Philosophic difference eludes Parker Anderson
So, Justin Green is leaving the Courier. Green's water boy, Parker Anderson, in his March 22 letter says he is sad to see Green's departure because he and Green are the only ones who see the true light.
Anderson says conservatives see everything as black or white, but liberals know things are more complex than that.
Conservatives do tend to see things as black or white when viewing the criminal behavior of our recent president, but the ideological difference between conservatives and liberals is far different. Conservatives tend to look at results while liberals look at intentions. News over the past year provides many examples.
The state implemented bilingual education with the claim it would improve the educational outcome of children with English as a second language. Recent results clearly show these children do far better in English immersion classes than children in bilingual classes: The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 23, 2000.
Inner city black children who use vouchers to escape from their government schools show significant academic improvement compared with similar children who remain in government schools.
Liberals tell us better educational results will require more spending. Analysis of state education expenditures and performance on ACT tests shows no significant correlation between spending and achievement.
With the usual inflated claims our president gave us the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1994. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports no change in homicide or suicide rates attributable to the Brady bill.
Liberal Democrats believe that if it feels good, do it, even if it doesn't work. Perhaps this is why Democrats consistently and vigorously oppose any form of cost/benefit requirement for their programs.
There is our difference, Parker.
William E. Poole
Whole editorial page has wrong take on issues
The Courier's March 22 op-ed page was a rare treat of political hacking. Readers saw chicanery of the Gun Owners of America and John McCain's destruction of the First Amendment.
Congress enacted the current campaign finance regulations in 1976 after the Watergate scandal. Campaign money was the problem then, as it is now. The McCain-Feingold bill closes the loophole of 1976 and eliminates soft money. It's no threat to the First Amendment; congressional ingenuity will open another door. I say enact the bill and watch the scramble!
Someone should flog Erich Pratt of GOA for his apples-and-oranges argument on guns. Guns are designed to hurt, and those who use them are not playing games. Footballs (Pratt's deadly weapon) are sports equipment for play, and those who play the game accept the risks involved. Give it up, Mr. Pratt, it won't fly!
Fasten your seat belts when the Courier's editor takes on gun controllers. He has branded as propaganda a GAO study on background checks for gun purchasers. The results actually favor his position, but his anger over the undercover methods employed has blunted the logic of his argument. Methodology cuts both ways.
As a member of the security team at a national political convention some years ago I witnessed the following: attempted interviews of lone security agents during off-peak activity hours. A reporter wearing a hidden mike engaged an agent in conversation while a cameraman filed the interview at a distance with a telephoto lens. If you misspoke, you were on the evening news.
I feel certain the editor would defend the activity as "just doing our job." Oddly enough, the GAO's is identical. The real question is, who's churning the propaganda?
Robert D. Charlesworth
Joseph, not Ralph was Danilov in 'Enemy'
I just wanted to write a friendly reminder to Courier reporter Sandy Moss. The very first rule that you learn in journalism is to always check your facts. This is in regard to her movie review of "Enemy at the Gates" in the March 23 issue. The superb actor that portrayed the character of Danilov is JOSEPH Fiennes, not Ralph Fiennes! The article twice referred to Joseph using his brother's name. In the future it may be prudent to check names before going to print.
Letter fuddles forest fee fund finance facts
Anne Lavoie's recent letter about the Forest Service's Fee Demonstration Program is wrong in stating that you may not hike, bike or otherwise enjoy our forest without buying a pass.
The forest is ours to visit whenever we wish. The recent lack of money from Congress has necessitated charging a fee to park a motor vehicle in certain heavily-used recreation areas.
Wednesdays are always free everywhere, and the local forest has made passes available to charitable organizations who need them. There is no charge at any time to park a vehicle in other areas, or to hike or bike anywhere in the forest. Of all the money collected, 95 percent remains here, for the Prescott National Forest to use for our benefit. If you have been in our forest lately, you would notice many long overdue repairs and improvements.
Recently some of the Forest Volunteers began to clean up the favorite non-developed camping sites. Yesterday another volunteer and I went to an area that others had tidied up only six weeks ago. I wish you could have helped us pick up the huge amount of gross trash that totally inconsiderate campers had left behind in just this short time. We volunteers can help our forest in many ways, but major renovations, repairs and removal of vandalism require considerable expenditures.
I have been a dedicated fan of the Prescott forest since I first came here more than 40 years ago. To keep it beautiful and a safe place for all of us to enjoy, we need help from everyone who lives here and who uses the forest in so many different ways. Misconceptions about its management are a negative response, not a positive one. Perhaps you could join us in our volunteer efforts.
Lois W. Gordon