Letters To The Editor

LAW AND JUSTICE

Castrate sex offenders

Almost every day when I read my morning paper, I see an announcement about another sex offender living in Spokane.

If the state is going to go on continually releasing these people here, the least it can do is to please castrate them first. Most of them are considered likely to reoffend, so why should the rest of us have to live with that kind of danger? For the sake of our children, do something!

Since it is said that children who are sexually abused often grow up to be abusers, we are creating more and more of this terrible trait.

If you can’t keep them locked up forever, castrate them. Without testosterone to fuel their aggressiveness, they will be less of a danger. Dorothy E. Carter Spokane

Newspaper gives bad impression

The recent criticisms of judges in general, and Spokane County District Court Judges Donna Wilson, Sara Derr and Harold Clarke III in particular, demand some response.

The fault lies not with the court but rather with this newspaper. Since Official Records are collected after the fact, by newspaper employees most often not in the courtroom, they are consistently incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.

When a prosecuting attorney moves the court to accept a reduced charge, most often for a guilty plea to a lesser offense, the judge has little choice but to accept the reduced charge and sentence accordingly. The new tougher DUI laws contemplate this regular practice and allow for enhanced penalties for the conviction.

The cases cited by a recent letter writer were less than 10 percent of the actual caseload for that day. The newspaper should either print all the courts’ business accurately or not at all. Richard B. Kayne attorney at law, Spokane

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Insurors leave health care anemic

There is clear evidence that the American people do not get their money’s worth in health care. We spend twice as much as Japan, where mortality is lower.

The for-profit insurance industry has created a mess by rejecting sick patients. A single payer health plan financed through taxes would be much more efficient and everyone could be covered. Instead of spending 20 percent of our health care dollars on insurance administration, it could be reduced to 4 percent, as in Canada, with savings of $150 billion a year.

In the final analysis, the question is as follows: Should everyone have the benefits of modern health care or should the best health care be limited to the affluent? Most industrialized nations have accepted the first concept and have universal coverage. Wayne S. Limber, M.D. Spokane

Glaucoma dangerous, treatable

In honor of Glaucoma Awareness Month (January), here is some information about a program that may help preserve vision.

Glaucoma 2001 is a public service effort of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. As one of more than 4,100 ophthalmologists nationwide volunteering for Glaucoma 2001, I donate my time to ensure that members of our community who might not otherwise have access to an ophthalmologist receive medical eye care.

Glaucoma is a blinding disease that is often unnoticed because symptoms are painless. Vision loss can occur quickly without treatment and irreparable damage may occur if it’s not treated in a timely fashion.

People who may be at increased risk for the disease are those who have a family history of the disease, are over 40 and/or are of African-American heritage.

To learn about glaucoma risk factors, call Glaucoma 2001’s help line, 1-800-391-E. If a caller is at moderate to high risk, has been without medical eye care for at least two years, is a U.S. citizen or legal resident and doesn’t have a prepaid or government health plan, he or she is referred to a participating ophthalmologist for an exam and treatment for glaucoma, if necessary. Patients who have health insurance are billed accordingly and are responsible for any fee not covered by insurance. For patients without health insurance, the fees for an eye examination and any necessary treatment for glaucoma are waived.

I hope this information will be beneficial to anyone who might be at risk for this debilitating but treatable, disease. Jeffery M. Snow, M.D. Spokane

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

Charming liar but a liar nonetheless

The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton for perjury. He has openly and knowingly lied to his family, lawyer, staff and the American people. Why should anyone of sound mind and reason believe anything he promises?

For example: Where are 100,000 new police officers on the beat he promised in State of the Union speech of just a few years ago? Where is the complete and quick disclosure mentioned in January 1998? Where is the most ethical administration in history promised in 1993? What about the laws he swore to uphold in his oath of public office? What about the promise he gave to Hilary on their wedding day?

