Letters To The Editor
ABORTION
Common sense tells you it’s wrong
I have to agree with the June 16 letters of Steve Blewett (“Inconsistencies in law revealing”) and Virginia Johnson (“Not who you kill but when and how?) concerning the article, “Mother charged with shooting own fetus” (News, June 8).
It was her choice, right? But, oh my, the government stepped in and interfered.
No, common sense tells us that what this mother did was wrong. Any other mother who chooses to kill her unborn child is just plain wrong. A pellet in the head or an instrument to suck out the brains - there is no difference.
If you believe the Bible, you know life begins at conception and that fetus is a person.
Wake up, pro-choice women. Where is your common sense?
Wake up, American judicial system. You’re speaking from both sides of your mouth. Linda Pettit Spokane
Christian Right prone to wrongs
Staff Writer D.F. Oliveria’s “When it comes to a life, there is no room for tolerance” (From both sides, June 14), hit it right on the mark but not in the way he thinks.
Those of us who have experience with the so-called Christian Right know: how bigoted they are, their ignorance of certain medical factors relating to pregnancies, their unwillingness to accept new or different ideas, their refusal to accept scientific or archaeological discoveries because these challenge their obsession with “biblical” truth and undermine their own interpretations, made for political reasons, of these truths.
Often, their interpretations of the Bible are wildly at odds with scripture. That certainly includes the antiabortion dogma. In other words, when it comes to the lives of their neighbors, the anti-abortionists certainly prove to be the first in line to show an unwillingness to accept them. That’s the first irony.
The second irony involves the anti-abortionists’ willingness to compare states’ rights (autonomy) with that of the individual by comparing abortion with slavery.
Christian conservatives, prior to the Civil War, supported slavery. States’ rightists also were conservative. Conservatives today still push the states’ rights doctrine, hoping it can supersede individual rights, especially where abortion is concerned.
Liberals supported autonomy (freedom) for the slaves and for women. Liberals have been consistent - conservatives haven’t.
Incidentally, Bob Dole had better rise above the abortion rhetoric to have any chance of being elected. Joan E. Harman Coeur d’Alene
What about overpopulation?
Regarding editorial writer D.F. Oliveria’s criticism of Bob Dole’s “Declaration of tolerance” that ” … sold out the 1.5 million unborn babies aborted annually.”
Where does Oliveria suggest that we place those 1.5 million children after they are born? And next year’s 1.5 million children, and so on?
Is it better to sell out these new human beings after they are born, when there are not adequate resources to meet their needs? Robert C. Speth Pullman
March backward, behind Dole? Never
Bob Dole’s new tolerance for those who hold prochoice views should be recognized for what it is - an empty gesture to win votes.
He has not suggested his views on abortion have changed. We can expect Dole to continue to work to make abortion less accessible and ultimately illegal, should he be elected.
It’s doubtful this strategy will fool anyone. Those who support the right of women to reproductive selfdetermination will recognize this sham for what it is, and hard-line pro-lifers will feel betrayed.
Consider these facts:
Dole has consistently voted anti-choice in his 28 years of public service - 107 out of 113 times. On “Face the Nation,” April 21, Dole stated, “I’m pro-life. My record is consistent, and I’m proud of it.”
If elected president, Dole will veto pro-choice legislation and appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices.
The people of Washington state voted to legalize abortion in 1970, three years before Roe vs. Wade. Since then, reproductive choice has been upheld at every turn. We won’t go back. Cynthia Fine, Eastern Washington field organizer National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Choice must be woman’s to make
Pregnancy is often depicted through television, movies and books as the happiest time in a woman’s life, but not everyone has the euphoric response you see on an EPT commercial.
Granted, terminating a pregnancy may not be the right choice for Virginia Johnson (“Not who you kill but when and how?” Letters, June 16), but that doesn’t mean that it is the wrong choice for everyone else. Abortion is a sensitive issue and not a decision that should be made without thought, deliberation and some sole searching.
No one knows whether an embryo has a soul. Therefore, it is not the place of anyone on this planet to pass judgment. What a woman decides to do with her body when she finds herself in this situation is between herself and God (whatever she perceives him to be).
