Letters To The Editor

WORLD TRADE

This sacred cow is diseased

During conversations regarding the present World Trade Organization-World Bank Organization and International Monetary Fund debate, I am often confronted with dogmatic defenses and inflexible notions about capitalism.

Questioning the current structure (neoliberal) and the global proportion of capitalism immediately brands one a communist. However, I submit that the choice is not between capitalism and communism but along a continuum of any economic system with immorality at one end and morality at the other.

A value system that includes compassion demands an examination of any economic scheme in which through deforestation, strip-mining, labor exploitation, privatization and deregulation, currency speculation, and IMF enforced repayments of onerous debt-loads, 225 billionaires have accumulated more money than the two billion poorest people. Only 4 percent of the wealth of those 225 individuals would be enough to eliminate world hunger, provide adequate health care and education for everyone.

Has selfishness harnessed with initiative really achieved the interest of society as a whole? Is this really the best way that we can devise to share the planet’s precious resources?

Its defenders claim the current form of capitalism reflects the reality of nature. All creatures are either predators or prey. This struggle must play itself in the human jungle too. But wolves and cougars don’t keep killing more prey than they can eat. There aren’t 225 wolves with more to eat than two billion deer. Prattling about survival of the fittest insults the animals. What we have now is a system that glorifies, promotes and rewards the worst of human behavior. David Jensen Wenatchee

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Let’s try to elevate the discussion

James Barnett (Letters, April 13) expressed the disgust that he and other “real Americans” feel for the bleeding heart liberals. I wonder if he would oblige us with his definition of “real” Americans and if this disgust is for all liberals or only the bleeding-heart type.

Surely, Barnett doesn’t believe that affiliation with one particular party or group somehow bestows infallibility on the joiner. Isn’t it just possible that some liberal ideas might actually be superior to those he espouses? I’ve always thought America’s strength lies in its diversity.

Barnett rehashed the gist of the impeachment trial, which, if memory serves me, the president (no, make that the American people ) won. He then accused the president of selling technology to the Chinese. Never mind that Republican presidents and Congress have been doing the same since the early 1980s. Where was the outrage and disgust then?

I’ve been saddened over the past decade at the tone of many of the letters published in The Spokesman-Review. They tend to be long on invective and short on logic and fact. They often accuse public officials of serious crimes, largely unsubstantiated, and are peppered with adjectives such as liar, adulterer and felon. The hate in some letters is clearly palpable. Rarely do they attack the actual programs or ideas they must find so offensive.

I implore all letter writers to stop the ugly name-calling and to direct their vitriol at the ideas and not the person. It will lend much more credence to your argument. Donald N. Fitzgerald Spokane

Republicans wrong on oil policy

Republican leadership has reached a new level of hypocrisy and demonstrated a weak understanding of gas prices and effective solutions. Hypocritically blaming Clinton for high gas prices, most Republicans voted against fuel efficiency standards, which are very effective at controlling gas prices long-term and have much public support.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, blamed high gas prices on OPEC and not allowing oil drilling on ecologically sensitive areas.

The root problem is not OPEC or environmentalists. It’s the wasteful depletion of U.S. oil fields that results in OPEC controlling U.S. prices. The U.S. imports 56 percent of its oil. This will be a startling 65 percent in 15 years. Murkowski unwisely suggests drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other sensitive environments. However, he knows such efforts cannot greatly increase domestic supply. More oil is out there, but not much. Each new field has tended to be smaller. It’s a geological fact that we’re running out of oil and that new discoveries will only add a trickle to our economy. This isn’t worth damage to sensitive environments. By misguidedly contributing to concerns about high gas prices, Murkowski and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., have unveiled the corrupting influence of oil companies upon themselves. Adjusted for inflation, today’s prices are nearly identical to 1972’s 36 cents a gallon.

Effective long-term solutions are greater fuel efficiency, alternatives to fossil fuels and lessening our reliance on automobiles. If other countries can do these things, so can the United States. Bryan E. Burke Pullman

Presidents do not `make laws’

Government 101.

There are three branches in the U.S. government: the legislative branch, Congress; the executive branch, president; and the judicial branch, Supreme Court.

Representatives of the House are elected every two years, senators every six, and the president every four years. Supreme Court judges are appointed for life by the president. President Clinton has appointed just two of the nine Supreme Court judges.

Laws are made by Congress. A representative of the House sponsors a bill. A committee studies and/or modifies the bill. Then the bill goes on a waiting list until it reaches the floor of the House for consideration. If the House passes the bill it moves on to the Senate. The Senate studies and/or modifies the bill. Then the bill goes to the Senate floor for consideration. A simple majority will pass the bill. Then the bill goes to a committee which studies the different versions of the House and the Senate bill and tries to iron out those differences. Finally, the bill needs approval again from the House and the Senate.

Then it goes to the president. He can sign the bill into law, veto it or do nothing. A veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and House.

A federal law can be declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch.

Congress consists of 435 representatives (222 Republicans, 211 Democrats, two independents) and 100 senators (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats).

My point is, the president can recommend law but not make it. That is a fact, not an opinion. Anthony C. Abry Sandpoint

Term limits diehards endanger GOP

Class and group politics creates big, wasteful government. That’s because we all want government benefits, whatever they cost others. Both parties practice it. But Democrats are proud of it. They call it “fairness” and social justice. Some Republicans oppose it on conservative principle, others because their wealthier constituents usually end up paying for it.

New politicians play class politics just like old hands. So I see little point to term limits. In 1994, all Rep. George Nethercutt promised to do was comply with a Washington state law, which the Supreme Court voided the next year.

Like others, Nethercutt then put term limits on hold, though he still supports mandatory limits. True, Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage kept her promise. But she also wanted to pursue political activities closer to her new husband’s interests.

Was Nethercutt’s promise a campaign gimmick? Who knows? Who cares? Real politics is about understandable cause and effect. Now, Nethercutt’s promise is Richard Clear’s gimmick, and it will soon belong to the Democrats. To his credit, Clear says he will step aside after the primary. But Eastern Washington term limits leader Michael Fagan intends to continue his “Keep your promise, George” campaign.

That can only help Democrats win one of the six victories needed to control the House of Representatives. A Democratic House would stall president George W. Bush’s conservative program, or supercharge President Al Gore’s liberal agenda.

Term limits advocates who oppose big, wasteful government should not contribute to that outcome. Robert L. Stokes Spokane

U.S. AND THE WORLD

Pressure Pakistan to reform

I was absolutely horrified to read the article (April 14) about what’s happening to Pakistan’s millions of street children. These impoverished orphans are victimized on several fronts. They are made into sex slaves. They become part of a Mafia beggar industry, where their limbs are broken to create sympathy over their resultant deformities. And, in something that even Stephen King couldn’t imagine, hundreds were boiled into oblivion in a vat of acid. The list goes on, and it involves several million helpless children.

The government of Pakistan is more interested in warmongering that solving the plight of these children. It chooses to spend 70 percent of its meager budget on weapons of destruction and nil for social reform. In short, Pakistan ignores its millions of suffering street children.

Although America cannot be the human rights enforcer of the world, American citizens as individuals can do things to bring about solutions. For example, several million letters should be written to the Washington, D.C., embassy of Pakistan, and to the embassies of the brotherhood of Middle Eastern Countries (including the civilized and pro-American nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey), demanding that in the name of God something must be done to protect these innocent, helpless children. The other peer countries in the Middle East, all of which are deeply religious, may prevail upon Pakistan to do something to stop these horrors.

The only thing more horrific is what these victimized children may grow up to become. You think Saddam Hussein is a monster? Wait until these children become adults! Herman Franck Spokane