Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 7, 1994 TAG: 9409210015
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
As a rising high-school senior, I'm deeply troubled by right-wing groups whose members feel some need to interfere with everyone's education. It's terrifying to think how far they could go with censoring school materials to prevent, in essence, a broad-based, liberal secondary or elementary education. It seems to me these people are afraid to step outside the confines of their narrow environment and look at the world around them without passing judgment on belief systems, cultures, rituals and other things that do not have to do with their ideal America or their brand of Christianity.
Regulating what teachers can and cannot teach through outright intimidation is proving George Orwell right 10 years late. (For those not allowed to read the book, it's titled ``1984.'')
One thing that stuck in my mind is that groups wouldn't allow schools to talk about homosexuality unless it was mentioned in the same breath with ``deviant lifestyle.'' Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any 15-year-olds converting to homosexuality because they heard about it in health class and thought it sounded like fun.
Another protest was made about novels in school libraries with ``sexually explicit language or graphic descriptions of violence,'' which conservatives want to place on ``parental-guidance shelves.'' Wouldn't it be more appropriate for such books to be presented by an educator who could offer better solutions like conflict mediation as an alternative to violence? These groups say they respect what teachers are trying to do, but they obviously don't respect the teachers' expertise and professionalism in presenting subject matter.
Our nation's future, in an ever-expanding global society, rests on people whose minds can adjust to constant change, and yet maintain a fair amount of sense in the process. This depends on a broad-based, tradition-challenging education that encourages the development of critical-thought processes, which may even (gasp!) stray from the straight and narrow path imposed upon the educational community by these ultraconservative groups.
KEVIN S. PRYOR
BUENA VISTA
Proud to be aboard North's boat
I RECENTLY sat in a fishing boat on Smith Mountain Lake talking with Oliver North, and it became very clear to me what this so-called radical, right-wing conservative genuinely believes in.
Look at what's happened to this great country since the liberal philosophy has been popular, and liberal lawmakers have been in control of Congress. Violent crime's drastic increase has resulted largely because liberal judges, viewing the criminal as a victim of his environment and not responsible for his actions, haven't enforced appropriate penalties. At the same time, liberal lawmakers, with the help of Clinton, are trying to take away my lawful Second Amendment right to own a firearm, to hunt and fish.
Our society's drug use has all but become accepted, and now our surgeon general has even suggested drugs should be legalized. (This just prior to her son's conviction as a cocaine dealer.) Consider the moral decay brought about by liberal judges allowing Hollywood, television and radio to produce pornography, while hiding behind freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The liberal influence has produced a strange society that has a problem putting cold-blooded killers to death while it kills thousands of innocent babies every day. (Now our president and first lady want this killing to be part of their health-care plan, paid for by me, an employer.) It's a society that values kangaroo rats and spotted owls over the welfare of its people.
Maybe North appears ``radically'' right when compared with leading liberals like Clinton, who was a draft dodger, smoked dope, demonstrated in England against his own country and traveled to the Soviet Union. North was sent to fight a liberal president's war. He fought bravely, risked his life to protect others and was wounded several times.
If being on the conservative side makes North a radical, then I'm proud to be one also.
RUSSELL DUNCAN
SALEM
Tax dollars for lewd, offensive art
AS TIME GOES by, I get more and more upset that the tax-supported National Endowment for Arts continues to flush tax dollars down the tube of lewd and offensive so-called art.
Don't get me wrong. I have a great appreciation for the arts, and I realize that much depends on the eye of the beholder. But do hard-working taxpayers in this country realize that millions of dollars are handed over by our federal representatives to questionable projects?
One of the more recent involved $20,000 given to Joel-Peter Witkin. (This was his fourth NEA grant). What did these tax dollars pay for? His repulsive photos of things like ``Testicle Stretch'' and ``Woman Castrating a Man.'' Now really! Is this what the American people want their tax dollars to pay for?
And get a load of this: It's my understanding that in the past three years the NEA has given $1 million to Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. On March 5, this center staged a ``performance'' by Ron Athey, who used a scalpel to carve designs into the skin of an assistant, drenching numerous paper towels in the resulting blood. After which he clipped the towels on clotheslines, and hoisted them over the heads of those in the audience. By the way, Athey has publicly trumped his HIV-positive status.
This is art? Well, I don't mind if you call it art, but please don't use my tax dollars to pay for it.
Isn't anybody at home in Washington? The recent Crane Amendment tried to abolish the NEA, and only two Virginia congressmen, Robert Goodlatte and Thomas Bliley, voted for it. I thank these gentlemen for their good judgment. I wish I could say that my own congressman, Rick Boucher, had also supported the effort, but apparently he agrees with the way the NEA spends our money.
CONNIE WOHLFORD
RADFORD
A ticket for dads to go free
REGARDING the Aug. 4 letter to the editor by John N. Smiley, ``Honor the father to support the child'':
Smiley has no idea what he's talking about.
First, there are few men, particularly young men, who want to take their child, or who would even know what to do with that child. Also, why would a woman have to ``give'' her child to the father just to get the support they deserve?
Abandon child-support enforcement? I don't think so. That would tell millions of men that it's OK to father a child, and their responsibility ends there.
TERESA CARTER
ROANOKE
Best response to power line is `no'
ON SEPT. 12, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors will vote on a resolution that would back Appalachian Power Co.'s preferred corridor for the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale 765-kv transmission line across the Jefferson National Forest. The resolution responds to the U.S. Forest Service's identification of alternative routes that would traverse Montgomery County. In effect, it would say, ``It's OK to construct the power line through the Jefferson National Forest and other counties. Just don't impose it on Montgomery County.'' On what grounds could the board make such a recommendation on this complex issue before the Forest Service issues its required environmental-impact statement for Apco's special-use permit?
The Forest Service must consider whether there's a national need for the line that cannot be met on private lands, alternatives to the route proposed by Apco, and a no-build alternative. Another logical alternative is conservation, with implementation of a demand-side management policy by Apco.
The environmental-impact statement also will consider: geology, soils and minerals; water resources; cultural resources; human health and safety; air quality and noise; recreational trails and trail users; recreation; social and economic resources; land use and land-use plans; visuals; and plant and animal resources. Since air pollution from power generation in the Ohio Valley is already adversely affecting Virginia's forests, and the proposed line's increased generation would exacerbate this problem, increase in air pollution should be evaluated as part of the air-quality and noise issue.
It's the position of the Sierra Club's Virginia Chapter that the only acceptable alternative being considered by the Forest Service is the no-build alternative. Neither Virginia's State Corporation Commission nor its counterpart in West Virginia have established the need for this line, and Apco's special-use permit application is inconsistent with the Jefferson National Forest management plan.
SHIREEN I. PARSONS
Chair, Sierra Club New River Group
RINER
by CNB