ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, October 14, 1996 TAG: 9610140093
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
REGARDING your Oct. 4 news article, ``New welfare rules hardship for some'':
Beth Hartsook stated that her son's income shouldn't be counted in determining her eligibility for food stamps. A 19-year-old who is no longer in school should be contributing income to the household for food and other expenses. As long as he lives there, he has a responsibility to do that as a member of the household. Saying that his income shouldn't be counted for her food stamps is saying he shouldn't take responsibility as a working adult to help his family.
A lot of families are ruining today's next generation by not making them assume any responsibility. New welfare rules are attempting to instill the concept of people being responsible for their own trek through life rather than looking for someone else to do it for them. The new rules aren't a hardship for families like the Hartsooks. Her attitude appears to be the hardship she needs to overcome.
MELISSA MERCER
RURAL RETREAT
Agency's harsh tactics rejected
AFTER YEARS of controversy, legal expenses and litigation, the Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of property owners along the Jackson River. The court upheld a lower-court decision barring guide Chuck Craft Jr. from fishing a stretch of the Jackson River in Alleghany County.
As a private-property owner and one of the plaintiffs in this case, I encourage all private-property owners to get involved when your rights as a property owner are threatened by the public or a government agency.
The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries used public funds to promote public interest and support at the expense of the rights of property owners. The department misled landowners and the public from the beginning of its involvement in the management of the Jackson River. This so-called management will long be remembered by property owners, and it will jeopardize any future projects recommended by that department.
As a subscriber to your newspaper, I must say that the reporting of information by outdoors writer Bill Cochran is - and has always been - very biased. Good reporting comes from factual information being sought and printed. This hasn't been the case. Subscribers have not had the opportunity to read the facts that supported the case made by the landowners.
ALAN BOTKINS
COVINGTON
Editor's note: Bill Cochran's comments were made in his column, not in news stories.
Don't support agents of abortion
LEAVE IT to Planned UnParenthood to write a stirring defense (Sept. 18 commentary by David Nova, ``Real families need late-term abortions'') of the partial-birth abortion ban that our beloved president vetoed. In a desperate attempt to justify this barbaric and hideous procedure, the organization even resorted to quoting some so-called Christian conservative couples who were "blessed" to be able to hold their dead baby's body after its brain and life had been suctioned out. Throw up!
In this season of fund raising for United Way, more and more people are seeing through Planned Parenthood's hypocrisy, and they are refusing to support United Way until it withdraws funding for such a blatantly pro-death organization. (I am aware that you can designate your gift to United Way, but since the vast majority of people don't, Planned Parenthood continues to receive full funding.)
On Sept. 6, approximately 1,000 people attended a fund-raising banquet at Hotel Roanoke for the benefit of Crisis Pregnancy Center, with nationally renowned speaker and columnist Cal Thomas as the keynote speaker. Although it was one of the largest fund-raising events ever held in Roanoke, no reporters or camera crews were there.
A young mother told the audience in an emotion-filled story of her decision to choose life over death for her baby while she was in a dire emotional and financial situation ten years ago. She told of the center's love, compassion and provision for her needs - all done without charging a fee of any kind.
Thomas followed up her talk with a question that deserves an answer: "If pro-choice forces are so passionate about a woman's right to an abortion, then why doesn't Planned Parenthood perform its services for free?"
DON ASSAID
ROANOKE
Saddam plays with U.S. politics again
THE RUMOR is that Saddam Hussein has switched political parties and is now working for the Clinton Democrats. During the Gulf War, he seemed to be working for George Bush in a daring game of Machiavellian politics. Now it looks like his eye is on another election in America.
After the Kuwait invasion, Saddam found himself threatened by the world's mightiest military power. Bush wasn't bluffing. Faced with the alternative of total destruction of his power base - the army - and servile capitulation, Saddam hung out the worst half of his army to die in the fortified berms of Kuwait. Meanwhile, the Republican Guards were safely sequestered in Iraq, ready to pounce on separatist Shiites and rebellious Kurds once the coalition left - and that was the big ``if'' of the gamble.
Saddam's gamble paid off. The coalition pulled up short of blasting the Republican Guards and Baghdad on CNN; the American people cheered and felt good about being a great power in action again; and Bush got high marks for presidential guts. The only flaw in the equation was his inability to turn a foreign-policy burlesque into a presidential victory.
Now it's President Clinton's turn at being Saddamized. Faced with internal opposition, Saddam had to figure out how to make the American military behemoth respond in just the right way. A few jet sorties in the no-fly zone did the trick. The beast snorted and flared, firing Tomahawk missiles at Iraqi missile sites. Clinton's image as a no-military, no foreign-policy-guts guy vanished. Iraqi citizens found a reason to rally round their leaders. Saddam merrily sent the Republican Guards to support his Kurds and everyone was satisfied.
Of course, the fact that Americans had accomplished exactly zero wasn't unnoticed in the Middle East and beyond. But those people don't vote in presidential elections.
NICK PAPPAS
RADFORD
No reason to exclude Perot
THERE is no legitimate reason for the presidential commission to have blocked Ross Perot from the presidential debates. Putting him out certainly casts a dark shadow over the other two candidates. It shows that they are rude, inconsiderate of others and very self-centered. Are they afraid that more voters will find out that Perot is smarter and better-qualified than they?
Our nation has reached the point of going bankrupt. If we don't get better leaders, all your money will be worthless.
MABEL M. FRANCE
FERRUM
Boucher can't hide his liberal record
THE CONSTITUTION is a profound and enduring document, revered by all Americans for those unalienable rights that it guarantees each of us. For more than two centuries, it has guarded those rights, and we have felt secure in its provisions.
I find it beyond the realm of reason that Rep. Rick Boucher is using this great document to excuse his vote to allow the slaughter of babies as they exit the womb. He isn't empowered to interpret the Constitution - that has been the function of the Supreme Court for 200 years. Boucher cannot hide behind the Constitution when he votes to end the lives of partially born babies. He doesn't have the legislative power to take away the right of those children.
Boucher must not be returned to Congress. His vote to allow partial-birth abortions to continue is the final shock in his extremely liberal voting record.
His opponent, Patrick Muldoon, is a staunch supporter of the right of life.
PAUL VARSON
POUND
LENGTH: Long : 146 linesby CNB