Safety Valve: Letters from readers

4 free views left!

Safety Valve: Letters from readers

Friday, January 25, 2013

Armstrong’s good

As a cancer survivor, I appreciate the work Lance Armstrong has done for the cancer community. Lance was wrong in using performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France. (Though whom among us really understands the pressures of the sport, its level of competitiveness or the lack of enforcement among his international competitors?) His work with cancer patients was groundbreaking and provided many survivors with hope and an identity of acceptance. Beating the disease is just the first hurdle for patients. There are plenty of challenges in life as a survivor and no hospital is there to advocate for you once you have “beaten” the disease.

Here is how Lance impacted me personally. One of my closest friends in life was Sandy Beardsley. I was there, along with Sandy’s husband, Dan.

It was obvious that Sandy was in her final days. Lance saw us there and came right over to her. Being a fellow cancer patient he shared very special thoughts with Sandy about his time with cancer as she faced imminent death.

When we came to the finish line Sandy got up out of her wheelchair and walked several final symbolic steps, one for each member of her team. The entire auditorium stopped and shared love!

Please understand that his bike racing is separate from the real work he has done for cancer survivors. And yet, had he not been “successful” in racing, he might never had been able to start the Livestrong Foundation. So if you must, please judge him by his racing, but embrace what he has done to advance survivorship among cancer.

Mary Lowe

Wenatchee

Yes, a great investment

Thank you for your editorial, “Conservation, the great investment” this past Sunday. I couldn’t agree more with your strong support for the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) and join you in urging the 2013 Legislature to fund this critical program.

Many projects being considered for funding this year are right here in our backyard and would serve our community for generations to come, including programs that would preserve the Dryden Water Access and Mid-Columbia shrub-steppe, as well as fund the Methow forest restoration. But those programs risk being unrealized if the Legislature does not fund the WWRP full $90 million being advocated for. And it is not just our local projects in danger. Across the state communities like ours risk losing their park, trail, conservation and farmland preservation projects.

As a sponsor of the Cashmere Riverside Park Project, I cannot stress enough the importance of WWRP and the role it plays in our ability to build our local recreation economy and maintain our quality of life. The Riverside Park Project will provide environmental education, sports and outdoor activities and public service for the Mid-Wenatchee Valley community.

Mark Botello

Director of planning

City of Cashmere

A strong connection?

After listening to President Obama address the nation concerning gun control, I was reminded of an experience I had at the University of Washington in 1963. A group of students enrolled with the Far East Institute asked me to attend their meeting about our American society. They asked many questions about Americans. I answered their questions. There was one question that has bothered me for years. I had no answer.

One student from Sumatra, working toward a master’s degree in education, asked me to explain about our Christian society. The subject moved to Christmas, Dec. 25, and why do we give presents to each other on that day? I answered that Christ came to this world as the prince of peace and love to mankind. We, as a Christian society, must promote peace and goodwill to all mankind.

He then asked me to explain: Why does your Christian society give their children killing toys of war such as toy submachine guns, armored tanks, military clothing, GI Joe war equipment and military helmets on Christmas Day, the day we celebrate the birth of Jesus, the “prince of peace”?

When I went home that weekend, I spoke to my sons, aged 9 and 11 at the time, and asked them to trade in all their toy guns for Tonka trucks and bulldozers. As a poor college student, I asked Janice’s parents to help me with the project. Her dad financed the new Tonka toys, which replaced the toy guns. I never again gave my sons toy guns.

Now our society will debate gun control. Is there a strong connection between our gun control and our behavior control?

Bill Asplund

Wenatchee

All letters must include the author’s signature, address and telephone number. There is a 300-word limit, and all letters are subject to editing.

Only one letter per author will be published each 30 days.

Send letters to The Safety Valve, Box 1511, Wenatchee, WA 98807.

Fax letters to 665-1183, e-mail to Newsroom@wenatcheeworld.com.

» Recommend this story.

» 22 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

mizmaus 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I think the answer is Fear. there are so many today that try to work on peoples fears, like the NRA DOES. This is an example: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/12/26/nr-f8_perilfinal.pdf

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

....or the liberals? Same fear mongering, different perspective.

Chuck 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The manufacture, promotion, and sale of fear is the central platform of any politician these days. Create a "crisis," offer a "solution."

Were it not for fear (real, or far more often manufactured) and the short attention span of the public at large, we wouldn't be electing any of these idiots. Let alone voting them in for multiple terms.

But if they can keep you scared, then you're off balance, out of center, and distracted in life.

Is it not a central tenant of every religion on the planet to "fear not?" Have we not heard that from every master, guru, enlightened one, and holy man that ever came down the pike? (not being blasphemous here, simply making a point)

So why is it then that so many of us live in fear?

Why does the herd in general keep buying into it?

I mean, deep down and on some level we've simply GOT to know better!

And we deserve leaders who understand that we, the people, deserve better than to be caged by manufactured boogey-men and skewed statistics.

You people have a budget to pass. Until then, leave the sideshow issues like gun control well on the back burner and please, get back to work.

davebugg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

And from which liberal, hoplophobic anti-gun website did you happen to find that link? More to the point, what, in that PDF file, is without foundation and why? I would say that the PDF is simply a counter to your cohort's continued non-factual anti-gun fear mongering, anti-gun posturing, and anti-gun pseudo-hysteria.

Of course, given your liberal anti-gun viewpoint, you would view it through a hoplophobic filter. No biggie.

lonedog3 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I think the liberals fear mongering is worse by a ;long shot. There is little if any truth behind it. Who else would exploit children to further their own agendas?

