Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, September 26, 1995 TAG: 9509270005
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
However, there was a very serious problem at the forum. As your Sept. 20 article reported (``Shooting anger vented''), one speaker was shouted down by the audience as he attempted to finish a statement critical of Taylor. What you haven't reported so far, however, is that after that speaker was shouted down, another member of the audience stood, addressed the entire room, and at least indirectly threatened that if anyone dared to say anything else ``against'' Taylor, they would be hurt physically. This was the clear implication to me and others in the audience, and it had a chilling effect on any further attempts at a free exchange of different points of view.
I was disappointed that the chair of the forum failed to challenge this threat. I'm equally disasppointed in myself for not rising to speak out against an attack on freedom of speech. Constitutional rights were much discussed at the forum, but we can't pick and choose the constitutional rights we'll defend, or defend them only when it suits us.
This isn't meant to be inflammatory to Taylor's family or anyone else concerned with whether the police officers' response was justified. I have questions and concerns that haven't been answered, too. But no one, regardless of his feelings or point of view, has any right to attempt to squelch public discussion by means of intimidation or threats of physical harm.
I hope that, in any future forum held by the Montgomery County Human Relations Council, any similar public threat will be promptly and forthrightly confronted, and the First Amendment rights of citizens to voice their opinions - whether those opinions cater to the majority of people in the room or not - will be vigorously upheld. I don't intend to remain silent if faced with such a situation again. If people can't disagree, even argue, without resorting to intimidation, no one's going to get any answers or any justice.
ALAN RAFLO
BLACKSBURG
America must mind its own business
THE CONFLICT in Sarajevo is really confusing. Our government says it's wrong for the Serbs to be killing civilians. I agree. What I can't understand is why all of a sudden our government carries out air strikes and Tomahawk missile attacks against the Serbs. This kills civilians also. It's wrong for Serbs to kill civilians, but OK for the United States? Does President Clinton think the military are toy soldiers that he and Hillary can play games with (and place in harm's way)?
Tomahawk missiles cost $1.3 million each, so who pays for the 13 already used, plus one F-16? It won't be the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the United Nations footing the bill, but U.S. taxpayers. Plus the United States will be labeled as murderers.
In a declared war, you can understand the loss of life. But no foreign country in the world is worth the loss of one soldier without a declaration of war. I realize the lives of military personnel are expendable in wartime, but not in some foreign country where we don't have any business.
Why does the American government think it's its responsibility to be peacekeeper of the Earth? Let each government settle its own problems. I guess the Clintons are trying to look tough before the election just as former President Bush did. Even Hillary went to China to look tough.
Remember when our government started being the protectors of the world? We went to Korea to stop the flow of communism, and in those three years of war, 50,000 lives were lost.
The Clintons need to worry about our country. In other words, mind your own business!
CARL R. PADGET
SALEM
Straight thinking needed in Congress
NERO played his harp while Rome burned; Congress plays anything but straight thinking while our national debt sinks our ship of state!
They use our tax money for favored friends and to buy votes. They make loopholes in laws to exempt rich friends, and pay ballooned charges for government contracts. They ``borrowed'' from our Social Security Trust Fund and used the money for the General Fund. And nobody knows where it all went!
Now they want to tax our Social Security more! These are earned benefits extracted from our paychecks - pensions.
I suggest they first cut congressmen's pensions who left office because of fraud. And it would only be fair if they cut all their own pensions and automatic pay raises, too. No other people set their own salaries and pensions. In all their big talk about balancing the budget, they say nothing about all this.
Let's return fairness and honesty to our government.
GERTRUDE H. SIGMON
FERRUM
Casting a net to trap the innocent
DO WE not have the constitutional right to be deemed ``innocent until proved guilty''? Why then the Acknowledgment of Parental Responsibility sent out by Roanoke County schools (and others statewide)? Why be required to sign a form for something that good parents would do anyway?
Under the guise of more cooperation from disinterested parents and teens, these school systems have taken under the umbrella of this agreement the caring parents and children who are interested in good behavior at school. Is this not prejudging the Virginia family?
Why send this important form home with innocent kindergarten children? It would have been fair and more cost-efficient to have sent it to known habitual offenders. But then when has our government been fair or cost-efficient?
Why present the APR along with tons of other repetitious forms for unsuspecting parents to sign? Are the schools expecting us to slip up and give them leave to fine us if we fail to control our children according to their standards? There are parents who cannot afford to pay the fine, so, under duress, they sign this agreement.
Sometimes children are graded on whether certain forms are returned to their teacher. Will this be the case with the Acknowledgment of Parental Responsibility form? If so, give our children an A+ for parents who will not be blindly led to slaughter!
BARRY and JO HENRY
VINTON
Branscom is the best qualified
I HAVE noticed the sharp contrast in campaign approaches of the two candidates for commonwealth's attorney of Botetourt County.
Joel Branscom is running on his own merits. He asks for people's vote because he's the best qualified candidate for the job. He points out that he's by far the most experienced in criminal prosecution and that his Botetourt roots provide a strong commitment to the county and its future welfare.
Branscom's opponent, Robert Hagan, isn't running on his own merits. He's trying to ``ride'' the coattails of the incumbent sheriff, a much stronger candidate. Hagan realizes that he isn't nearly as well-qualified as Branscom, so he tells us that we must elect him and Sheriff Kelly as a ``team.'' Of course, this is misleading since the state Constitution specifically provided for each office to be a separate, independent position.
I believe there's a very disturbing aspect to the strategy that makes Hagan dependent on Sheriff Kelly's ability to attract votes. If the strategy works and Hagan wins, he'll then be deeply indebted to the sheriff. I can't believe the best interests of the people would be served under such circumstances.
Because of Botetourt County's growth, we need to have the best people in all positions of our county government. I've known Branscom for some time, and have met many of his colleagues at the Roanoke city prosecuting office. He's highly respected by them and many others who have worked with him during his very successful 10 years as a prosecutor. He has demonstrated an ability to work with others. Otherwise, he wouldn't be Roanoke's senior assistant commonwealth's attorney.
He'll have no problems cooperating with whomever is elected sheriff. But he'll also be able to act as he sees fit without being indebted to any other county officer.
STEVE ROSSI
BLUE RIDGE
by CNB