Johnson has made a decision for herself. Every woman in this country deserves the opportunity to do the same. Julie Williamson Spokane
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Slick politics all Clinton knows
In his column, “Clinton playing budget shell game” (Opinion, June 11), David Broder exposes another of the numerous political scams the Clinton administration has foisted upon the American people.
Although Broder is liberal, he is not a member of the radical, tunnel-vision left like Anthony Lewis or Molly Ivins, among many others. Therefore, when Broder offers a severe, clearly valid criticism of the Clinton budget proposal it is important that the nation take him seriously and realize the significance of what he has to say.
In his summary paragraph, Broder says, “Balancing the budget means making tough choices. Clinton is postponing those choices and - by giving people the sense that the goal can be reached without giving up anything that is important - he is making it that much harder when the crunch comes.”
When is America going to realize that virtually the entire Clinton technique has consisted largely of this kind of sleight of hand?
Apparently, many Americans fail to see what he really is - a clever and dangerous political charlatan whose dominating principle is to achieve re-election regardless of the dishonest methods he may use in his quest.
America deserves better. Bernard E. Bobb Pullman
GOP heart still in the wrong place
The Spokesman-Review quoted Presidential hopeful Bob Dole opposing new tobacco industry regulations. He even suggested that smoking isn’t addictive. Dole went on to say, “To some people, smoking is addictive. To others, they can take it or leave it.”
Excuse me, the same could be said for crack cocaine. If a person doesn’t smoke, he or she will not become addicted or probably even develop a desire to smoke. My father smoked like a train; so does my wife, mother-in-law and many of my associates at work. All admit it would be extraordinarily difficult to quit even if they wanted to.
Want to see panic? Tell a smoker that he or she cannot smoke for an extended period.
Is this another case of the Republican leadership ignoring science and sociology for the sake of big bucks? When will they stop worrying about campaign funds and big business and start being concerned with the people they are representing? Who else will be ignored? Dave Scoville Spokane
Spanky and Our Gang White House
He smoked marijuana, but he didn’t inhale. His administration improperly obtained personnel files on over 400 members of previous administrations but then didn’t really look at the files.
These sound like the excuses you get when you catch your 4-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar. “I wasn’t going to eat any of them, I just wanted to count them.”
Are there any grownups in this administration? Michael Wiman Spokane
THE MEDIA
CBS show hurt African Americans
“The CBS Morning News” recently aired a special pertaining to the public and how it uses government handouts. Unfortunately, the only poor and destitute people depicted were African Americans.
How does a media giant like CBS make such a blunder? CBS has gone on record as apologizing for the way the story turned out but let’s face it, the damage has already been done. Little seeds have already been planted in the head of every person who watched the story unfold.
Public perception of African Americans is very important. When stories like this surface nobody loses but the African Americans who work so hard to beat racial discrimination and racial bias.
It really makes you wonder if the masses really do want change and equality for every ethnic group. This is something you would expect to see on the television show “COPS” or one of those fly-by-night talk shows, but not from a billion-dollar organization.
Where there is money there is power, and where there is power there is control. Simply put, controlling the way in which we get our information and how we get it is up to the big media giants. If they refuse or cannot effectively pick up on the needs of ethnic groups in regard to positive public perception we are all in trouble.
“One of the quickest ways to defeat a perceived potential threat is to control the means of communication” - from “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu. Guy Thomas Spokane
Wetlands issue got short shrift
What a tremendous opportunity lost to journalism. I was sorely disappointed with staff writer John Craig’s coverage in “Stevens County considers tossing out Loon Lake zoning” (June 12). However, it did confirm my decision not to subscribe to a newspaper so shortsighted in its reporting.
This dispute is not just another picky conflict, but begs to be told. It’s the desperate effort of a lake and a community to survive. Any government cannot adequately provide for the people if it does not also adequately provide for the land. The two are intricately linked.
At issue here is not the denial of equal rights of the Kasbars to a lake residential zone, as implied in the article, but the community’s objection to developing an additional portion of the same property that is also wetland.
