Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 22, 1994 TAG: 9405240003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
A large number of businesses, including mine on Brambleton Avenue, were devastated with loss of business. In fact, my small business experienced a reduction in sales by about the same amount as the article said the Salem public paid in overtime - $700.
Roanoke City Councilman Delvis "Mac" McCadden did Roanoke a great favor in promoting the need for an ice hockey team in the valley, for that does support local businesses several months of the year.
Conversely, it seems his and others' promotion of the Tour DuPont was misdirected, because all that may have been realized was a one-day increase in food sales and room rentals.
I'm sure many valley businesses were affected. After discussing the situation with numerous Brambleton Avenue business persons, I know thousands of dollars were lost in that area. Next year, we'll all chip in for a free dinner and motel room for McCadden if he'll forgo this one-day ego trip.
DOUG B. ROSIER
ROANOKE
Time to tell all about Foster's death
SERIOUS questions have been raised about the adequacy of the U.S. Park Police investigation of the death of White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster.
Special Counsel Robert Fiske is expected to soon release findings of his own investigation of the death. He has blocked the release of the Park Police and autopsy reports and vetoed a proposed House investigation of this matter. His independence has been questioned by Republican congressmen, who've raised questions about his friendship with Clinton's former counsel, Bernard Nussbaum.
Fiske's report should be accompanied by the release of the complete report of his FBI investigators, the Park Police and autopsy reports, and Foster's telephone logs and appointment diaries.
J. PERKINS ELLIS SR.
ROANOKE
America is safe because it's armed
FREE country? If we don't start looking past the end of our noses, it won't be for long. Every piece of legislation passed now restricts somebody's freedom, using the smoke screen that it means freedom for all.
How many government-issued firearms were used during the Revolutionary War? None, because there was no government. Settlers used squirrel rifles to go after the British.
How many foreign soldiers have invaded the United States since the War of 1812? Wondering about their reluctance to do so? Most of America's homes have firearms. If need be, one of the largest armies in the world could be derived from our private citizens.
This is the safest country in the world. Disarm it, and send our armed forces into the far reaches of the world as was done in World War I and II? Would we still be safe from invasion?
Freedom still has its price. If that price includes the loss of life of a tiny percent of our population to firearms each year, so be it. It's the smallest price for freedom we'll ever pay.
GARY K. SPENCE
CHRISTIANSBURG
Don't give in to brazen demands
AS ONE of those federal retirees who, as columnist Ray L. Garland so aptly put it (May 5 column, ``All-or-nothing crowd deserves nothing''), would be ``happily content with nothing at all,'' let me compliment the Roanoke Times & World-News for being consistently clearheaded in addressing the issue of refunds to federal retirees.
To me, the entire issue borders on the ludicrous; not only that some people would demand a ``refund'' when clearly none is due, but that they would be able to carry it so far. That our elected officials would consider dipping into the treasury to placate them offends me at least as much as the brazenness of the demands.
Even Garland misses the point in the final paragraph of his otherwise excellent column by suggesting ``immediate, 100 percent payment of all monies due those retirees drawing the smallest incomes.'' I contend no money is due. The amount of one's pension has no bearing on the issue.
Please keep hammering away at this fiasco. Perhaps you'll prompt more of us federal retirees and other interested taxpayers to stand up and say no to any such refunds.
GENE GALVIN
ROANOKE
Back-alley abortions must not return
I'VE READ with much interest letters to the editor submitted by anti-choice advocates. It's time for a pro-choice opinion.
A woman, whether she's 14 or 54, will find a way to end an unwanted pregnancy. No amount of self-righteous, religious discourse or government-mandated counseling will sway an emotionally shattered and frightened woman from doing what she feels is the right thing for her and the embryo she carries.
In the interest of women's health and well-being, it's essential to keep abortion safe and legal. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. We mustn't return to the days of back-alley abortions, self-inflicted coat hangers, dangerous chemicals and herbs, and even suicide in the cases of those few who cannot tell their parents. You don't know their reasons, nor do you have the right to know.
SUSAN E. KING
BLACKSBURG
Miller should now concede to North
OLLIE North has emerged with a wide lead in delegates for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. It's time for Jim Miller to endorse North and get behind him now, instead of dragging things out until the June convention and waging a battle that he cannot win.
It's very important to get behind North now. We must concentrate on victory in November, as it will be a hard fight against incumbent Sen. Chuck Robb with all the help he stands to receive from the Clinton administration, the liberal Hollywood financial crowd and the biased news media.
The insider crowd - led by Robb and friends of Sen. John Warner and Miller from the Bush administration, such as Colin Powell - fears an outsider such as North. North calls for term limits and common-sense solutions to our problems instead of the insiders' standard policy of just throwing more of our money at our nation's ills.
BOBBY MAY
HURLEY
When there are children involved
JOYCE A. Arditti is right (May 6 commentary, ``The case for compassionate divorce in Virginia''). There's no greater need for reform than in Virginia's divorce laws, or in those of any other state for that matter, since at least half of all marriages in this country end in divorce.
The basic premise that someone must be at fault is in itself faulty logic. In cases where there are no children at risk, the outcome of hostile litigation isn't so significant since the two parties can simply walk away, never to have to deal with one another again on a personal level. Where divorce involves children, who are presumed to be innocent victims of their parents' squabbling, reform could mean the end of the beginning of a lifetime of resentment that's planted by the actual divorce and nurtured to its final fruition by attorneys, laws and courts.
I've seen both sides, as a court worker in Richmond and as a defendant in divorce court. The system is pitifully broken and needs repairing.
As a starting point, the playing field should be made level for both parties. Adversarial conditions have no place in an environment where children's lives and mental health are at risk. Mothers and fathers have a duty to overlook their desire to seek revenge and think of their children's best interests when desire for alimony, child support and restraining orders strain to the breaking point children's ability to try and not pick sides. The end result is upset children, angry adults and a total breakdown in communication that's vital to raising children, either in an intact home or in separate domiciles.
ROBERT L. STEVENSON
ROANOKE
by CNB