BUSH'S DRUG, EDUCATION POSITIONS SHOW DISCONNECT

As Farai Chideya noted in her Aug. 26 column, George W. Bush's actions
vis-a-vis drugs do matter. I'm not talking about the logical conflict
between any alleged cocaine use and his enactment of severe drug laws as a
Texas governor. It's a more basic moral disconnect that bothers me.

Bush claims to be a devout Christian. The moral disconnect I see is this:
Bush's claim of being a faithful Christian versus his endorsing laws of
disproportionate severity, in violation of Christian doctrine.

Early Judaism distinguished itself from the surrounding pagan world by
adopting a simple but profound moral principle: "an eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth," which means that a society may mete out punishments only
on the basis of tangible harms (not to make symbolic statements, and not for
vulgar vengeance), and only in proportion to the degree of harm the
individual lawbreaker actually caused. Christianity says punishments more
severe than this are immoral.

Draconian drug laws like those enacted by Bush violate this fundamental
principle. And the lives of very real people have been ruined as a result
(see www.november.org/wall.html).

It's worse, of course, if Bush has done that for which he wants others
punished so severely. But it's bad either way. Flannery O'Connor's colorful
Southern character Haze Motes offered a fitting response to such religious
hypocrisy: "If you're redeemed, I don't wanna be." Just so, Mr. Bush.

Paul M. Bischke

St. Paul

I don't get it. W. Bush says that if he becomes president he will stop
sending Title I funds to "failing schools." Why is it that Republicans want
to stop funding public education, which they see as not doing well, until it
does better job of educating our children? How backward is that? Exactly how
low should funding for public education go to make sure schools are better
than ever?

I've got an idea. Let's apply the model the Republicans use with defense
spending to education spending. That way when people want to close some
schools, Republicans would fight to keep them funded and keep them open,
even when the school districts don't want to keep them open. Or how about
when a school no longer wanted to buy certain supplies, they would make the
schools buy them anyway? Why don't Republicans fall over each other to see
who can be the best supporter of schools based who can spend the most in the
next budget instead of the least?

Really, long term, what is the best way to ensure our national security?
More spending on education or an open checkbook for the military-industrial
complex?

Douglas Wobbema

Burnsville

Ounce -- even pound -- of prevention I'm really too busy doing the
unnecessary procedures referred to by syndicated columnist Tad Bartimus
("Maybe it's the doctors who are hypochondriacs," Aug. 27) to respond to her
uninformed babbling. Nevertheless, I cannot resist a teachable moment.

All of the dreaded afflictions of our bodies have a beginning -- an
asymptomatic phase. The trick is to discover those life-threatening problems
when they can be effectively treated.

Consider yourself fortunate if your doctor cares enough about your welfare
to advise screening. A doctor in St. Paul recently referred a patient to me
for colonoscopy because, in the course of a routine exam, he observed
unusual pigment in the patient's retina. This sharp diagnostician knew that
type of retinal pigment [can signal] familial polyposis gene defect, a major
cause of colon polyps that can [become] cancer. I located and removed a
totally asymptomatic precancerous tumor. Luckily, the procedure was
accomplished before the patient had a chance to be influenced by the
juvenile whinings of Ms. Bartimus. When we discover an affected family
member, we are also obliged to advise colonoscopic screening of the
patient's first-degree relatives (siblings, parents, children).

I enjoy humorous commentary as much as the next person, but I'm worried that
some of your readers with symptom-free tumors will reject the good advice of
their doctors, and the golden door to successful treatment may slam shut
before the disorder is detected.

Paul B. Dickinson, M.D.

St. Paul

Practicing what they preach St. Paul public schools are proud to embrace
diversity -- racial, cultural, religious and even sexual. However, that
acceptance of differences stops when it comes to the political arena.

At the kickoff rally for St. Paul Public Schools at the Roy Wilkins
Auditorium, Bruce Vento, Paul Wellstone and Jesse Ventura were given
enthusiastic applause and standing ovations. When Norm Coleman was
introduced, and before he had even said one word, a sizable minority of
teachers booed him. I was ashamed at how rudely some of my fellow teachers
treated the mayor. I certainly didn't agree with the political positions of
a number of the speakers, but I would never have considered anything less
than polite applause.

I think new Superintendent Patricia Harvey's intention was to unite everyone
in attendance in a common goal: providing the best education possible for
the students of St. Paul. By booing the mayor, the spirit of unity and
enthusiasm was dampened.

It also bothers me that at gatherings of teachers, the assumption is that
everyone is of a liberal bent and it is OK to put down conservative ideas
and viewpoints. Where is tolerance, or even politeness, of differing ideas
on how to reach a common goal?

At this rally, acceptance of political diversity was nonexistent.

Barb Detlefsen, St. Paul