Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, December 25, 1994 TAG: 9412290020
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G2 EDITION: HOLIDAY
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
As a case in point, it is not reasonable to conclude that more incarceration is the appropriate response to our societal failure regarding rehabilitation. We should be led to question our rehabilitative efforts.
We cannot heal sick minds and spirits in sick environments. My parents were active in prison ministries, and I had enough evidence at a young age through up-close, personal visits to know that very little rehabilitation could occur behind prison walls.
If I had my druthers, inmates would do productive physical work, earn money, take classes and be showered with positive messages. We would certainly eliminate community-sanctioned murder performed by the state.
Then, if you go to prison, you'd earn your own way instead of my paying for it, you'd acquire skills and knowledge that make you an asset rather than a liability, you'd better understand that your life has meaning, you'd return to a society cautiously optimistic about your prospects rather than fearing and hating, and you'd have a little money in your pocket to substantially reduce the temptation of larceny as you work to become an independent member of society. Incarceration should serve to restrict freedom and its associated privileges, not to crush spirits.
We also must take responsibility for the poverty and despair that exist in our society. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that good water, appropriate nutrition and frequent contact with positive external influences make the difference between dead and alive - let alone``high achiever'' and ``miserable parasite.''
Poverty is a real contributor to physical and mental illness. Some are satisfied by considering these people as having ``fallen through the cracks,'' ``left behind by progress,'' or, at worst, mindless and prideless individuals who enjoy their particular lot in life.
The truth is, these people have been left out. No society that is sincere about justice and equality would allow so many of its members to suffer such debilitating pain and sickness. It's not reasonable to think we can sow seeds of despair and not reap what we sow.
RICHARD HAYMAN CHRISTIANSBURG
The state can't have it both ways
WHY IS it that if people owe the federal or state government taxes, they must pay every penny including interest or penalties accrued? When the tide is turned and governments owe you, they try to wheedle out of it. Example: Virginia and the illegal taxes taken for four years from federal retirees, and the fiasco that's now in progress. The state gave federal retirees the take-it-or-leave-it option - take 761/2 cents on the dollar and no interest, or litigate it and retirees probably won't live long enough to collect.
What if federal retirees accept 761/2 cents on the dollar and Virginia agrees to take only 76 1/2 cents out of every dollar? Would we owe the state for taxes over the next four years, with no interest penalty for late payments? I could live with that, and maybe even long enough for both sides to come out even.
DAN DYLEWSKY ROANOKE
Rails are the roads of the future
WITH RECENT crashes, people feel that planes aren't safe. They're actually safer than cars, but not safer than trains. Planes are the fastest for long trips, but trains would provide safer, faster, cheaper service to nearby cities (including Blacksburg) and to huge airports than do commuter planes or highways (including the ``smart'' road).
In order for trains to be practical, there needs to be more frequent service and more track has to be laid, including to the airports. Our future for transportation in high-density populations and for city-to-city travel is with the railroad. Amtrak should add service and Roanoke should fight for passenger service. Smart roads are a very expensive and very temporary fix.
Rails are cheaper in the long run. Money for smart roads should go to smart railroads where technology is practical. Our visionaries need to look further ahead than 10 years. Railroads are the transportation of the future.
BOB PECKMAN ROANOKE
Bitter past is best left behind
THE RECENT withdrawal of the offensive mushroom-cloud stamp by the U.S. Postal Service brought three angry letters to the editor (Dec. 14, ``How can you offend Japan?'' by James A. Hancock Jr.; Dec. 15, ``Rejection of stamp is an insult'' by Edmund C. Arnold; Dec. 17, ``Stamp will serve as a reminder'' by William P. Freeman). Judging from earlier letters about our relations with Japan, lots of people agree with those letter writers. It seems to me their bitterness against present-day Japan is neither justified nor useful.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 88 percent of our present population were either children or not yet born in 1941. I'm sure a similar statistic holds for Japan. Its present government and people aren't responsible for Pearl Harbor and atrocities committed by the Japanese army before and during World War II. If we insist on holding today's Japanese responsible for what happened 50 to 60 years ago, then we had better take a good look at our own history.
Are present-day Americans of European descent willing to take full responsibility for what our forefathers did to the American Indians and African people, brought here under the most horrifying conditions and enslaved for more than 250 years? If we're justified in nurturing hatred for Japan today, then how much more justified are our country's Indian and black populations in feeling the same way about our government and the white population?
Tribal and ethnic conflicts plaguing our world today are the result of hatreds nurtured over long periods of time. Until we put the past behind us, there's no prospect for peace. That doesn't, for a moment, mean that we should forget the past. In a remembered past lies our only hope of not repeating old mistakes. But hanging on to bitter feelings about the past poisons the atmosphere against peaceful cooperation in the present.
Like the three letter-writers, I'm also a World War II veteran, and I lost some of my friends in the conflict. But I now have Japanese friends who mean a great deal to me. It's ridiculous to let the past interfere with these relationships.
E. JACQUES MILLER ROANOKE
We've lost words' honorable history
RINDA Theibert's Dec. 18 letter to the editor (```Handicapped' reference degrading'') makes good points, but furthers a misconception. ``Handicap'' didn't come from any cap-in-hand beggar.
Hand-in-cap (hand-i'-cap) was an old English street game in which the winner was put at a disadvantage in subsequent rounds. Hence, we ``handicap'' horses by giving those who have won more races heavier weight to carry, and we add scoring handicaps in golf and bowling.
To win, in spite of a handicap, is openly recognized for its greater achievement. It's no insult to recognize achievements of a person with disabilites in this light, with honest respect due.
I'm sorry we've lost ``handicapped,'' plus the alliterative ``hire the handicapped'' and the word's honorable history, plus the fact that the term practically erased ``cripple.'' ``Person(s) with disabilities'' is awkward and ungainly in common speech. ``Disabled'' sounds hopeless, without positive aspects.
So we need a good term, but the more important need is that we don't increase handicaps placed upon those with disabilities, whether by thoughtless barriers, heartlessness, misunderstanding, fear, selfishness or pity, all of which are insulting and directly harmful.
JANET FOLDVARY BLACKSBURG
Protect the right of self-defense
RECENTLY, a Richmond jeweler and his staff killed two armed, masked hoods who intended to rob the firm and possibly kill or maim those present (Dec. 9 news story, ``Incident fires up debate'').
Gary Baker, the jeweler, should be commended for properly training his staff in firearms use and in providing weapons for their protection. I'd like to thank him for ridding the Earth of two vermin/predators. The deceased will never again be a threat to law-abiding citizens, including my family and friends.
Any honest law-enforcement official will admit that the police cannot usually protect the public from criminal activity, including life-threatening crime. Law-enforcement officers normally can act only after the fact. Therefore, it's very strange to hear some officials say that private citizens or businesses shouldn't be allowed to take action to protect themselves. Such officials need to do a little self-appraisal and see how many of the following apply to them: two-faced; jealous of their authority; self-serving; overly idealistic/unrealistic; unable to face facts.
In this world of good and evil, the good should always have the right to defend themselves against the evil. This should include the right, if they so choose, to own and properly train in the use of firearms to protect life and property.
LARRY N. JOHNSON INDEPENDENCE
by CNB