Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 18, 1994 TAG: 9409210040
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
I know because I'm a bona fide intellectual (a college teacher) working among other bona fide intellectuals, and talk shows aren't infrequently invoked, mainly in casual conversation, as the perfect measure of our society's intellectual torpidity. As far as his analogy goes, Beagle is in good company.
But whatever might be said about the sensational excesses to which talk shows are prone, there can be little doubt that in a culture as diverse and troubled as ours, they serve a number of indispensable social functions. I offer the following short list to Beagle and friends as ``The Intellectual's Guide to the Modern Television Talk Show.''
Talk shows invite isolated and/or interested people in on rich and dynamic human conversations; offer an intellectually stimulating environment to poor and/or disenfranchised people without access to higher (or other forms of) education; mitigate against violent forms of denial and/or repression that lead to so much human misery in this and other cultures; expose telltale signs and insidious ``logic'' of sexism, racism and countless other forms of bigotry; model tolerance and acceptance of difference; teach conflict resolution; and recognize cultural origins of emotion. And this just scratches the surface of the talk show as cultural phenomenon.
In a society where silence remains ``golden'' for many people, is it any wonder that talk shows, where just about anyone can have a public voice, should become a common object of haughty intellectual disdain and criticism? I welcome the appearance and proliferation of modern TV talk shows, even if they do take attention away from that more familiar and venerable, if less dynamic, form of public discussion - letters to the editor.
THOMAS C. KERR
RADFORD
The truckers' case for a 65 mph limit
IN RESPONSE to Bruce Mahin's Sept. 3 letter to the editor, ``Higher truck speed takes toll'':
I've been driving an 18-wheeler for more than five years. For obtaining the special license needed, I trained for a month at a truck-driving school. That was a defensive-driving curriculum.
In his letter, Mahin gives three examples for lowering the speed limit to 55 mph. Two examples are instances where a truck is exiting off the interstate. Exit ramp speeds are never 65 mph. A 10-mph difference in the main highway's speed limit doesn't help when a driver of any vehicle exceeds the exit ramp speed. Most ramp speeds are 25 to 35 mph, and one can always exit properly if proper judgment is used.
As for the example he used where a truck ``careened'' into the median from the passing lane, inattention to what one is doing will have more to do with losing control than the vehicle speed. I've seen many median accidents in the past five years, even though the speed limit was 55 mph. Also, and very important to this situation, is the possibility that the driver who ``careened'' into the median was forced to in order to avoid another driver's careless actions. When the truck speed limit was 55 mph, I noted several cases of impatient car drivers doing stupid, dangerous stunts to get around my ``slow, in-the-way truck.''
There are incidents, regardless of the speed limit being 55 or 65. It's just that lately (and probably because of record summer traffic) there have been some unfortunate incidents. Another year could go by before another accident happens. Of course, the many automobile accidents don't raise as big a profile as one or two truck accidents.
JOHN SIMPSON
ROANOKE
Labels for North stray from accuracy
YOUR FRONT-PAGE news article on Sept. 2 regarding Oliver North (``Did North lie? The answer isn't black-and-white'') is the first balanced, objective article I've seen your newspaper print about the man.
My impression of your coverage of North during the past two years is as follows:
When he was first mentioned as a potential Senate candidate, your ideological liberal editorialists referred to him as ``convicted felon Oliver North.'' Once these liberals learned that a convicted felon cannot run for the U.S. Senate, he was referred to as ``formerly convicted felon Oliver North, whose conviction was overturned on a technicality.''
However, Americans aren't really as dumb as your editors would like. They don't equate a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that North didn't receive a fair trial with being a mere ``technicality.''
I suggest that you simply refer to him as a ``controversial candidate'' if you're at all interested in reasonably accurate labels.
I suppose that when North is elected to the Senate, exceeding Gov. Allen's victory margin, your newspaper's headline will be something like: ``20 percent of Virginia voters still reject North.''
MAXWELL DYETT
MONETA
Agnosticism is an honorable choice
IF EVERY word of the Bible is literally true, why does it indicate the Earth is only a few thousand years old when overwhelming scientific evidence shows it to be billions of years old, and that humans have existed in one form or another for millions of years?
Are Bible-believers aware that it was written in three languages, by scores of authors over hundreds of years? With the many translations from Hebrew, is it possible the King James' version might have a misquote or two?
From a moral perspective, if the deity is loving and concerned about his ``children,'' why are 14 million allowed to die each year from disease and starvation? Why were 6 million Jews slaughtered when an all-powerful, all-knowing deity could have ended or, at least, mitigated Hitler's holocaust?
If abortion is such a bad thing, why do some 10 percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions? If every union between a human sperm and egg is sacred, why does the deity allow millions of ``unborn children'' to die needlessly?
How was it possible for many of the ancients - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others - to live honorable, productive lives without the benefit of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or prayer in their schools? And how do a few modern atheists do so as well?
If religion is so satisfying and uplifting, why have many of its most prominent advocates been charged with defrauding the public, having sex with choir boys and soliciting prostitutes?
Until these questions are answered, one should consider agnosticism. The exemplary lives of so many honest, intelligent, caring people clearly indicate that religion is not a prerequisite for living honorably.
JOHN N. REYNOLDS
PATRICK SPRINGS
In support of do-less government
I ENJOYED Susan Estrich's Aug. 31 commentary, ``Democracy, and Clinton, are suffering hard times.'' However, it presented a position unsupported by fact. ``Our democracy isn't working well these days'' was her lead-in line. She supports this with some references to Congress' inability to pass social legislation. I think our democracy is working extremely well, and I support that with the same references!
She continues with various statements about ``broad public support'' and the like about bills that don't have ``broad'' support. Obviously, she's a supporter of the position that more government is good, while I believe that less is good.
Estrich points to various reasons for the congressional battle: Clinton's unpopularity, threats to the status quo, the National Rifle Association, etc. These are all red herrings. The battle is about content of the bills. I don't think her belittling senators and congressmen will help, but when all else fails ...
ARTHUR J. LEE
ROANOKE
Warner stands up to hatemongers
I APPLAUD Sen. John Warner for standing firm against those ``angels of hate,'' the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. They're responsible for the nomination last year of Michael Farris for lieutenant governor, and the nomination of the current senatorial nominee, Oliver North.
Mainstream, common-sense Virginians will repudiate their message of hate and social control and put them in their place, which is out of the limelight and into the dark recesses of history.
TIM B. AUSTIN
ROANOKE
by CNB