Letters To The Editor

SPOKANE MATTERS

We can’t have `muggings’ at City Hall

Henry Miggins may turn out to be a capable manager but if that proves to be the case, it will be pure luck. The process - or lack- thereof in choosing him was completely unacceptable. In the zeal of four City Council members to impose their views (or their handlers’ views) on the citizens of Spokane, good government got mugged last Monday night. Donald M. Holdaway Spokane

Dumping Fortin makes no sense

Pete Fortin has all the qualities that we desperately need in our city government. After serving the city competently for years, he was asked to fill a position that he did not seek. Since taking the position of city manager, Fortin continued to focus on the city’s business.

City employees resoundingly endorsed Fortin to remain in the position. How many managers can claim such trust and respect from their employees?

And now, months away from retirement, he is forced out ignominiously by persons of lesser character than he. There is no rational reason to replace Fortin at this time so I can only assume some ulterior reason.

When it comes time to vote in our new mayor, I hope Spokane voters will follow the “smart voter initiative” and vote for someone with qualities like Fortin’s.

And Pete, thanks for the good work. Denise M. Robertson Spokane

Now we see how bad decisions were

Where are their authoritative “we know what’s best for you” voices now? Remember them? The business people who all but guaranteed the success of the River Park Square parking garage; the City Council members who gave the Coopers-Lybrand report a cursory glance, rubber-stamped it and called the people “naysayers” if they were against the garage? Remember Betsy Cowles’ constant pressure and Stacey Cowles’ support? Remember this newspaper’s constant editorials exhorting the need and the wonderful things that would happen if we built River Park Square? Build it and they will come, they said.

I can’t blame the business people for trying to make a buck. That’s what capitalism is all about.

I can and do blame the people on our City Council at the time (1997), their paucity of common sense and their insipid arrogance. And isn’t it interesting that only the public-supported part of this project is failing? Is Councilwoman Phyllis Holmes’ cavalier “a promise is a promise” statement regarding using parking meter money to pay the parking garage debt obligation another message to the taxpayers about who she truly represents. And hasn’t Councilwoman Roberta Greene been uncharacteristically quiet on this topic?

Those who were a part of that City Council, and still remain, and supported placing taxpayers’ money at risk, without doing their homework, should be denied the authority to make any future decisions regarding taxpayer money. Would that make them fairly useless on this current City Council? I hope so. We’d all be better off. David Bray Spokane

BELIEFS

Symbol older than Christianity

I read with amusement and disgust Michae’l Alegria’s rant (guest column, Feb. 6) about co-opting of the fish symbol . She seems to regard it as solely owned by Christians and objects to it being used with any other meaning than what her group attributes to it. I’d expect a member of The Spokesman-Review’s board of contributors to do her homework.

First, that symbol predates Jesus, so the one who rants against its co-option herself belongs to a group that co-opted the symbol. It’s found among the symbols of Semitic peoples who followed the wisdom literature, some of which is in the Old Testament, and with which Jesus was familiar. At that time it was used as a symbol for God, who has many female attributes, and was displayed tail down. The wisdom tradition was held in disrespect by many of the ancient Hebrew scribes, Pharisees and temple priests, who liked to believe God was male and that female organs were the source of uncleanness. How will she explain that to her son?

I am a Christian. I have a fish symbol encompassing Darwin on my car, as does my very devout pastor. I believe in scientific truth, which rests on evidence, and spiritual truth, which rests on faith. I see no conflict. Many mainstream Christians have similar beliefs. God, if there is a God, made us with heads and hearts. I hope my faith is big enough to encompass the truths of evolution. Thomas W. Schmidt Nine Mile Falls

Proprietary symbol problematic

Re: “Fish sign not for Elvises, Bobs or smart alec atheists,” Street Level, Feb. 6.

Michae’l Alegria’s reaction to the Darwin fish emblem is charmingly naive, although I don’t quite buy it. Those things have been around (and evolving, even), for years, and she’s only now noticing? But that’s OK.

What really pleases me is that she was motivated to learn more. Not so motivated that she actually went out and did her own research, but still, she read a card her son brought home from school. That’s a real good start.

If she keeps at it, Alegria will learn that the fish symbol has a long and rich history. The classical Romans used it in their religion, for example. They got it from the Greeks. The early Christians adopted it for their own purposes and changed its meaning somewhat. The modern car emblem usage is yet another variation. What’s up with that? Is it allowed to just take a picture of a fish (or a story about a virgin birth, or a flood) and use it for whatever you want it to mean? It’s been happening for some time, apparently.

Maybe one of the churches could register the fish as a trademark and restrict its use so profane pranksters can’t play around with it. But what if that church said the other denominations couldn’t use the fish either? Would that bother Alegria? Probably not if it was her church that owned the fish. But what if it wasn’t? How would all the various Christian denominations resolve that? Things could get ugly. Dennis L. Bratland Spokane

That fish sign really gets around

On Feb. 6 you published a column by Michae’l Alegria about the use and misuse of the Christian fish symbol by various irreverent heathens that she doesn’t happen to agree with.

Not everyone subscribes to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even among devoutly religious people there is much debate about this issue. Most intelligent Christians believe that God used evolution in the process to create the world. That is why you see “fish” with feet and with Darwin imprinted. It’s not because they are anti-religion.

However, if she is truly concerned about the misuse of the fish, she should look within the Christian business community. Many commercial vehicles can be seen daily with a fish emblazoned on them. People hand out business cards that are “fishy.” A quick look through the Yellow Pages will really enlighten her. You can find listings of everything from a gun dealer (page 497) to pest control (page 713) to colon hydrotherapy (page 288) and a building contractor who shows total ecumenical tolerance (“customers of all faiths welcome” (page 322). They all proudly display the “fish.”

I assume all these business people purport to be Christian and are not merely trading on this symbol to enhance sales, or possibly there is some cynical use to suck in the Christian community?

I will leave it to Alegria to determine what the truth is. She seems to be pretty good at reading minds. Pat O’Leary Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Bill would toughen insurance law

There have been a couple of letters to the editor regarding mandatory motor vehicle insurance (Jeff Berglund, Jan. 29, and John Miller, Feb. 5). Insurance is required, according to state law but there are no teeth in the law, except for a fine.

Relief may be closer than you think, in the form of SB 6777. This bill gives the same penalties for driving without insurance as for driving without a valid operator’s license. In plain words, it requires impounding of a person’s vehicle if state insurance requirement are not met.

I urge everyone to write their senators and representatives, even Gov. Gary Locke, and see if they will assist in getting this bill out of committee. It bothers me that I must pay about 25 percent of my insurance bill to cover irresponsible drivers. Ed Weilep Spokane

So, will first lady con you?

It’s now official. Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared that she is a candidate for the U.S. Senate from the state of New York. She has also declared herself a “New Democrat,” whatever that is.

Let us assume, since we know what the “old Democrats” stand for, that Hillary will declare that she stands for the following: the right of unborn children to life, the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the right of citizens to retain the majority of the fruits of their labor and the right of free speech whether one is a liberal or not. Let us also assume that this so-called new Democrat will oppose same-sex marriage, sexual harassment and rape. Let us also assume that Hillary will support and require that those elected to the highest office of our land will not be of the same caliber as the present occupant of the White House.

If anyone really believes that this woman is a New Democrat,” then you also believe that Al Gore invented the Internet. Bill R. Klein Nine Mile Falls