Everyone loves a skilled, charming liar because they tell you what you want to hear. But only a fool puts a liar in charge of their finances, safety, future and freedom. Matthew W. Monroe Spokane

Precedents aplenty of presidential lying

I respect parents who feel outrage at the thought that a president would lie under oath and then wonder how they will explain this to their children. Yet, I am wondering where these horrified parents were when another U.S. president secretly traded weapons to Iran (then an enemy of the United States) and diverted the money to fund the terrorist Nicaraguan Contras.

No one questioned that the funding was a serious breach of the law; impeachment proceedings were averted, however, when the president simply couldn’t recall the events.

Granted, Ronald Reagan may have had trouble with his memory because of a medical condition, but did everyone in his administration suffer from Alzheimer’s? Could then-Vice President Bush, a former head of the CIA, have been so naive that he heard no whisper of such an involved and devious plot? That was his testimony under oath, after all.

So, which is harder to explain to your children: lying about embarrassing, consensual sex or lying about breaking the law to fund terrorism? B.E. Cooley Spokane

Constitution is clear

A lie is a lie, no matter what color you paint it. A crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. A public servant is a public servant, whether appointed or elected.

The Constitution is clear. I do not read that there are different levels for impeachment or different levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. I’m sure if our forefathers wanted it to cover only crimes against the state, it would state so in Article II, Section IV. If you read otherwise, I would like to know.

“The president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s very plain they intended our president and vice president and all civil officers be law abiding - in other words, crime-free.

I don’t think our laws have changed. Giving false testimony under oath and obstructing justice are still crimes. I don’t know how many times it has to be repeated before everybody understands. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all public servants are bound by it. Floyd D. Howard Coeur d’Alene

Can’t have trial without witnesses

In watching the leaders of the Senate, other senators and pundits wringing their hands over whether or not to have witnesses, I was struck by most of these 100 senators who seemed to have forgotten their oath of office. There is a line in that oath that is very similar to the one the president takes. That line is “to support and defend the Constitution.”

That doesn’t mean picking and choosing those parts that these gutless senators feel are aligned positively with the recent public opinion poll. It means as it says, “to support and defend the Constitution.”

It also means that a trial must be held in the Senate with each senator acting as a juror. You cannot have a trial without witnesses. It’s obvious that most senators and the White House wouldn’t want witnesses because they’re scared to death what the prosecution might bring forth.

As a diversion to all this, Clinton laid it on thick when he delivered his State of the Union speech, making the people feel good, all in the name of “I’m doing the people’s business, so leave me alone.” His definition of the people’s business is buying your emotions. Mark Duclos Spokane

BUSINESS AND LABOR

Being a scab is wrong

My dad is a Steelworker. I am 14 years old and have learned a lot about jobs in the past three months. Part of this is due to the honesty my parents have had about the strike. I have spent time at the union hall, the picket line, rallies and meetings.

The strike is having an effect on me and other kids. I have found some of my friends have fathers or other family members who are scabs. I call them scabs because no matter what the reason is, that’s all they are - scabs. It’s hard for me to look at my friends and know their families are the ones who are helping keep my dad from getting his job back.

I know I will never cross a picket line because that’s someone else’s life I would be messing with. There are a lot of jobs in the paper these scabs could get. If they did, the strike would be over. The people who have been chosen to be scabs are people who are taking advantage of a bad situation. Miranda A. Wise Hayden, Idaho

Think long term before giving up

Congratulations! To the people crossing the pickets lines and justifying their actions by saying, “We have mouths to feed.” Wake up! What do you think is happening to middle class America? If the middle class is gone, which group will your children be in when they start to work?

Congratulations - I’m sure your children will thank you. Karla A. Clark Coeur d’Alene

THE MEDIA

By what right do they pre-empt soaps?

As I was getting ready for work one recent morning, I turned on the TV like I normally do. However, instead of the show I was looking forward to watching, a man was quoting from the Constitution in his argument about the whole Clinton scandal. And the more I heard him quote the Constitution, the madder I got.