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

They promised us that everything would be rainbows and unicorns when the first "assault weapons" ban was passed but in all the time that it was in effect I did not see a single unicorn. I did see a few rainbows but they are a weather phenomenon. Now they are touting what a success the first ban was but the facts seem to disagree with the claims.

Today, in spite of those facts, they tell us that things will be wonderful again if only we could ban weapons with certain characteristics (pistol grips, bayonet mounts or flash supressors) that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rapid fire functionality of the weapons. Seems to me that eventually they will see the error in those characteristics and will target other characteristics such as any weapon having a trigger, a firing pin or any gun that uses bullets that fly through the air or has a capacity of more than a single bullet.

In other words, once they see that banning weapon A was ineffective they will add weapon B. When the ban on A and B prove to be ineffective they will seek to add weapon C. Once A, B and C are banned and some Looneytune © commits another Sandy Hook atrocity using weapon D, they will ban that too. The progression here should be obvious and the best way to avoid it is to nip it in the bud by showing what a fallacy their "logic" is.

They also seem to cling to another fallacy that we hear time and time again and that is that, Nobody needs a 100 round clip to shoot a deer as if the only sporting purpose of a gun is to hunt with it. They have no concept of what a pain in the patoot it is to go out target shooting and have to reload every 5 minutes. In the reading that I have done on the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers I have yet to read anything where the founding fathers intended the second amendment to protect the citizens right to bear arms for hunting purposes only.

lonedog3 3 months, 3 weeks ago

a total weapons ban is the entire goal. Always has been. Obamas handlers know the threat of armed citizens when they toss out the bill of rights and the constitution. You know what a group of baboons is called?

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

A total weapons ban would be ineffective without some corresponding confiscation provision. There has to be a method with which the estimated 310,000,000 weapons already in the hands of the citizens can be removed from their homes lest one of them should be used in another atrocity.

robbins 3 months, 3 weeks ago

A troop?

Stever 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Or a troupe if, for example, the baboons were traveling about the country cleverly disguised as, and acting as, actors. Oh, wait....

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Congress.

Oh, the irony.

lonedog3 3 months, 3 weeks ago

yes a group of baboons are called a "congress" how ironic!!

robbins 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"Baboons live in groups, called troops, of 30 to 100 individuals; each troop is headed by an adult male." http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/baboon-info.htm

So, basically you guys have now proven you neither know what a group of baboons is called nor what irony really means.

Stever 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Uh, Mr. Robbins sir: The ironing of costumes was performed by my troupe of baboons. Does that count? And how much wood would a baboon chuck if a baboon could chuck wood? Ah, never mind….

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Thank you for correcting that misconception. It was enlightening albeit somewhat snarky.

JimboBear 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Joe, with all due respect, before you make statements of fact based on e-mails you receive you really should check them out for truth and accuracy. If there is something called a "congress" in the animal world, it is a congress of owls. Normally they are called a parliament, but some folks have decided that sounded too British and changed it to a congress of owls. Rest assured though that Mr. Robbins is correct and a group of baboons is a troop. Sorry, but that's the truth of it.

davebugg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

If banning only the murders committed by those using guns (I guess murder by knives, bats, and hammers are in the category of non-lethal murders) is the true agenda, then we need to ban Chicago and Washington DC.

sourtellinme 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes! There is a strong connection, or disconnect, between our gun control and our behavior control. Money and religious morality are what have gotten us here. We have done it to ourselves. From the first days of my life in 1961,my mind viewed tens of thousands acts of violence,from verbal to death. War movies,westerns,detective,cop shows,news,ect. And that was with just limited use of TV with only 4-5 channels to watch. It wasn't until I was 14yrs old in 1975 that I heard "foul language" and saw brief nudity on a sceen. To this day I still can't comprehend why we do everything in our power to protect our kids from dirty words and a naked body, but sit down and share some popcorn with them over a show or movie depicting violence in some way.

iansfolks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Chuck 3 months, 2 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Chuck 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 Murder Victims by Weapon, 2007–2011

Download Excel Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 14,916 14,224 13,752 13,164 12,664 Total firearms: 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,583 Handguns 7,398 6,800 6,501 6,115 6,220 Rifles 453 380 351 367 323 Shotguns 457 442 423 366 356 Other guns 116 81 96 93 97 Firearms, type not stated 1,705 1,825 1,828 1,933 1,587 Knives or cutting instruments 1,817 1,888 1,836 1,732 1,694 Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 647 603 623 549 496 Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 869 875 817 769 728 Poison 10 9 7 11 5 Explosives 1 11 2 4 12 Fire 131 85 98 78 75 Narcotics 52 34 52 45 29 Drowning 12 16 8 10 15 Strangulation 134 89 122 122 85 Asphyxiation 109 87 84 98 89 Other weapons or weapons not stated 1,005 999 904 872 853 1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.

Okay, so copying an excel file doesn't work so well on these forums. No biggie. Here's the URL for "FBI Expanded Homicide Table 8" for an honest look at murder victims by weapon and year in the odd hope that the gun debate may yet become clouded by fact:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Chuck 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Excuse me, but all I did in the above comment that you people removed was agree with iansfolks. I said I liked that quote and that I'd copied it in case it was removed, which I knew it would. (and maybe mentioned that all too often, a lot of things happen to get removed from this site)

So how, exactly, did that violate your terms of service? I used no profanity. Was not bad-mouthing (typing?) WW staff or the status quo around here in any appreciable way, and really was cognizant of your ToS when writing that one. Moreso than usual in fact.

So yes, I think a simple explanation is in order.