Even the Department of Ecology acknowledged there are additional wetlands (not donated) on that property which need recognition and consideration.
At what point does all the “insignificant” wetland destruction become synergistically significant? Are there no limits? Are there no impacts?
If the county is sincerely concerned about wetlands and watersheds, why did it rezone a wetland to lake residential and issue a substantial development permit for this wetland to the developer?
These are issues that will not simply resolve themselves, issues that compel every community and county to address them.
It’s unfortunate Craig barely got his feet wet with his coverage and missed a unique opportunity to take a dive and swim - at least to the end of the dock. Jeanie Wagenman, Loon Lake property owner Spokane
‘Destroyed lives’ can be lucrative
Re: “Induced false memories have power to destroy lives” (Roundtable, May 28) by Joanne Jacobs, a columnist for the San Jose Mercury News. I suggest that articles concerning “destroyed lives” should be reviewed with skepticism for three reasons:
These women claim they didn’t know the difference between fiction and reality for a period of years. So how can we now assess their current reality basis?
With the potential of millions of dollars awaiting these women, we can assume they’ll present their cases in the best possible light and omit any data that detracts from their cases?
Insurance carriers always settle these cases. Deborah David will likely receive her expected millions without ever having to undergo a cross-examination on the stand.
In investigating the case of Mary S., another “destroyed lives” story portrayed in Frontline’s “The Search for Satan,” I was able to determine that Mary’s case history prior to therapy was highly indicative of future decompensation. Interestingly, Jacobs presents Deborah David’s childhood as idyllic.
These “destroyed lives” stories are sensational and make for great reading. However, I suggest that they should be prefaced with “The subject of this story has filed a civil suit and we will cover only the plaintiff’s version.”
By the way, I thought your feature on Child Protective Services was the best I’ve read to date. That’s the story that should have been circulated by Knight-Ridder. Lynn Crook, M.Ed. Richland, Wash.
OTHER TOPICS
Illegal immigration a scourge
In response to Tracy Palm’s misguided support of illegal immigration (“Immigration is a positive thing,” Letters, June 11), if illegal immigration is good, as she implies, why is it illegal?
Our country is comprised of three basic elements: the people, the Constitution and the borders. The latter is the line at which the Constitution either does or does not apply. Erosion of the borders by illegal traffic erodes the sovereignty of the country.
Palm’s comparison of the pilgrims with today’s illegal immigrants is faulty because the pilgrim’s overwhelmingly primary consideration was gaining freedom to practice Reformation Christianity.
It’s great that you are concerned for the disadvantaged, Palm, so why don’t you let them “live better off the crumbs” from your large table instead of our large table? (Check the national deficit.)
Better yet, let them eat your meal, and you eat the crumbs. Otherwise you are practicing hypocrisy and false philanthropy.
I am probably at least as generous as you, yet I do not support your view. Your support for those in impoverished countries will go farther if distributed in that country.
Palm’s misguided philosophy will continue the ambiguity of the government’s immigration policies. Wages will be held down, taxes will go up to support the unproductive in this country and this nation’s generous middle class will no longer exist. That’s just like Mexico, the country that so many are trying to leave. Tom Crosby Spokane
Rain forest issue overblown
Re: Rachel Meyer’s June 11 letter (“Rain forests too precious to waste”), I would like to point out that she and many others have been misled on the rain forest issue.
Many groups today warn of eminent disaster if the rain forests disappear. True, it would be a great loss, but life, as far as humans are concerned, would go on.
Consider: 70 percent of all oxygen is actually produced by plankton floating in the ocean; 260 billion tons of the 300 billion tons of food, in the form of simple sugars, is actually produced by marine plants. This is why a lot of the “if we destroy the rain forests, we’ll destroy ourselves” rhetoric is false.
If we destroy the rain forests we will lose much which can never be replaced. But can we ask the people whose lives depend on the farm land yielded by the harvesting of the rain forests to simply stop and starve to death? This is a problem that needs solving.
Let’s just not get carried away with “if the rain forests die, so do we.” Joshua Tucker Spokane