ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, September 20, 1996 TAG: 9609200004
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
RECENT newspaper and television reports have referred to studies that reflect a doubling of drug use by teen-agers over the past four to five years.
Why? Until recently, I had placed the responsibility on the breakup of the family, a general decline in social values, and the federal government's policies - or lack thereof - as well as the defunct moral and ethical values represented by the Clinton administration. In large measure, I still do, but my perspective has broadened.
In a recent television news report on the drug issue, an apparently well-informed and educated woman in her 40s or 50s was asked if she was concerned about the increase in drug use among teens. Her response was enlightening. Paraphrased: I'm not concerned. They are just being kids, experimenting. After all, I experimented.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's the problem: It's us, the parents. I do not endeavor to blast an entire generation, but there are far too many parents raised during that ``if it feels good, do it'' and ``if you want it, take it'' generation with no regard for moral or ethical constraints on behavior or any other traditional and proved values.
In my opinion, we parents are the root of the problem. Those same parents who ``did'' drugs in their youth apparently see nothing wrong with ``experimenting,'' and they are raising their children in like manner. Unless parents wake up and recognize their responsibilities to their children, it will continue to be a self-perpetuating amoral, valueless, unethical society.
Remember the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?
JAMES V. HYLER
HARDY
Abortion is a civil-rights issue
I IDENTIFIED quickly with Robert S. McElvaine's contention (Aug. 29 commentary, ``Democrats must reclaim the good side of the '60s'') that there were two '60s: the early, good part of the decade and the later, bad part.
In the early '60s, we were altruistic and, while a bit nonconformist, concerned for civil rights. We believed in America in spite of the 1963 assassination and the early war effort. In the late '60s, the movement became self-centered and emerged in drugs.
I also agree that we Democrats should reclaim the good '60s and its concern for civil rights, the common good and participation in the culture. While his distinction between civil rights and individual rights is a little too easy, I agree. Let's talk about civil rights again.
In addition, let me say - contrary to the champions of individual rights - that we ought to begin to frame abortion as a civil-rights issue.
The issue is the civil rights of the unborn when those rights make life difficult for the mother. Abortion ought not be a libertarian concern but a civil-rights concern.
I think Democrats would do well to champion the case for the rights of the unborn as a civil-rights issue.
LARRY FISCHBACH
BLACKSBURG
How can anyone defend Clinton?
IRENE GROVES' Aug. 18 letter to the editor (``Quit picking on President Clinton'') and Gary K. Spence's Aug. 26 letter (``Patriotic roots can't embrace Bill Clinton'') show the vast gap between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
Groves sees Clinton as being ripped to shreds. ``If'' he was involved in Whitewater, it happened before he became president, and ``if'' there was an affair, that's between him and his family.
But first and foremost is the integrity of anyone in leadership.
Whitewater was a big web involving the governor of Arkansas and his wife, business people, lawyers, bankers - all tangled up in dishonesty, deception and misuse of funds. It involved many of Clinton's cronies, including Vince Foster, who later committed suicide. Then came the disappearance of papers and files for a long period of time. There have been many strange goings-on.
Clinton had a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years, plus Hillary, and it was total disaster. Thank God it was turned around with a conservative Republican Congress during the past two years.
Dan Rather interviewed a man at the close of the Democratic National Convention. The man said he would rather vote for an old yellow dog than to vote Republican. That was an immature remark and not nice. Likewise, it wouldn't be nice for us to say if he votes for Clinton that he'd be doing just that.
Groves said, ``If Bob Dole is elected, then God help us all.'' I am voting for Dole, and if he is not elected, then God help us all.
VELMA BROOKMAN
ROANOKE
Character counts most of all
IN THE Feb. 11 issue of Parade magazine, there was an article written by Daniel J. Boorstin in which he asked: ``Should we judge presidential candidates by the content of their character?''
His answer was a resounding ``Yes, we should.'' Boorstin cited George Washington, father of our country, as one who won his place in American life and legend as much by his character as by his other talents.
In this presidential election, the subject of character seems to dominate. Character is defined as the aggregate of qualities that distinguish one person from another. I think we all admire the quality of integrity, which is fidelity to moral principles and honesty.
Our nation today surely needs men and women of integrity and moral character. If we want our nation to survive, we must consider the morality of our candidates.
Remember, the person of noble character is one who maintains integrity between his public and private life. We don't elect disembodied opinions. We elect men and women. The kind of people they are - their values, strong points, weaknesses, intelligence, characteristics as people - is what makes them good or bad at public office. Character is most important.
MARGUERITE HALL
ROANOKE
Changes are due at Virginia Tech
YOUR SEPT. 11 editorial, ``Virginia Tech's embarrassment,'' hit the nail on the head. The parallel comparison of engineering students with football players has merit, but this only embarrasses the university more.
The engineering school dropped from sixth place to 26th place in national collegiate standing. Looks like Tech needs a change in administration at the College of Engineering as well as in the athletic department.
GRANT HALLOCK
CHECK
No respect left for the White House
IT IS ironic that it has taken Great Britain's royal family to demean residences such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, etc. To invite Her Royal Highness to address a congress next month on the subject of "family values" would open the door for London's sleaziest tabloids to headline crude jokes about any such values existing in those places of royal residence.
It has been more ironic to have America's "first family" talk about family values. One thing Bill Clinton did after occupying the White House was to invite those whose family-values system opposes the traditional American, Judeo-Christian philosophy. When he vetoes a law that would have ended the murder of infants who are already partially born, how can he talk about family values?
By turning our White House into a comfort zone for a moral philosophy that is obviously anti-family, Clinton has left me with less respect than I've had during 60 years of watching first families move in and out of that once admirable place.
Is it right for our first family to expect me to approve a lifestyle philosophy that God's word condemns and our legislative branch of government has now rejected?
DON W. HILLIS
ROANOKE
LENGTH: Long : 143 linesby CNB