ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, May 13, 1996 TAG: 9605130001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
WITH THE Republicans' presidential campaign in the doldrums, their candidate has seized on an issue that appears to favor the little guy, but actually allows his big-business buddies to laugh even harder on their way to the bank. I refer to the proposed repeal of the gas tax. Oil companies enjoyed record profits in the last quarter of 1995. Drunk on their success and without any comprehensible justification, they've gone into a price-gouging frenzy at the gas pumps.
Politicians realize that the average worker can barely afford the drive to work. Minimum-wage workers are out of the equation since they can't afford to drive cars (or to vote for Republicans) in the first place.
Enter Bob Dole with a simple plan to revive his campaign: Cut the gas tax so that consumers can provide for an increase in corporate profits. Don't worry about the deficit. Shareholders and executives with money to burn are itching to loan the government more money (for more easy profit) to offset the loss of federal revenues.
Meanwhile, our reckless addiction to harmful fossil fuels rolls on unabated. Excessive consumption is good for the economy on Wall Street, but the consumer on Main Street is stuck in traffic and choking on the fumes. Gas guzzling isn't a victimless crime. Regulations and prohibitions aren't suitable solutions in a freedom-loving land. Higher gasoline taxes would constitute a fair, just and quantitative penalty on our compulsive fuel-consumption habit that causes immeasurable harm to society as a whole.
Compare gas taxes to income taxes that penalize you for working harder, doing a better job, and earning a higher wage. Republicans would subsidize our sinful behavior while they punish us for practicing the very virtues that they're always blowing gas about.
STEVE COCHRAN
FLOYD
Bible and founders are wrongly cited
PAMELA Raye Mitchell (April 15 letter to the editor, ``Nation's founding is shown disrespect'') was replying to your March 14 editorial (``Teach kids real science''). Other readers have written regarding evolution and its place in the school curriculum. Many of these letters have cited the Bible and American history - inaccurately, in both cases.
If the Bible is to be taken as the literal truth, we must accept the words in Psalm 99, "A thousand years in thy sight O Lord is but a watch in the night,'' with the literalness of Genesis. God doesn't tell time the way we mortals do. Most Christian denominations find no conflict between evolution and religion. In fact, the current Catholic encyclopedia devotes several pages to Darwin and why his views aren't in opposition to Catholic faith.
The founding fathers represented a wide divergence of belief, from the agnosticism (verging on atheism) of Thomas Paine to the agnostic (basically Unitarian) beliefs of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to the traditional Christianity of James Madison. For this reason, the motto of our country isn't "In God we trust," but "E Pluribus Unum" (``From many, one'').
MAXWELL R. PALMER
BLACKSBURG
Numbers' cruncher should lighten up
I CHALLENGE Aaron Smith (April 12 commentary, ``Put the golf course proposal to a vote'') to put down the calculator, step away from the desk, and drive by Hanging Rock Golf Course on any given day. He could analyze cars per square foot in his head as he notices how full the lot is, and how everyone appears to be enjoying the post-card picture scenery each hole seems to offer.
While the cost of playing is very moderate for a top-notch course, you no longer pull out one 20-spot, but two. A municipal course would seemingly offer excellent golf at a price both young and old could afford.
I feel Salem is unique in its ability to offer a variety of quality facilities and services while staying within its means. The real coup is it sits in the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains, has very respected city management, fire, police, rescue, etc., and is a great place to raise one's kids in an increasingly unstable world. I assume Smith has yet to enjoy a Salem High School ball game or a pro baseball game at the new stadium since it doesn't create revenue as does his 401K.
What formula did Smith punch in that concluded he was the spokesperson for most of Salem's citizens? Granted, this is America, and his right to babble endlessly about the last 24-year finances of some golf course in Blacksburg is his right as a citizen. But he's comparing apples and oranges. If one kid gets hooked on golf instead of drugs, it will be a huge return for all.
Smith's calculator is one-dimensional and doesn't have a quality-of-life button. Maybe if he could relax and live a little, he could give his number-cruncher a rest and enjoy all this city has to offer.
GIBSON BROWN
SALEM
City residents suffer noise pollution
CITY COUNCIL members are indifferent to the 217 property owners who live in the instrument-approach zone for runway six at the airport. A federal air-regulation study identified these property owners as living in the 65-decibel noise-level range. The study outlines procedures for the airport to acquire the necessary air rights needed to support its operation.
The navigational aid for the approach is located within a few feet of the St. Elias Catholic Church. This aid, known as the middle marker, is the point where the pilot makes a decision to land or go around. The go-around procedure calls for maximum power while the aircraft may be less than 200 feet directly over the church.
Noise levels are loud enough to cause permanent damage to one's hearing. In addition, noise vibrations generated by the aircraft engines could cause structural damage to the building. This approach isn't acceptable to those who live and worship within the 65-decibel noise area. It should be abandoned until the necessary air rights are acquired and the people given a chance to relocate.
Do we need an aircraft that can wipe out an entire church congregation and several homes, or can we use some common sense and correct this flying hazard before an accident happens?
We 217 property owners, including two church congregations, deserve better treatment than that which we have received in the past.
WINFRED J. GARST
ROANOKE
Visitors bureau offers great help
REGARDING your April 19 news article, ``Visitors Bureau worth it?'':
I was surprised to read that there are some reductions of funding being considered for the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau.
In August 1995, I served as chairman of the Kiwanis Capital District Convention. We had more than 640 registrants, most from out of town.
The bureau was a great source of advice in the planning stage. Six months before the convention, the bureau set up and operated a display table at a Kiwanis conference in Arlington, encouraging people to come to Roanoke in August. The bureau essentially handled all the details of a tour of Roanoke and Explore Park during the convention.
The Kiwanis convention is scheduled to return to Roanoke in 2000. I hope to be involved again, and I sure plan on having plenty of help from the bureau.
WILLIAM T. STACK
ROANOKE
The world's not here for man alone
EDWIN FEULNER'S commentary (April 21, "Environmentalists can't have it both ways") is misguided.
Anyone who believes there's no danger in the destruction of our fragile ecosystem and the ever-vanishing number of species is living a myth.
Man isn't exempt from the natural laws that govern all living things - be they grubs, shrimp, rabbits, lions, etc. - any more than man is exempt from the law of gravity.
Species that live in compliance with natural laws live forever, environmental conditions permitting. Those species that do not live in compliance with the law become extinct.
Diversity is being destroyed to support the expansion of a single species - man. Degradation of life-support systems isn't in keeping with natural laws, and all species are part of this biological reality.
Another myth is the idea that technological advances for increased crop yields will provide needed alternatives for products and food supplies, thus ameliorating the problem of world overpopulation. Food production doesn't feed the hungry; it only fuels a population explosion.
Contrary to scientific knowledge, if humans don't live within the boundaries of natural laws, they won't live. No one species shall make the life of the world its own, and the world wasn't made for any one species.
ROSEMARIE G. SAWDON
BLACKSBURG
LENGTH: Long : 154 linesby CNB