Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 21, 1995 TAG: 9505200011
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
National Highway System legislation is being considered right now in Washington. The NHS is designed to give states money to improve major arteries the states have designated as important. They can be upgraded to whatever designation the state sees fit. ``Interstate'' designation is not needed to improve roads under NHS.
No additional funds will be coming for interstate highways. They will all be maintained from the same NHS budget allocated to each state. All roads in the Warner-Faircloth compromise plan (I-73/I-74) are already designated as priority roads under NHS. So why the big fuss about interstate designation? All this designation does is threaten the beautiful hills and valleys of Giles and Montgomery counties (and Roanoke and Floyd counties as well) with the specter of future road construction to meet interstate standards. It's ludicrous to designate a corridor as an ``interstate'' and then say it won't be built to ``interstate'' standards. If I were buying real estate along such a corridor, I certainly would think twice!
Highways may be arteries of trade and travel between centers of population and business, but the people, villages and open spaces they run over and cut up should be considered equally valuable. Interstate designation would mean that the quaint town of Narrows would be virtually eliminated, and Pembroke would bcome a complex of asphalt. Most of their businesses and way of life would be changed forever. So much for rural communities, the backbone of American culture.
Let's push to improve sections of road that need improving and upgrading, and do that carefully. Timely maintenance of other sections would keep traffic moving. NHS will allow this; interstate designation won't.
This is an era of financial cutbacks. There's no money to build unnecessary roadways. Interstate designations will put a cloud of uncertainty over entire communities for years, and maybe decades. Politicians shouldn't compromise our region.
MARGARET A. ROSTON BLACKSBURG
Stacking the decks against winning
THIS CONCEPT of America having ``lost'' the war in Vietnam has run for 20 years now, and I've yet to hear any of the so-called experts give a simple explanation as to why.
Take the city of Roanoke and draw an imaginary line that bisects the city, north from south. Now, imagine that on the north side of the line, a gang of criminals is operating and crossing into the south side as they are able. Gang members can come to the south side as they please, but the police can not pursue them back over the imaginary line to the north. Police can only fly over the north side. They are prohibited from putting people on the ground north of the imaginary line.
I spent 26 months in South Vietnam as a member of the First Marine Division. We were prohibited by international law and the Congress of the United States from crossing the imaginary line that separated North and South Vietnam. I've yet to hear an expert explain to the people of this nation how to win a war when one of the participants is prevented from engaging the enemy on his home ground.
Had those been the ground rules in the War between the States, Virginians would now be learning from their history books that Jefferson Davis was the father of our 134-year-old Confederate States of America.
GEORGE W. KANTAK HOT SPRINGS
Is the government really `ours'?
IT IS ironic that Bill Clinton, an ideological descendant of Richard Nixon, should speak out against right-wingers. Is it possible to excuse his remarks at Michigan State University? He assures us that government isn't a conspiracy to take our freedoms away, in spite of Jefferson's dictum that government is best that governs least. Is Jeffersonian democracy an outdated notion?
Clinton tells us that you cannot love your country and hate your government, but to what degree is it ours? If the founding fathers had foreseen the industrial revolution, perhaps we wouldn't be subject to the corporate state that puts profits before the welfare of the people.
Who brought about this state of affairs? Who are our leaders trying to please? Is it the citizen in the voting booth or the director in the corporate board room? Nevertheless, we're optimistic, and we vote, hoping that some day our desire for freedom and opportunity will somehow manifest itself in the actions of our elected officials. We hope for a day when overzealous federal law-enforcement officials are held accountable for crimes ranging from theft to murder. And a day when our president understands that we're one people, and if we are to live in peace, we should be subject to the same laws.
MICHAEL BARBER ROANOKE
Lawbreakers are all around us
WHERE ARE we headed? As a country, it appears we're in for more violence and heartbreak. Somewhere along the way, mankind has slowly returned to an attitude of not caring. Not everyone has been lost in the haze of confusion that hangs thicker and thicker over society. When disasters strike, those who still care make themselves known by contributing time, effort and money to help the victims.
But there's still that gray pall that hangs in the air. The feeling is that laws are being broken or at least bent until there's very little effectiveness in the justice system. Many indications show we're on the brink of anarchy.
Look around you. Is everyone driving the speed limit? Do people yield to others in a courteous manner? Are roads clean and beautiful, with no trash scattered about? How severely are criminals punished? Do they really lose their societal rights while incarcerated? How many trivial lawsuits are in process today? Who accepts responsibility for their actions? And on and on it goes.
Laws were established to help us live together safely and peaceably, and were based on 10 laws given to men long ago. Society needs to re-evaluate the structure of our laws, and to teach us how to live by them. Until we again obey good, moral laws, we'll continue to go down that broad highway to self-destruction. We must turn back to God's moral laws, for therein lies our hope for a peaceful future.
BERNARD D. STEVENSON WIRTZ
Readers forum gives insight
THANK YOU for the readers-forum feature where readers can comment on various subjects. It provides an insight as to what the public is thinking, instead of just what the media and politicians think.
WILLIAM R. JUDD HUDDLESTON
Militant groups are not protecting rights
IN LIGHT of the Oklahoma City bombing, it's necessary for Americans to re-evaluate the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms.
When our government was formed, our country was a wild land where Americans relied on arms for personal protection and for food. As our country grew, its needs changed. America is no longer a vast wilderness where our citizens need to protect themselves. We no longer need guns to the extent that we did 200 years ago. Guns for sport and hunting are legitimate. However, U.S. citizens should not have access to automatic weapons or explosives - for which the only purpose is to inflict heavy human casualties.
The National Rifle Association has now been linked to the Michigan Militia. The NRA has overstepped the bounds of being rational. The militia is not a group of patriots, but a group of intolerant, hateful and bitter men and women who want to eliminate those who don't think as they do.
Our Constitution's purpose is to keep our government together peacefully. This is not the purpose of the Michigan Militia or similar groups. They preach bearing arms against the very government that has provided our freedoms. Don't get sucked into their rhetoric. They're mostly very organized, heavily armed hate groups.
Remember what happened in Oklahoma City and the anguish on the victims' faces. The militia mentality was not protecting our rights. It produced criminals who have murdered our own citizens. Let's pray this doesn't happen again. Next time it could happen closer to home, and how would we feel if those anguished faces were our own?
KATE M. POIRIER GALAX
by CNB