OCCUPY BOISE

Legislators choose a side

Let me see if I understand this. The rich are the richest they have been in decades and the poor are the poorest they have been in that time. The wealthiest among us —the so-called job creators that made millions by shuffling money from one hand to another and placing bets on it — can now spend unlimited amounts of cash to buy elections because money is now speech.

Meanwhile, people all over the country are gathering in the cold of winter to desperately speak out in one of the few ways they feel they can be heard — camping in front of government buildings, etc. And now Idaho’s Legislature is trying to take that one method of speech away from them by banning camping on state property?

It’s obvious whose side the Legislature is on.

DALE FISK, Council

Protesters want to be sure they’ve been heard

I am a retired teacher of 28 years and an active supporter of the Occupy movement from its inception. Many people have asked my husband and me why we are involved with this movement and why we think it is important that the Occupy people be allowed to remain where they are.

The answer is really quite simple — the majority of our elected representatives are not listening to us.

Yes, we can come to the Capitol and testify in front of you concerning a number of bills we favor or oppose, but we feel that too often you don’t hear us or don’t want to hear us. The vast majority of the people in Idaho want financial disclosure, a citizen ethics panel, a ban on texting while driving, the cigarette tax increased, Medicaid restored. We want fairness. We want Rep. Phil Hart to pay his taxes. And the list goes on and on.

Is anyone listening? The Occupy folks are there because we want to be heard every day. It’s easy for you to use your power to attempt to crush a movement, but why aren’t you tackling the more difficult problems Idaho faces?

CAY MARQUART, Boise

Proposal compromises the right to assemble

One of our greatest rights as Americans — the right to assemble, protest and petition — is a right that still comes under fire today. A lot of attention is being directed towards the Occupy Boise movement, and it seems as if a greater amount of attention has been directed their way since the Legislature came back to town.

We may not agree with their cause, nor do many of us know what their cause is. However, they are exercising a right that many Idahoans gave their lives for, so that they may assemble and protest.

This is not Tiananmen Square, this is not the Red Square, this is America, and this is Boise. A place where we have raised our children to believe in the values we share as Americans.

The lawmakers of this state must understand that they work for the people, and that does not preclude those who perhaps disagree with their opinions, but also that small minority who occupy Boise. I encourage all Idahoans to inform their representative to vote no on this bill, and I encourage the Statesman to publish each representative’s vote, for a bill that disgraces American values, and promotes a dictatorship similar to an Arab Spring.

STEVE GRAVES, Meridian

A victory for protesters

Idaho’s House recently voted to oust the Occupy Boise encampment and I’m confident the Senate and governor will soon concur. I recently watched Attenborough’s “Gandhi” with Ben Kingsley. On the march to the sea to make salt, Gandhi says to Martin Sheen’s reporter character: “The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response and we will continue to provoke until they respond or change the law. They are not in control; we are.”

The encampment isn’t about the right to camp. It’s about an economic and political system that favors corporations over people, doesn’t provide for the general welfare, nor allow everyone the pursuit of happiness. Occupy Boise, nonviolently advocating for redress of grievances, have provoked a response. This is a victory for Occupy Boise. The Republicans in the Legislature have proved themselves fools in giving it.

Thanks Phil Hart, Janice McGeachin and Tom Trail for joining Democrats in voting against the bill, but this is Republicans acting on their party’s philosophy voiced by Mitt Romney recently: that wealth inequality and tax policy should only be discussed by plutocrats “in quiet rooms,” certainly not by untouchables outside, publicly, across the street from the Capitol of our one-party state.

GREG STONE, Emmett

It is an odd protest, butit is democracy in action

This conservative has watched the Occupy movement with interest over many months. At first I simply thought that it was an odd way for people to choose to spend their time; I still do, actually. But interesting things have occurred over the past many months.

We all were able to witness aspects of our democracy that are too seldom exercised; the rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly exercised in the “town square.” This is one basis of the First Amendment. Democracy is not always pretty; it is always beautiful when done with the respect of law and fellow citizens demonstrated by Occupy Boise.

We were told Occupy Boise would be a sanitation crisis: didn’t happen. Crime: didn’t happen. Those devious liberal protesters did get my attention.

What I saw was disappointing. Idaho “conservatives” are now seeking to limit First Amendment rights. Those who wish to reclaim our schools from federal government interference with prayer or eliminate Second Amendment restrictions placed on our firearms seem to have failed to see the irony.

I hope to take my children to watch the tents be removed; this is what happens when government abuses its authority. This is not our best day.

DON ROEHLING, Eagle

TEACHERS

Unions’ ascendance hasnot made schools better

Re: “Has Students Come First hurt teacher unions?” Jan. 22.

The sophistry that teachers’ unions promote a better education “for the children” and “our schools” seems to appeal to some. However, if the phrase “lipstick on pig” was ever more germane, it would be regarding this notion as opposed to unions taking money from their members in order that their leadership lives well, they are able to lobby politicians, and they can protect non-performers. The upcoming Idaho Education Association television campaign is an example of union dollars spent on airing self-promoting platitudes intended to appeal to an audience unable or unwilling to see through the “victimized teacher” facade. I believe it is no coincidence that the decline of U.S. academic status has been temporally commensurate with the ascendancy of the unions and the federal Department of Education.

DAVE SHORT, Caldwell

Luna’s business modelhas a fundamental flaw

According to the Statesman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna says we Idaho teachers should be pleased with his new laws. He says that his merit pay and bonuses are “unfreezing” our salaries, giving us earning opportunities we’ve never had before.

Apparently Mr. Luna is unaware that these bonuses would cover less than half of the salary I’ve lost over the past three years due to his budget cuts.

Wait: It gets better. As a music teacher, I will qualify for these bonuses only if my students excel on standardized tests in subjects I don’t even teach. And he calls this merit pay.

And now he wants to let people comment on the latest proposals. Mr. Luna and the Legislature didn’t listen last year when teachers, parents and students commented. I took time off work and away from family to comment. I won’t waste my time this year.

Mr. Luna’s fundamental error is that he thinks people go into teaching for the money.

Running schools like a business will not attract teachers, Mr. Luna. But it will definitely make many of us look elsewhere for better salaries, working conditions and respect.

JACK BROWN, Meridian