Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, June 20, 1995 TAG: 9506210006
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
To support that criticism, I offer additional facts that reflect the administration's effort to present a distorted view of Japan's alleged ``overly restrictive trade policy'' with respect to automobile and parts sales.
Japan imposes no import tariffs on autos or auto parts imported into Japan. However, the United States has imposed a 2.5 percent tariff on all imported passenger cars, a 25 percent tariff on imported trucks, and a tariff of up to 7 percent on auto parts.
The Big Three's sales of large cars in Japan are part of an import-market segment of 28 percent, which is larger than the total Japanese market share in the overall U.S. market.
The Big Three haven't been able to market and sell large volumes of cars to Japanese consumers - they drive on the left side of the road in right-hand-drive cars. The Big Three didn't introduce right-hand steering to the Japanese market until 1992. Currently, Chrysler's Jeep Cherokee and the Ford Probe, with right-hand drive and manufactured in the United States, are for sale in Japan. Chrysler has been unable to meet demand for the Cherokee, resulting in six-month waiting periods.
Japanese procurement of U.S.- made parts and materials has grown from $2.49 billion in 1986 to more than $19 billion in 1994.
The reason trade talks have bogged down is because the United States insists that the Japanese guarantee some level of Big Three auto and after-market sales in Japan.
In view of these facts, you can only wonder at the audacity of the administration in attempting to improve the U.S. trade imbalance with such one-sided and consumer-restrictive proposals. If this is an example of the administration's definition of ``free trade,'' and one that was also to be imposed on U.S. industry, our economic system would be in deep trouble. It's akin to a government requirement that in future years Edsels will command 60 percent of the U.S. market and U.S. consumers must purchase accordingly. The Big Three had their way for too long. Foreign competition earned its way here. If the Big Three want an increased market share in Japan, let them earn it without the administration's help, and without the disastrous results their present strategy would bring. Would you want an Edsel in your future?
ROBERT E. HODY SR.
ROANOKE
Guests acted more like vandals
IN RESPONSE to Kathleen Wilson's June 6 Mingling column (``When partying at a gala we still need to act like guests'') concerning the Festival in the Park black-tie gala at the Jefferson Center:
As tenants of the Jefferson Center who work with people from all walks of life, we have never seen such total disregard for property as we encountered the morning after the gala. We have returned to work the day after many social affairs, both big and small, but never to the chaos encountered that morning.
On our way to our office, we came across cigarette butts, water running in the women's restroom, sticky floors, wet carpet and play money in the chandeliers, to name a few of the sights. We were shocked that so-called sophisticates could have left the building in such disarray.
CLARISSA NASH
ROANOKE
Editor's note: The letter was signed by three others.
Anti-gun crowd puts many at risk
AFTER reading the June 7 commentary ``Well-directed criticism has NRA howling,'' by Bob Ray Sanders of Fort Worth, Texas, Star-Telegram, my answer to his question is: I'm a responsible gun-owning, National Rifle Association member!
The reason responsible members aren't being heard is because their views are being completely edited out so that the public hears only what the media want them to hear. I have owned guns for the past 15 years, and as surprising as it may seem, I haven't shot anyone yet. Imagine that! When anti-gun activists can effectively take all guns off the streets, then and only then, will it be effective to take away guns from responsible owners.
Think about it. You're in bed at 2 a.m. with two children in the next room. You wake up to the noise of a burglar in your house. You helped to rid all responsible Americans of their guns. The burglar stole a policeman's gun and shot him, and you might be next. What will you do? I know! Call a responsible anti-gun neighbor. Maybe he or she can sneak up behind the burglar and tongue lash him until he gives up. Right!
EDWARD CONNER
COPPER HILL
Taking God's word over man's
IN RESPONSE to John B. Hodges' June 6 letter to the editor ``A potential person isn't yet a person'':
He's correct in stating that a potential person isn't an actual person, yet that fact is irrelevant to the debate.
Christians who know what the Bible teaches are firm in stating that a fetus is a person from conception. King David recognized that he had moral standing with God from the very moment of conception, a moral standing that can only be attributed to human beings. The Scriptures are clear in their teaching that even the unborn are humans, and they are given full legal protection that doesn't depend on which state of pregnancy the woman is in (Exodus 21:22, 23). The punishment mandated for killing an unborn child is death.
Hodges said that the claim that fertilized human eggs have souls is ``an assumption without evidence.'' In fact, it's the only assumption with evidence. He also claimed that ``religious faith is a subjective choice.'' On the contrary, religious faith (I refer to Christianity, as the word ``religion'' was understood to mean 200 years ago) is the only source of true objectivity. The real question underlying the issue is the one of ultimate authority. On the basis of what God has said, we believe that God is the ultimate authority. Hodges believes man is the ultimate authority.
The question is: ``Who will we believe?'' We can believe God if he causes us to believe in him. It isn't a subjective choice. It's a faith that is seen as foolish by the unbelieving.
NOAH J. TELLING
WILLIS
Don't block progress of biotech
YOUR newspaper ran an article on May 16 (``Biotech industry battling'') about challenges the biotechnology industry faces in moving from lab to marketplace. Specifically mentioned was an effort by Jeremy Rifkin, head of the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation on Economic Trends and a long-time biotech opponent, along with a group of religious leaders to halt the patenting of genetic materials. They claim that such patenting results in ownership of life.
Biotechnology researchers borrow genes from nature and pay back humanity with treatments and cures. Patents confer commercial rights, not ownership. Because biotech medicines are derived from genetic information, biotech patents - the first granted 15 years ago - are awarded on inventions involving this information.
Biotechnology is revolutionary in the field of medicine. It uses natural weapons - infection-fighting proteins found in the body and the processes of life itself - to bolster the human immune system to fight disease. In the past 13 years, more than 60 million people in the United States and other countries have benefited from biotech therapies and vaccines. Millions more who suffer with cancer, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and other intractable diseases are awaiting cures that, with God's help, will someday come from biotech researchers.
We in the industry share religious leaders' reverence for the sanctity of life. This industry halted its own research back in 1975 until the National Institutes of Health produced guidelines for its conduct. All biotechnology research is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
There are ethical considerations raised by the development of biotechnology. For example, we need to address the issue of genetic privacy to ensure that no one is discriminated against by employers or insurance companies on the basis of genetic inheritance. Social implications and oversight of genetic research also need to be discussed. But we don't believe that Rifkin's latest misguided assault on biotechnology should halt progress - progress that follows the admonition of every major religion to help the sick and afflicted.
CARL P. FELDBAUM
President, Biotechnology Industry Organization
WASHINGTON, D.C.
by CNB