Column spews conservative baloney

Political columnist Angie Vogt’s latest spattering of conservative nattering begs for a response (“Democrats’ lawsuit over GOP tag threatens military vote,” Sept. 27).

With great umbrage, she opens by lamenting (presumably for us, the readers) her postponement of “Econ 201,” due to her obvious need to slam the Democratic Party’s lawsuit against the Dino Rossi campaign. In a move reminiscent of John McCain’s “all hands on deck” sprint to Washington, D.C., to watch lawmakers work on a bailout bill, Ms. Vogt graciously suspends her pedantic ramblings for one week to point out, of all things, that when it comes to unsubstantiated rhetoric, the Republicans have no peer.

She derides the (intellectually honest) idea that a candidate list his actual party affiliation next to his/her name on the ballot, instead of the party’s nickname, because…here comes the leap in logic…doing so is anti-military. Haven’t we, as Americans, heard enough of this baloney?

Does Ms. Vogt really intend to persuade the reader by relying on President Bush’s tired old strategy of pitting “troop supporters” vs. “unpatriotic Democrats?” The idea, itself, is an insult to our men and women in uniform. She contends, overtly, that foisting on the public an accurate ballot would (no proof given) disenfranchise 1,600 troops, who “largely favor Republicans.” Is she serious?! Does Ms. Vogt really believe that our troops are chomping at the bit to vote into office a local scion in support of an eighth year in Iraq?

Perhaps a better assumption would be to produce an accurate ballot (regardless of cost) so that our troops might be certain to avoid the box next to Mr. Rossi’s name. Give them some credit, please.

Mike Malaier

Federal Way

Taser article raises some questions

After reading your article on the case of Rickey Beaver vs. the Federal Way Police Department (“Weapon of mass discussion,” Sept. 24), I found myself wondering about the author’s motivation.

Does reporter Joshua Lynch really care about the necessity of exploring Taser-use standards for the officer on the street, or is he motivated by the popular approach by focusing upon anything which may appear to be — and I use the term loosely — “police brutality?”

It is easy to “get the herd running” (i.e., get the community upset/outraged) when the emotional approach is used. Generally speaking, nobody likes to hear about any individual or group of people, perhaps most especially minorities, being victimized in any way by any authority. Lynch’s article certainly takes that one-sided “minority as victim” approach without really thinking through the other implications.

Although I live in Oregon, I remember this case and it did impress me favorably for the officer for several simple reasons. Here was an officer —Officer Doug Laird — who stepped in to protect a citizen’s home and safety against a physically threatening, verbally abusive perpetrator. Officer Laird actually used lesser force than was so obviously indicated, which resulted in the perpetrator — who already had a long list of violations and offenses with a violent history — being stopped in his tracks and subdued without the loss of anyone’s life. The officer could have used his gun, and this level of force, which was indicated and justified considering the level of aggression displayed by the perpetrator, may well have resulted in Beaver’s death. Officer Laird showed intelligence and excellent strategy in deploying his Taser rather than his handgun. He did Beaver a favor.

While my politics are considered fairly liberal, I find I appreciate more and more our police officers who are able to step into an out-of-control situation and establish safety, as in this case, with a drug-altered violent criminal with a history that would make one uncomfortable to have one’s family in his presence.

I admire the way officers like Laird maintain an integrity in their profession. It is appalling that this article is slanted in favor of criminal’s “rights,” when Lynch is composing this article from the cool, serene safety of his desk. He has no real idea what Laird’s decision involved. He has no concept of what would have resulted had Laird made a different choice. He cannot know all the details of this case.

It doesn’t make spectacular journalism, but it would be refreshing to read some praise for an officer like Laird rather than yet another attempt to tear down an officer who puts his own life on the line to protect citizens, thereby jumping on the bandwagon of so many journalists who understand that this sort of article is a more popular “read” for the public, who often relish anything critical of this helping profession. Someday that could be you or your own family who depends upon an officer with the skills and excellence of Officer Laird.

I would suggest that Lynch therefore not get in over his head and try to sway public opinion against a Federal Way police officer. He is no lawyer. He hasn’t been invited to be on the jury. In fact, for the purposes of his own article, his name, “Lynch,” says it all.

Barbara Scheirman

Coos Bay, Oregon

The case with marijuana

My family has lost four people to alcoholism, and though long-term side effects of marijuana are unknown, no one has died from marijuana use alone and our current solution of punishing the afflicted is helping no one.

I also think it’s important to stress what legalization of marijuana is not: It is not a green light for the drug dealers, but rather a way to put them out of business.

Susan Manegold

Federal Way

A little something about God

Dear Karen Backman,

Thank you for sharing your wishes from God (letters to the editor, Sept. 20). They are wonderful ones. I think many of us can relate to them. I certainly can.

I’ve wondered over those questions and others: How can there be war and poverty and babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome or addicted to crack or just plain be unwanted?

How can hurricanes destroy homes and towns? How can veterans who fought our country’s wars and people with disabilities be living on the streets or in horrible conditions?

I don’t know if there’s a simple answer to any of these questions.

The answer that keeps me going is that God does love all people. He/She (however you prefer to think of God) provides enough food, land, water for all of us. He/She just asks that we spread it around!

The problem comes with people. People can be greedy or uncaring, not willing to take only their share of the resources.

So God sent a messiah that some people thought would be a warrior kind of guy who’d bash the people who’d been holding them down for generations. But that’s not the kind of guy that Jesus is.

Jesus brought a message of loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek when someone strikes you and telling you that if you have two coats, give one away. He blessed the poor and the peacemakers. He said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” — not “go punch Caesar in the nose”

So those of us who believe should be following the way of peace and justice and spreading that word of God.

We should be sharing what we have and yes, even paying our taxes so that we all can benefit from health care, police services, libraries, safe streets, etc.

And when there is a natural disaster or a man-made one, we are to join together to take care of the people who are displaced — with our taxes, our donations and with our own hands.

And we should be encouraging our government to find peaceful methods of solving problems — not creating wars!

I’m not sure that I have answered your questions. My hope in writing this is that this will give you something to think about as you go about your day. And maybe others will read it and know that God gives us what we need, and it’s up to us to make sure it gets to everyone.

Let’s do our parts, and I will borrow columnist Walter Backstrom’s line: “No excuses”

Gerry Jones

Federal Way