Letters to the Editor

To the editor,

In regards to concerns about sexually explicit books being available to young children at the public library-

The best problem-solving methods involve having clarity and clarification of the problem. I have spoken with those concerned about some books on display and available to young children at the library. Some misinformation has been presented about them. Those with concerns about the books and protecting the innocence of kids are not about banning books, they are not anti-library or anti- librarian or even anti-book. They are not anti-sex puritans. They have a specific and localized concern that books that teach things of explicit sexual nature are available and promoted for young children. I recommend learning the actual content of the books in question. There is also misinformation that this is a homophobic or transphobic thing. On the contrary–children of all orientations deserve to have their innocence protected. They do not need to learn how to have sex as young children. Some feel it is the parents' job to know what their kids see at the library–and it is. But kids also go to the library after school etc. and it used to be you could trust the adults there that appropriate material would be in proper places.

Some things we know- child pornography is a giant sick industry, trafficking is a real thing, kids are approached online by predators, recently a Portland preschool teacher was fired for in appropriate feelings toward children. We know kids are precious and vulnerable. A red flag for a child possibly being molested or exploited is exhibiting sexual knowledge advanced for their age. If they learn these things very young it only helps the predators. This seems as if it should be a universally agreed upon position regardless of political leanings. Let kids be kids, let's solve this issue by looking at the actual concerns- which are sexually explicit books available to young children and how to best approach these concerns.

Marchand Hovrud

Boise, Idaho

To The Editor,

In last week's Dayton Chronicle, Seth Murdock's letter of support for the re-election of Commissioner Chuck Amerein took issue with, among other things, a drag queen story time in Ketchikan, Alaska, gender nonconformity, noodle spined citizens, and blue hair (a color he seems to find particularly disturbing, as his letters often make reference to it as a hue most despised). I personally had a hard time making the connection between drag queens and the reelection effort of a county commissioner, but I have an incomplete understanding of the works of Chesterton, so maybe I'm missing something. The main thrust of the letter seems to have been that Commissioner Amerein would defend Columbia County against gender nonconformity (And maybe CPS and jack-booted public health officials). Violently, if necessary, if I'm reading right.

Inspired by Mr. Murdock's snark hunt for any clothing or hairstyles that do not fit into a very narrowly-drawn list, I happened upon an incredibly disturbing photograph of a local elected official. This apparent pervert was wearing a ballgown, a tall curled and powdered beehive wig, and pumps. Not only did he (they???) parade their sexual proclivities with these clothing choices, but he (they???) had applied a thick layer of white base with the rouge and lipstick of a tawdry New Orleans streetwalker. But not content to keep his (their???) sexual paraphilia at home and out of public view, this elected official had the audacity to then ride a tricycle up and down Main Street, in public, with a gathering of other similar perverts, pedophiles, and individuals who may engage in s_xual intercourse with the lights on. There were children-CHILDREN!-in attendance, as well as other potentially vulnerable people who could be seriously harmed by this disgusting display. I immediately picked up the phone to alert Mr. Murdock, and to ask if I could borrow his rope and pitchfork, and maybe also his pearls to clutch.

I am referring, of course, to Commissioner Amerein, who participated in the annual "Drag Race" at All-Wheels Weekend. Along with many other respected and prominent members of our community, he dressed like a fancy caricature of a woman for the amusement of the public, including families with kids. And this leads to my point: what is the difference between Commissioner Amerein riding a trike in a dress, wig, and makeup to entertain people, and someone else reading to children in a dress, wig, and makeup to entertain them? Is it that the reading drag queen dresses and performs for money? Is it that the reading drag queen has a stage-name that may be risqué? Or is there another difference that Mr. Murdock and his friends won't say out loud?

Or is it possible that Mr. Murdock and Commissioner Amerein really have no problem with the All Wheels Weekend Drag Race, because they have no real problem with drag? The timing of this sudden concern for protecting children from the subversion of gender norms, and all the accompanying histrionics, is convenient if it's September of an election year and your candidate lost the primary. In that context, it makes sense that supporters of the commissioner's reelection campaign would be performing the political equivalent to throwing pasta against the wall to see what sticks. Mr. Murdock screaming abuse into the void for several column inches, punctuated by a call to vote for commissioner Amerein is just al dente.

Amy Rosenberg

Dayton, Wash.

To the Editor,

Undersheriff Robbie Patterson has recently been the subject of controversy for including religion in his public speaking while wearing his Sheriff's Department uniform.

While this may be called preaching or proselyting, looking at the Bill of Rights and the first sentence in it, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,".

Preaching or proselyting, when putting on the uniform of a public servant, Mr. Patterson does not lose his 1st amendment right to freely exercise his beliefs. There in fact exists in the military (another uniformed service), a Military Occupation Specialty, 56M Chaplains assistant for enlisted and an Officers Branch, Chaplain, whose sole occupation is exercising religious belief. As with Mr. Patterson's speaking, no one is required to attend or listen to what the Chaplains or their assistants have to say, but their existence and activity is a great comfort to many who put their lives on the line for our freedoms.

I applaud our Sheriff for standing behind his Undersheriff in this matter, and our Prosecuting Attorney for seeing the legality of his actions. I too support Mr. Patterson and thoroughly enjoy listening to him speak. I say this as a citizen, a former service member, and as a public servant myself.

For God and Country,

Charles Amerein

Waitsburg, Wash.