ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, November, 17, 1996 TAG: 9611190030
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 2 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
MEMO: ***CORRECTION***
Published correction ran on November 19, 1996.
Joe Painter, an attorney, does not represent Tyrone J. Edmond, as was
stated in Alice Lane Davis' Nov. 17 letter to the editor ("What's race
got to do with it?"). He represents Brian Edmonds.
WHILE READING your Nov. 7 news article (``9 Hokies indicted by grand jury'') about the Virginia Tech football players who were indicted, I was dismayed to read the comments by Joe Painter, the attorney representing linebacker Tyrone J. Edmond.
According to the news article, Painter ``said the suspension of players before trials smacks of racism, even though two of the players are white.'' Further on, he was quoted as saying, ``There is more than a hint of institutional racism involved here.''
Does Painter truly believe that Tech suspended the players before their trials because they are black? That's ludicrous. I don't believe his comments were uttered to further the fight against racism.
If his assertions are correct, how does Painter explain the suspension of two white players? Why does he find it necessary to point out the color of his client's skin at all? Perhaps he's hollering ``racism,'' and adopting a sensationalist stance to get his words in print. Those fighting against racism find these assertions offensive and counterproductive to the cause of equality.
Painter should know that his views and comments only serve to achieve two things:
They feed the anger, hate and distrust that still lingers between races.
They work against the fight that the vast majority, people of all skin colors, are waging to put an end to racism.
ALICE LANE DAVIS
BLACKSBURG
Don't shut out alternate candidates
WHEN LARGE numbers of disaffected voters are searching for alternatives to the unintended two-party system, it's disappointing - even shocking - that your newspaper and the majority of media resources go to such lengths to belittle so-called third-party candidates. Your Voter Guide '96 (Nov. 3 Horizon section) is a prime example of disservice to the electorate, especially concerning the presidential races.
While Democrats and Republicans and Ross Perot are afforded space to state their proposed policies concerning specific subjects, other candidates are allotted no room for more than a cursory explanation of their positions.
Furthermore, in the section titled "Elsewhere in the Country," you briefly mention Ralph Nader and the Green Party while failing to name numerous other presidential candidates.
The argument can be made, though cynically and not convincingly, that your valuable print space cannot be wasted on candidates with no chance of winning. If this is the case, then it's a fine example of a cyclical problem: They have no chance if they get no exposure, but they get no exposure if they have no chance.
While we should be presented with information on all candidates, perhaps some sort of a litmus test is necessary to satisfy your time and space constraints. Possibly only candidates with 50-state ballot status, from long-established parties with rapidly expanding national support and with a record of service in public office, should get media attention. And of all this year's third-party candidates, including Perot, only one met these qualifications: Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party.
Browne was on the ballot in all 50 states. That party has had members serve in several state legislatures and other local offices, and it is the third largest and fastest-growing political party in the nation. Had these simple, nonpartisan requirements been considered, the presidential debates would have been more interesting and more substantive.
We should expect more from your newspaper and the "free" press.
CURTIS and LAURA DOUGLAS
EGGLESTON
Beware the nabobs of negativism
NOW THAT we have behind us the boring voices of Bob Dole and David Brinkley, we can get on with an optimistic future.
Unfortunately, we have some roadblocks like mega-head Newt Gingrich, Cal Thomas and James Lileks. We must be aware of the bitter attitudes these people like to purvey to those gullible enough to love it.
DON SHIPLEY
ROCKY MOUNT
Linguistic remarks should spare none
REGARDING your Nov. 3 editorial, ``Ve have vays to make you vote'':
I read your editorial about voting mandates with great pleasure. The content was mildly thought-provoking, since many countries in the Free World still do have certain vays in vhich to encourage their citizens to wote, aside from the moralistic harangues ve have long ago become inured to. What delighted me was the ease vith vhich your newspaper assumes that certain ethnic groups have maintained their sense of humor about their idiosyncrasies.
It would be so wonderful if our affirmatively protected villagers, tribes and genders could be relied upon as readily to show equally good humor and would learn to laugh at themselves, even though the joke relies sometimes on nothing more than a response conditioned by movies and sitcoms. ``Hogan's Heroes'' comes to mind to remind us that the human spirit can and will overcome the horrible and find the comical, even in the most self-important.
The whole genre of Jewish humor should serve as a lesson in point as well, since the close linguistic relation of Yiddish and German and the tragic history of the socio-political interaction between the two cultural and ethnic groups have created clear parallels to similar situations in the world, historic and present - some of them rather close to home.
So, please, forge on courageously in the effort to discredit "politically corrected" speech by bringing back humor - this most wonderful device in the exclusively human struggle to discern naming and meaning. But please do it on an equal-opportunity basis.
HANS CHRISTIAN ROTT
BLACKSBURG
Diaper services are right for many
AS A NEW mother, I read with interest your Extra section article (Nov. 3, ``Convenience, at your disposal'') about disposable diapers. I agree that the disposable vs. cloth decision is one for individual parents to make. While a nod was given to cloth diapers and diaper services, I feel I should set the record straight.
We use a diaper service and find it to be more economical than disposables. With the exception of long trips, it's also as convenient. Diaper pins are quickly becoming obsolete as snap and Velcro-closure wraps have replaced them. These can be rented from diaper services or purchased. Our caregivers find diapering our child a cinch, and have applauded our efforts to minimize the landfill problem that diapers are causing.
Thank you for your interesting article.
ELIZABETH AUSTIN
BLACKSBURG
Most approve of police checkpoints
I HAVE never been affiliated with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization, but your Nov. 5 editorial (``Has MADD turned vigilante?') is so blatantly wrong that it warrants a response.
You said that MADD members' presence during police sobriety checkpoints "smacks of a vigilante committee.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. A sobriety checkpoint is a fully constitutional law-enforcement activity that serves a valid purpose. These are conducted on public streets where anyone can stop and watch if they so desire. On several occasions, reporters from your newspaper and other local media have gone along to do an article on these checkpoints. If, as you claim, checkpoint observers constitute a vigilante force, then you must include yourselves in that group.
You lament an invasion of privacy caused by a MADD member sitting in a chair on the side of the road. Does that member's presence make it any more of a public display than other drivers who are there? What about the invasion of privacy caused by a reporter doing an article on those being stopped?
From your comments, it's clear that you do not like the idea of sobriety checkpoints and begrudgingly accept them only because the courts have ruled that they are a valid law-enforcement tool. I think most in society disagree with you strongly. While there may be a few drivers - other than yourselves - who resent checkpoints, I've never met anyone who objected to them. Most drivers are more than willing to have a few moments' delay to have safer roads.
The MADD organization has done a terrific job of bringing the drunken-driving issue to the public's attention. It needs to continue to strive for its goal of public education. After all, MADD members simply want what every driver on the road wants - to arrive at their destination safely. To use your words, I think it's time for you to "back off" of the criticism of MADD.
RANDALL SCOTT
GOODVIEW
LENGTH: Long : 162 linesby CNB