LETTERS: WELFARE PUNISHMENT

To the editor:

I am distressed by the punishing tone of much of the current welfare reform debate in our state. While people on all sides of the debate agree that the ideal is that everyone who is able should work, it seems to me there are some fundamental issues to be resolved before implementing such a standard.

1. How are we going to recognize the vast amounts of work done, especially by women, that is not done in the job framework? Our society depends on women to care for the young, the ill and the elderly in the home, as well as to provide volunteer time in a variety of school and community efforts. This work should be recognized and supported, not punished.

2. How can we insist on jobs for all in a market that specifically desires and creates unemployment? Who's fault is it that our economy "needs" 6 percent unemployment? Doesn't the state have a responsibility to create jobs since the market cannot?

3. If the able have a responsibility to work, do they not have a right to decent jobs that provide a living wage, health care, pension and access to transportation and child care? Doesn't the state have the responsibility to ensure a minimum standard of decency for workers?

I believe in the value of work as much as anyone. I believe it makes people strong and responsible. I also believe that anyone who works has a right to a decent living. Our legislators should keep both of these goals in mind as they try to improve our welfare system.

ELDORA SPIEGELBERG

St. Louis

To the editor:

This letter is in response to the item in Speak Out regarding Notre Dame's musical and the newspaper article on which it focused.

Before I continue, I want to commend Sam Blackwell on his article concerning Notre Dame's musical and all the other articles on area shows he has highlighted so creatively and insightfully. Too often these articles become dubbed "reviews," as if there is someone else who can determine my tastes in appreciating art.

Theater requires such an enormous compilation of resources and talent that it is often not understood by those who have never before participated. In addition to the obvious talents of the performers on stage, theater encompasses the life skills of construction, electrical work, sewing and mending and publicity, among a myriad of other things. Anyone who thinks theater sets are simply cardboard and paint can stop by the university theater shop on any work day to witness the labor occurring. What we as audience members see on the night of the performance is the result of weeks of real-life work by the students and their adult helpers of our communities. Theater produces the culmination of the talents and energy of a wide variety of people.

I have been involved in theatrical productions which were "reviewed" by a number of people. Among those reviewers are Mr. Blackwell and the talented Judith Crowe. Mr. Blackwell and Ms. Crowe have had the daunting task of viewing the dress rehearsals (which, by the way, lack one of the elements of a production: the audience) and overlooking the flubs and foibles of the case and crew to give the community something exciting about which to read concerning that particular production.

Therefore, I must ask the person who disliked Mr. Blackwell's article to please take some of these other factors into consideration. Obviously, I agree that the theatrical production cannot depend on one person, and I am certain Mr. Blackwell did not intend that in his meaning when writing his article.

I was fortunate enough to have helped out with this particular production, and I can say unequivocally that the students of both cast and crew are a wonderful, hard-working bunch of young people. As an alumna of both Notre Dame and Southeast Missouri State University, I can confidently state that I am proud of all the productions with which I have been involved. Certainly all students want to be recognized for a job well done, and they should be. However, let us not fault Mr. Blackwell and others like him who try to share with the community the art of the schools. How many times are individual achievements mentioned in athletic articles? For that matter, how often are the efforts of sports teams "reviewed?" The arts and athletics are just a few of the numerous involvements of our city's young people and can share being highlighted in the media.

So, please, let us not criticize but encourage our newspaper to support our community's artistic endeavors. Let us try to produce and support the arts in Cape Girardeau so that some day in the daily paper there will be a section, maybe even near the sport section, labeled Arts.

KARA CRACRAFT

Cape Girardeau

To the editor:

The people of this country have a right to expect that the elected and appointed officials of our government adhere to the Constitution and their oath to uphold it. The Constitution was drawn up to protect our people from the abuses of government power. Our Congress repeatedly passes laws violating the Constitution. Our Supreme Court is supposed to be a watchdog group to see that Congress adheres to the Constitution.

But since the justices are appointed by the politicians instead of voted in by the people, it's easy to see where their loyalties lie. Sure, we know they are supposed to be nonpartisan, but who is naive enough to believe this anymore? Especially when one reviews some of their recent decisions. One that is glaringly apparent is the decision to ban school prayer. The rationale was that it violated the constitutional clause of separation of church and state.

I have a copy of the Constitution before me as I write this. It does not say, nor even imply,k anything about the separation of church and state. What is does say is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What this means is that Congress cannot dictate to us what religion we can embrace. We are free to join any church we like. But, more importantly, the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means just that. Most any school-age child could tell you what that means. Any other interpretation is distortion or an attempt to change the Constitution. This makes us wonder who benefits by changing it.

Another example of the Constitution not being adhered to is the Second Amendment. It say, in part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." According to the dictionary, the word "infringe" means to disregard, violate or tamper with. How could anything be more explicit? However, we have dozens of laws in this country -- federal, state and city -- that infringe on these rights. I haven't heard about any action by our nonpartisan Supreme Court to strike down these phony laws.

RAY UMBDENSTOCK

Cape Girardeau