I, as an American citizen, also have constitutional rights. I have the right to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my own home, as well as the right to pursue happiness. I have the right as a TCI Cable customer to watch programs I want to watch. Aren’t my rights being violated? I program my VCR to tape my soaps and talk shows during the day, yet when I play it back at night, I get the Clinton scandal. This force-feeding of these ridiculous events is getting old.

I do not care who the president chooses to be intimate with or if he lied about it. Did it really affect me? No.

I should be able to decide if I want to watch this media circus. Perhaps it should be televised a as pay-per-view event. Those of us who don’t wish to watch wouldn’t have to. Colleen M. Long Spokane

Don’t be biased in stories, their play

Printing the Chicago Tribune’s Michael Tackett’s coverage of the presidential impeachment as a lead front-page news report in the Jan. 10 Spokesman-Review epitomizes your editorial bias. After disclosing a single negative Republican response to the House impeachment process, Tackett proceeds to quote four Democrat senators verbatim complaining about Republicans holding the president accountable for his bizarre behavior with only minor commentary by Congressman Hyde.

The companion article about religious influence on the House vote for impeachment (Bill Broadway, Washington Post) is about as fallacious as you can get. Presbyterians and Methodists are conservative Republicans, those of Catholic and Jewish faith are Democrats and Baptists don’t know what their political position is. I don’t think so.

This kind of reporting parallels the bombarding in both newspapers and television by Democrats bitterly demonizing their Republican colleagues as hate-filled, mean-spirited proponents of disruption of our government. I don’t recall any religious connotations or any Democratic Party concern about constitutional crisis when Richard Nixon was being impeached.

Most of us in the Inland Northwest have The Spokesman-Review as our only source of in-depth news coverage. Television and radio commentaries unfailingly reflect personal bias of individuals, with priority given to the more inflammatory views than rational analysis. Since there is no possibility of another newspaper penetrating this market, I respectfully request that you present both sides of significant public issues and concerns at the same time, so that we can reach prudent conclusions for ourselves. William H. Allison Medical Lake

See where real Y2K story emerges

The same day Doug Clark’s column about the recent Y2K neighborhood meeting appeared in The Spokesman-Review (Jan. 17), a photographer for the Christian Science Monitor showed up at Judy Laddon’s house to cover a national story about Spokane’s leadership in Y2K community awareness.

In November, Laddon was invited to Washington, D.C., to present a proposal for national community mobilization. She met with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, co-chairman of the Congressional Y2K committee, and was then invited to meet with federal Y2K czar John Koskinen. Koskinen expressed grave concern about the lack of preparedness in local governments and small businesses for year 2000 disruptions.

Laddon’s book, “Awakening: The Upside of Y2K,” has sold nearly 10,000 copies in four months. Yesterday, it ranked number 63 in sales on Amazon.com (out of 30,000 books) The entire congressional Y2K committee has requested copies, as have Koskinen and Janet Abrams, executive director of the President’s Council on Y2K Conversions.

As a result of Laddon’s proposal presented to Congress, a national community mobilization plan is being forwarded and Spokane’s own Larry Shook is writing the workbook to be distributed to communities across the nation.

Let’s all read a local story of national significance in the Christian Science Monitor on Jan. 27 and decide who has more credibility. Lucy Forman Gurnea Chewelah, Wash.

Be clear about starting date

I have a millennium “bug” quite unrelated to the Y2K problem. That is, so many people, including the media, insist that the new millennium begins Jan 1 of 2000. For example, in Doug Clark’s column of Jan. 17, he says, “… when the new millennium starts on New Year’s Eve …” Granted, he didn’t say what year but I assume he meant this year.

Sorry, Clark, that would mean this millennium has only 999 years. It takes a full 2000 years for two millennia, which requires the year 2000 to be over before the new one begins.

The new millennium and the 21st century start Jan. 1, 2001. Bryan K Horsager Hope, Idaho