ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, December 12, 1995 TAG: 9512120019
SECTION: EDITORIALS PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
IN YOUR Dec. 3 newspaper, you ran an animal-rights article (``Animal-rights causes finding widespread support'' by David Foster of the Associated Press) that cited a poll on the public attitude. The poll omitted these significant questions:
Would you sacrifice the life or welfare of any of your family in favor of any animal?
Does the potential health of humans justify the use of animals for medical research?
To exploit other creatures just happens to be natural and absolutely necessary behavior of all other creatures. Even if you're determined to be a vegetarian, you can't digest anything without sacrificing a few thousand bacteria in the process. In your devotion to the rights of all living creatures, don't bacteria count?
With or without natural justification, for those who don't buy that argument, I hold to myself the right - as I recognize the right of anyone else - to place the welfare of myself and my loved ones first. More bluntly, if I perceive anyone as a threat to the life of any of my children or their children, I would defend against that threat so far as I'm capable. All the way, and without hesitation.
I have two children whose chances of living another decade may well depend on lab experiments, possibly requiring animal sacrifices. I wouldn't tolerate interference with that research. Before you attack any medical-research facility, beware of me and thousands of other parents and grandparents like me. Interfere with our children's chances at your peril.
Ask, in your next poll, how many of us there are.
ROBERT S. TERRY
BEDFORD
A terrifying slice of real life
I ENJOY Katherine Reed's movie reviews immensely. In fact, they're the first thing I look for in your Saturday newspaper. But I think she missed the riverboat with her Nov. 25 review (``You can bet `Casino' is violent'') of Martin Scorsese's "Casino."
She seemed to be put off somewhat by the film's violence, which is indeed intense. "Casino,'' though, is based on the true story of some extremely violent men whose utter amorality makes for compelling drama. No director handles this subject matter better than Scorsese. He's given us, with Joe Pesci and the soon-to-be-notorious vise, a sequence that's as shockingly unforgettable as Michael Madsen's razor dance in Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs." And it isn't just something a screenwriter made up; it's a terrifying slice of real life.
Whether one buys into its plot and characterization, there's no denying that "Casino" is a brilliantly executed piece of cinema. It's a stunning set of visual images, sublimely edited, and the performances are uniformly excellent. The use of period music as a cultural backdrop works to near perfection, and it's something Scorsese did long before the makers of "Forrest Gump" got the same idea.
"Casino" probably isn't my favorite Scorsese film. It's not as sleek and powerful as "Goodfellas" or as frightening as "Taxi Driver,'' and I don't think anything will ever top "Raging Bull." But it's far superior to most current mainstream filmmaking. It's a moving exposition of some undeniable truths: that power corrupts; violence begets violence; and no matter how wealthy one is, love and happiness can't be bought. I think it's one of the year's best films, and well worth seeing.
MARTY CASSADY
BLACKSBURG
Wild birds have the feds' protection
IF THE Nov. 30 article (``City jury finds for the birds'') hadn't been so horrifying, I would simply have been amused by the ignorance or disingenuousness displayed in defense attorney John Sarber's statement, ``These birds were wild; they were not pets.''
Wild, native, migratory birds (wrens are in this category) are protected by the federal government. It's a federal crime to intentionally harm these birds.
JACKIE COLLINS
BLACKSBURG
Hidden taxes must figure in calculation
THE NOV. 26 letter to the editor by Edward Roberts Jr. (``Getting value from taxes paid'') doesn't tell the whole story. I don't propose to question his math, only to add some of the things he forgot to mention.
I assume his family never buys retail, for he doesn't mention the 4.5 percent state sales tax. Perhaps they don't eat in restaurants and get hit with the (usually) 4 percent meal tax.
Do they travel by automobile? There's a 17.5 cents per gallon state tax, plus the 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax. My math makes that 35.9 cents per gallon in taxes. If one sells the family jalopy and travels by cab, one still pays the tax. Indirectly to be sure, but still one pays.
Next is probably the most obscure form of taxation, the truly "hidden" tax. Let's assume a hamburger lunch at a fast-food place. We pay the 8.5 percent sales and meal tax, but we're not through. The bun was baked by a baker who had taxes paid by the miller, the trucker and the wheat grower passed on to him. The baker then builds in his own tax expense, adds that to the cost of the bun, and sells it to the restaurant. The restaurant then must also add in its own tax burden before slapping the hamburger (which has its own tax history) on the bun, adding the condiments (which have their tax history also), wrapping the sandwich (more tax), and delivering it to the customer.
Maybe we should call it a "taxwich."
Roberts needs to do further research, then recalculate his percentage of gross pay that was paid in all forms of taxes. The figure will probably scare him.
TOM W. JOHNSON
CHRISTIANSBURG
No takeover without owners' consent
IN RESPONSE to Mike and Tina Dawson's Nov. 29 letter to the editor, ```Smart' road would collide with New River Valley values'':
We find it very interesting that Mr. Dawson is against the taking of personal property for developing the smart road and proposed Interstate 73. He was in favor of government takeover of property with the proposed enlargement of the Appalachian Trail through the Catawba Valley.
We're against the taking of any private land without the consent of the landowner.
SAMUEL and MARY ANN REYNOLDS
CATAWBA
Let's be friends with Cuba
THE THANKSGIVING pictures were enjoyable, but the Nov. 24 article on the Cubans' Thanksgiving (``Cuban refugees have reason to give thanks'') was misleading. Cubans are fleeing economic oppression imposed by the United States. Economic oppression isn't considered a legitimate reason for immigrating into this country, although it's just as deadly as political or physical oppression.
After witnessing poverty and oppression in the U.S.-aid supported countries of Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador in the late '80s and early '90s, I visited Cuba in 1992. There were no restrictions to travel or investigation on the island.
It was startling to me to find no homelessness, no starving children in rags (as in Central America). Although goods were scarce and jobs no longer plentiful due to the painful embargo of more than 30 years, Cuba was still managing to provide for its citizens. Free and excellent health care was experienced firsthand by two in our journalists' group. Indeed, the low infant mortality has been praised by the World Health Organization. Education is free through the university. One can become a professional without backbreaking loans.
Like all countries, Cuba isn't perfect. But it's also not a threat to or enemy of the United States. With the end of the Cold War against the Soviet bloc, it makes no sense to maintain Cold War strategies against our closest neighbor.
Let us recognize Cuba's independence and its refusal to become a U.S.-aid dependent with the structural adjustment required by that aid. Let's be friends and open trade and travel without trying to make the island nation into a substate, a territory owned and ruled by the United States.
PAT PRATALI
SALEM
LENGTH: Long : 151 linesby CNB