Letters To The Editor

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

Rocker, Selig both in the wrong

John Rocker has recently been suspended from major league baseball until May 1 for being stupid.

There is no doubt in my mind that Rocker’s racist remarks were way out of line and certainly offended the majority of our society. However, being suspended for three months and fined $20,000 is ridiculous. Other than being stupid and offensive, Rocker did not break any baseball rules.

I am in no way defending what he did. I just think that Commissioner Bud Selig and the Major League Baseball organization had no grounds for suspension. If players such as Robbie Alomar only get suspended for seven games for spitting in an umpire’s face, how can Rocker get so much more for opening his mouth? What rule did Rocker break to earn this suspension? There is no baseball rule that limits what you can and cannot say. Society, of course, has unwritten rules limiting what people say. If baseball players were suspended every time they opened their mouths and something stupid came out, we would have a shortage of eligible players.

Major League Baseball needs to rethink this suspension and save its energy for the players who are abusing drugs - or even worse, their wives! Daniel G. Ingram Pullman

Lying under oath the real rub

Re: Wanda Constantine’s letter of Jan. 25.

The problem most people had with President Clinton was that he lied under oath in a court of law. He was being sued by a woman for sexual harassment. That’s what distinguishes his case from JFK or any other president. No other president stood up in a court of law, placed his hand upon the Bible, swore to tell the truth and then blatantly lied.

I don’t think most Americans felt he should be removed from office for adultery but obstruction of justice, witness tampering and perjury are extremely serious offenses.

The White House spin doctors did research and found that by focusing the media on the sexual aspects, it would distract attention from the fact that the chief law enforcement official in the country lied in court in an effort to deprive some poor woman of her lawful right to sue.

Clinton supporters need to ask themselves, if they were that woman, would they want this man’s perjury exposed? It reminds me of the man who gets stopped for DWI, then blames the cop who caught him.

I do agree with Constantine on the fact that the media is too hung up on sex. Hillary and Chelsea’s personal lives should be left alone - unless they have to testify in court. Ed Weber Spokane

Consider dead horse beaten enough

Re: Kathleen Parker’s column, “Con man with many accomplices” (Opinion, Feb. 2).

Kathleen Parker sounds like just another dyed in the wool, opinionated Republican columnist. I was saddened to read her age-old remarks about President Clinton when I have enjoyed some of her other columns on other issues.

Opening wounds that our country is trying to heal is not only painful but unproductive and negative. I urge Parker to quit being so self-righteous and at least try to move on, like most of us Americans are doing. Beverly Elmore Spokane

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Would Bush make promises stick?

Not too many years ago, recruiting literature promised free medical care for life for us and our spouses if we made a career of military service. At the present time, this promise is being reneged on.

Gov. George W. Bush claims that if he is elected president, he will rebuild our military. Most people nowadays are not so naive as we were in my time and understand that recruiting promises are made to be broken. This I believe is the main reason for the decline in military careerists.

I wonder what will Bush do to return our free medical care and ensure that promises are not broken in the future? Verne K. Smith Elk

Longterm support isn’t OK

As I read the Jan. 30 Spokesman Review, I was startled by the article, “Welfare numbers likely to increase.” What drew my attention was the substantial increase in welfare recipients in several states.

I am not against welfare and government support. However, I do not agree with how the government is handling it.

The text of the article presents many promising and hopeful points, such as, “the unprecedented plunge in America’s welfare rolls has stretched at least 51 months.” However, it then goes on to describe the increase in welfare numbers due to people refusing to seek jobs and courts adopting more liberal rules.

There is undoubtedly a need for welfare in society, yet we continue to let people feast on the system when they are able to work and care for their families themselves. I have seen welfare systems work in other organizations and they are not there to support the people for lengthy periods but only short periods while they find work and become self-sufficient.

Welfare is at a low at this time and it is believed that in the coming months we will see an increase in numbers. With Arkansas numbers climbing 12 percent in six months and New Mexico’s roll increasing due to more liberal court rulings, it is a sure bet that we will see other states follow suit.

This is a trend we cannot allow to continue. Kimberly Campbell Pullman

Democrats ignoring ‘94 guns lesson

The White House, allied with the media and the anti-gun lobby, continues to propagate the myth that Americans want more gun control (“Republicans say gun licensing doesn’t stand chance,” Jan. 29).

If America wants gun control, then why did Washington state’s Initiative 676, a handgun ban, suffer a massive defeat? Why did California’s Proposition 15, another handgun ban, fail? And why did a recent poll show that Americans treasure their right to bear arms as much as they cherish free speech?

Have the Democrats forgotten that their repressive gun measures cost them Congress in the 1994 elections? Tom Foley was voted out of office because of his gun control treachery.

I suspect that ultimately, the Clinton-Gore administration and gun control lobby plan to confiscate all privately owned firearms. But guns have to be located and registered before they can be confiscated. That’s why Clinton wants to license law-abiding handgun owners now. It explains why Clinton is registering all newly purchased firearms, even though it’s a violation of federal law.

Legally owned firearms, dutifully registered by honest citizens, have been confiscated in England, Australia and, as a start, California.

That old saying about shooting yourself in the foot may ring true for Democrats who continue to try and disarm the citizenry. In a 1698 discourse, Andrew Fletcher said, “Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” Curtis E. Stone Colville

Party declaration now required

Be sure to vote at the primary presidential elections on Feb. 29, but be advised there have been some changes made.

You now have a choice of three different-colored ballots: Democrat, Republican and unaffiliated. The voter will have to read and sign an oath and it will be entered in the poll book, to be on record for all time stating your affiliation to the party of your choice. The ballots are different colors, so anyone present in the polling place can ascertain what party you vote for.

It is understood that in the event you refuse to sign the oath, you will be issued a different color of ballot (unaffiliated).

For additional information on this subject, call your county auditor. A.E. Chamberlain Marcus, Wash.

IN THE PAPER

Abortion, defending children huh?

I was impressed with the lofty, purposeful guiding principles that support The Spokesman-Review’s mission statement for 2000. You touched on all the politically correct issues that are your responsibility to report and represent: free press and freedom of expression, helping people to create a better future and find common ground, the responsibilities of individuals and communities, economic vitality, environmental concerns, accountable government, etc. You also claimed to “avoid vilification, personal attacks and talking down to readers.”

Imagine my surprise to read the incongruous opinion related to abortion sandwiched between “freedom, responsibility and opportunity for private individuals” and “We defend the interests of children.”

First of all, we all know that women have the legal right to choose an abortion so, at the very least, your statement is redundant.

Secondly, your editor’s note describes your guiding principles as the values that guide the work of The Spokesman-Review. Abortion is not a value and, therefore, does not belong in your mission statement.

Thirdly, by including the issue of abortion in your mission statement, you have, indeed committed a gross act of vilification. Your statement lowers the importance of a pro-life opinion and can only be interpreted as a maligning position.

Your readers cannot trust that you will not commit specific and/or subtle misrepresentation related to the subject of abortion. Consider the responsibility you have to all your subscribers and, for that matter, to your own profession by adhering to a commitment (value!) of unbiased reporting and representation. Michelle M. Hair Spokane