Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, April 2, 1994 TAG: 9404040158
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
My region of Virginia is economically depressed. Roanokers and New River Valley citizens need to take a long, hard, objective look at our job situation. The linchpins of our area's economy have left. Gone are headquarters for Norfolk Southern and Dominion Bank; AT&T and the Radford Arsenal are in decline. The number of jobs in Giles and Montgomery counties has dropped considerably during the past five years, and the prospect looks bleak.
I believe that economic growth is directly tied to an area's transportation system. An efficient, state-of-the-art infrastructure is a must to revitalize Southwest Virginia. I'm not talking about bringing to the area more McDonald's and Exxon stations at every interchange, but luring new business and industry that will provide new jobs that pay above minimum wage and a higher tax base.
The proposed ``smart road'' and its technologies should be incorporated into I-73. If General Motors, the commonwealth and Virginia Tech forge a partnership to use $150 million of federal money to develop this 21st century technology, then why not kill two birds with one stone, so to speak?
As I understand it, if the I-73 route chosen by the Virginia Transportation Board is approved by Congress, then the federal government will pay for 80 percent and the states will be responsible for 20 percent. Using the existing U.S. 460 corridor will save time and expense. It's already a four-lane divided highway. Upgrading U.S. 460 to interstate standards will improve traffic safety.
I wholeheartedly support the I-73 corridor that was unanimously approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on March 17.
GARY C. SCHAFER BLACKSBURG
Smokers' rights end where others' begin
REGARDING Gloria J. Mowbray's March 21 letter to the editor, ``Smokers also have right to complain'':
One clarification on the comment that ``someone out there will always be addicted to something'': I don't think so. I'm not addicted to medication, illegal drugs or alcohol, and I'd like the option of choosing whether my lungs stay clean or polluted. It is a free world; you should have the freedom to smoke if you so choose. However, when that freedom begins to interfere with others' rights, it becomes a problem. I deserve the right to live a life free of tar-filled lungs.
I don't care if you're addicted or not. I just want to ensure that my future health is a result of my own doing, not someone else's.
BETH COSMATO SHAWSVILLE
Women can't endure rat line
IN RESPONSE to the latest action regarding the possibility of Virginia Military Institute becoming co-ed (March 9 news article by staff writer Allison Blake, ``VMI documents thicken as attorneys bolster views''):
I worked in the commandant's office from July 1953 until January 1957, at which time I returned to the military. It was during this time that I had the opportunity to observe the corps of cadets' actions and, most especially, the ``rat line.''
Regardless of a young lady's strength or size, it's virtually impossible for her to endure the rat line as it is today. Consequently, if Judge Kiser rules that women be admitted, then VMI has no alternative but to lower the rat-line standards to ensure that women can successfully complete it. The rat line was designed to bring young men fresh out of high school into a world of discipline, to build self-respect within themselves and an esprit de corps with their Brother Rats.
If Kiser rules that VMI should become co-ed, I cannot, in my wildest dream, conceive a young lady wanting to enroll, knowing the standards had to be lowered just so she could attend this institution. It will not only be degrading to the male population at VMI, but every young lady will always have doubt whether she could have made it without outside interference.
Some provisions should be made to allow a young lady to pursue this type of career opportunity, if so desired, but I don't think VMI is the answer.
RICE A. McNUTT BLUE RIDGE
Contortions can't defend the helpless
IN RESPONSE to Jill Hughes' March 12 letter to the editor, ``Abortion isn't family's business'':
The arguments she makes in favor of abortion are: Fewer abortions will mean more abused children; fewer abortions will mean more taxes to support larger numbers of welfare mothers and children; and abortion is necessary so that women can ``control when they start a family.''
She's entirely wrong. Abortion and child-abuse rates have actually risen together, hand in hand. The availability of abortion since 1973 has coincided with an increase, not a decrease in welfare-dependent mothers. But even had it led to a decrease, is exterminating a large segment of our population any way to balance the budget? Abortion is obviously not necessary to permit a woman to ``control'' when she has a family. Using it as a family-planning method (a strange choice of words) is like using a hydrogen bomb to kill weeds. It kills the weeds, but at what cost?
A society that encourages or accepts abortion cannot long resist applying the same logic to infants, the aged, feeble and powerless. Abortion is a form of moral immuno-suppression. If you can cut a helpless baby to pieces in the name of compassion, you're literally capable of rationalizing anything.
Abortion isn't loving, kind or compassionate. It's intensely sad to see good and kind people contort their minds and hearts in an effort to defend the indefensible. I hope Ms. Hughes will change her thinking.
RICHARD A. LLORET ROANOKE
by CNB