Letters for Feb. 4, 2022

Name, image, likeness

As a side to the headline article on Jan. 28 “… NIL deal,” the S-R included, on page 7, “NIL means nil for most NCAA female athletes.” I wonder why that is?

If we look at the Sunday (Jan. 30) sports section, we see half of B1 dedicated to the GU men’s team, including a color image. On B2, there is a compact box score (standard, tiny) of the GU women’s game. On B5, we see two more color images of the GU men; one column (quarter page) dedicated to the men’s box score, stats and stars. The GU women get a tiny black-and-white inset image and a write-up taking up about 20% of the page (the GU men have the other 80%).

Perhaps if the S-R covered the Lady Zags a bit better, the furniture stores and casinos would see fit to use a Lady Zag or two in their commercials. I’d like to see the S-R do more than present the problem of the unequal benefit, genderwise, of NIL. More ink for the Lady Zags, or equal ink for both, would be an appropriate start.

Chris Flanagan

Spokane

Bingle makes questionable choice

Those of you blindly refusing to wear masks or get vaccinated as an affront to your “personal freedom,” your constitutional rights. Are you a constitutional scholar?

Since you profess to be one, you will do well to review the precedent that exists relating to mandatory vaccinations, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts, 1905. Jacobson, a Methodist minister, protested the requirement that he be vaccinated against smallpox or pay a fine. Consider the ruling written by the renowned Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan in support of the state of Massachusetts’ ability to require a vaccination:

“There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good… On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”

He stated the conclusion clearly: “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

Masks protect those around you, as do vaccines. (And you might understand they protect you, if you’d look at any real data.) If you have a beloved grandparent or immune-deficient child you might reflect upon the risk you impose upon them by insisting on your “freedoms.”

Bernard Sheldon

Spokane

COVID-19 skepticism

As a physician assistant working in an urgent care center throughout the COVID-19 epidemic, I do my best to dispel misinformation that puts my patients’ health at risk. Yet there isn’t a day that goes by where I am not confronted by skepticism about effectiveness of vaccines, mask wearing and social distancing in keeping a lid on the pandemic.

Most objections are anecdotal, often the equivalent of, “My uncle smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years and he never got cancer.” I counter with my own example. I am fully vaccinated and boosted, wear PPE in clinic, adhere to social distancing, and wear a mask most of the time when exposed to others. Urgent care is ground zero for COVID-19. The most serious cases go to the ER, but the vast majority of COVID-19 diagnoses during the most contagious period come through urgent care. I’m surrounded by the virus all day long. I have yet to test positive.

Even though I’ve done all the right stuff, there’s still a 30% chance that I will test positive, primarily because of the vast number of mostly unvaccinated people who come through urgent care when they get COVID-19. If that happens, it doesn’t mean that the science is all wrong. It just means that I am less likely to end up on a ventilator.

It’s healthy to be skeptical. But if you want reliable answers about COVID-19, ask trained medical professionals you trust.

Barry E. Linehan

Spokane

Lucky to have Vestal

Columnist Shawn Vestal deserves a profile in courage for exploring the link between Spokane County Prosecutor Larry Haskell’s actions and the rabid, racist rantings of his wife, Lesley Haskell.

The Spokesman-Review, its readers, and the greater Spokane community are lucky to have Mr. Vestal on their side.

William Brock

Pullman

History will not look kindly

Our nation is at a critical juncture, deeply divided.

If things continue as they are, I fear history will not look kindly on this era and the people in positions of power. Historians will have the benefit of the enormous body of evidence that time exposes to judge how we, and our elected leaders, handled these crises.

In the midst of the chaos of current events, it is difficult for the citizenry to discern fact from fiction, truth from lies. But the people living the lies, perpetuating a fictional version of history, know exactly what is true and what is not. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of our senators and representatives will boast about grandma or grandpa serving their country. Rightfully so. But when they come to the very fat part of their history books exposing the lies and untruths told by our leadership, they will ask, “What did grandma/grandpa do?”

Everyone teaches their children not to tell lies and not to cover up the lies of the people around them. What about our leaders? Who will step up and tell the truth? That will take real courage. Truth telling might even cost them an election, BUT it might just earn them a lofty place in history and in the hearts of their descendants.

Bill Yeend

Spokane