, “We consider societal endorsement of homosexual conduct as a moral offense.” Who’s “we”? Many people consider bigotry morally offensive, too. I would rather raise a child in an atmosphere of love and mutual respect than in the one of fear and discrimination that Olson endorses.
Olson infers there are only two types of homosexuals: those “out of the closet and in your face” and those who “struggle discreetly with same-sex attraction and keep themselves under control.” The latter of which are apparently preferable. The latter of which, as teenagers, are three times more likely to commit suicide. The latter of which suffer difficulty in life because they are told their emotions are a dirty little secret to be kept hidden in order to live a “normal” life.
I am a well-educated individual and respected coach. I have a strong work ethic, good family life and wonderful friends - in essence, a valuable member of the community. However if people who preach from an uneducated moral position rather than one of intelligent, rational thought continue to have their way, it will always be legal to fire me, deny me, or evict me from employment or housing that I would otherwise qualify for simply because of who I love. Daniel W. Furrer Spokane
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Murray unjustly proud of wastefulness
I am a military dependent and taxpayer. Over the years I’ve been amazed at the money poured into Fairchild Air Force Base. Originally, I figured it was because of Tom Foley and his clout. But the spending continues, needed or not: new housing, running tracks around the base, a new commissary and exchange, a beautiful and completely renovated base library not more than two years old, new gas station, new dorms, new child care facility. Some of these things were sorely needed, others pure pork barrel. These are the things evident to the casual visitor. I know there are more.
During the same years, I’ve watched with sadness other equally nice facilities being closed and handed over to host cities. Billions were invested in those facilities and few bases seem to escape the scrutiny for base closures. Fairchild has been on the secondary list for years, so why do we continue to pour billions of dollars into it, when Congress may say “close it” tomorrow?
Now Sen. Patty Murray wants us to applaud her efforts to spend another $8.2 million on a new library and education building. We all have to pay for this pork barrel spending from our congressional “leaders.” Wouldn’t it be more to our benefit to put that money into repairing our highways, putting more police officers on the street or pouring money into education, where it’s so badly needed? Where does it end? Carol Dunn Spokane
Ruling unfair to radiation victims
In the same week the U.S. bombed suspected chemical weapons plants overseas, the U.S. government paid the legal defense for corporations charged with covertly, intentionally and experimentally releasing radioactive iodine 131 over our country at Hanford. The millions spent paid off when Judge Alan McDonald ruled only a small percentage of those claiming health impairment will be allowed a jury trial. He said the scientific evidence on radiation is too complex and therefore a jury might reach an erroneous conclusion.
It seems to me that the experiences of the people who lived around Hanford during those decades when radioactivity was being secretly released should be solicited so we can create a better understanding of this complex subject. After all, it won’t go away any time soon. Those whose health has been impaired should be receiving taxpayer money for checkup and treatment, not the lawyers for those who released iodine 131 for years so that they could find out what happens to life when exposed. Robin Gillis Orient, Wash.
IN THE PAPER
Birth picture ‘a slap in the face’
On the morning of Sept. 7, I sat down to begin a leisurely day with The Spokesman-Review and revel in the fact that this day, being my birthday, happened to fall on Labor Day, giving me the bonus gift of a day off to celebrate. But what I saw plastered on the front page of The Spokesman-Review quickly changed my mood. The 7-by-10 photo of the woman giving birth was a slap in the face to all that is and should remain private. I was left sickened by the dramatic public exposure of such a private event.
What are we coming to - the Internet in newsprint? Cindy A. Lawrence Pullman
‘Disgusting to see’ on front page
You have really hit bottom with the photograph you placed on the front page of the Sept. 7 Spokesman-Review. Is this a joke about being “labor” day?
It’s very disgusting to see such a personal experience splashed as if it were front page news. It reminds me of something you’d see on the Enquirer.
I would appreciate to see more important articles of national topics on the front page and leave the more human interest stories in another section. Although, this photo would not qualify to be printed at all. Mary Ann Pittsburg Spokane
Photo ‘inappopriate for young eyes’
My family and I (we have three children, ages 4-11) found the front page picture of the newly born baby in appalling poor taste. Surely, you must have made a mistake!
The image, while providing a wonderful memory for the parents and loved ones of the couple pictured, was completely inappropriate for young eyes and not appreciated by our older ones, either.
The photograph would be far better used in a private, not public, setting. Please, consider your audience and provide pictures more age appropriate. Brent B. Harris Spokane
Readers should have been warned
In opening my newspaper on Sept. 7, I not only was in shock, but also in utter disgust.
Why does a fine paper like The Spokesman-Review feel that the thousands of readers have a need to see a woman with her legs spread for all to see her giving birth? Your paper should have had a notice before opening that viewers might find the front page shocking.
There are millions of other topics that deserve front page coverage instead of this. I’d rather see the want ads. Lois A. Scofield Mead
IN THE PUBLIC EYE
It’s not the economy - or shouldn’t be
In “Dow could hit polls, fates of Clinton and incumbents hinge on Wall Street” (Sept. 1), I saw truth and great tragedy.
The article by Don Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times correctly explained that President Clinton may not be able to weather an economic downturn because he is perceived as a morally weak person. The author suggests public support for the president may only run as deep as how we view ourselves in a positive economy and that the president presides over that.
What Brownstein neglected to let the country know is that the president has nothing to do with the state of the economy and secondly, that Americans should not view a presidency based on that. The Federal Reserve et al fairly well run the state of the economy, dictate what happens and in effect give us the state of the economy. To suggest that Americans approve or reject the president based on the state of the economy is suspect, at least.
Can the economy be the only thing that moves people in this country? We all know that it is very important, but are we so shallow that absolutely nothing else matters? I hope not. Robert Spaulding Post Falls