Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 16, 1994 TAG: 9411160091
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The Republicans are in power.
The rich will get richer; the poor, it's hoped, will go away and keep quiet; and big corporations will pollute our air and rivers with gay abandon.
And Republicans are going to build up our defenses. Oh, those wonderful defense contracts. Back to the good old days of cost overruns, and stockpiles of weapons that we have no one to use against, and army boots stacked in warehouses, enough to last into infinity.
To balance the budget, they want to cut aid to dependent children, food stamps and Head Start. Maybe we'll be treated to the soul-stirring sight of neglected and starving children in our streets.
And by all means, they should roll back the ban on assault weapons. It adds a certain spice to life to never know when some nut with a grudge and a gun will show up at our work places, a restaurant where we eat, or our children's schoolyard and kill or maim everyone in sight.
And heaven knows, they should reopen their investigation into Whitewater. We all know that all our country's troubles are tied to this iniquity. In fact, they should keep on Clinton until all that's left of him are his bleached bones on the sand, and his progeny are wiped out. Didn't he have the audacity to take the White House from them when they believed it belongs to them exclusively?
Ah, yes, my friends, there's good news tonight.
LENA MAY FRANKLIN
VINTON
Civic center's sales system isn't fair
I'D LIKE to voice my dissatisfaction, as I'm sure many area residents would, regarding how the Roanoke Civic Center handles ticket sales for events, specifically the Vince Gill concert to be held Dec. 1.
Upon my arrival at the civic center to purchase tickets, I was dismayed to learn that an individual had been camped out there for four days, taking names (of which hers was the first on the list) of those who wanted to be ``first in line'' for tickets. When I arrived 15 minutes before sales began, there were more than 300 people, and the majority were on the list. What's fair about this? What about those who have to work, and cannot forget daily responsibilities and priorities to camp out at the civic center waiting to be first in line for tickets? How were people to know this individual was taking a list of names of those wanting to be close to the front to purchase tickets? There was a Nov. 5 news article (``It'll be front and center for Vince Gill - she hopes'') regarding this situation - much too late for anything to be done.
This isn't fair to those who can't camp out, who wait until the given time for tickets to go on sale, who use Ticketmaster or who go to other ticket outlet. For such a major event, it only seems fair that a lottery be used, or that sales be on a first-come, first-served basis - and that doesn't include or mean those who post themselves at the civic center days or hours before sales begin. If tickets go on sale at 10 a.m., then no one should be allowed to line up more than 15 minutes prior to 10 a.m. Those using Ticket Master or other outlets also should not be able to purchase tickets prior to 10 a.m.
We in the Roanoke area support the civic center and its events, but we want the civic center to be fair to us in return. I'm sure those on the list feel they were treated fairly, but thousands not on the list were and feel unfairly treated. Other area facilities use the lottery method for large attractions, so please consider this. Otherwise, the civic center may find all of Roanoke camped out on its doorstep for weeks in advance.
VICKI M. ARVEN
SALEM
Civic center was unrealistic choice
CHARLES W. Perkinson's anger and frustration at the ``embarrassing'' attendance for the Slovak Symphony Orchestra's performance at the Roanoke Civic Center (Nov. 7 letter to the editor, ``Sparse turnout was inexcusable'') raises a question regarding the choice of venue.
The same orchestra's subsequent New York debut performance took place on the small stage of the Sylvia and Danny Kaye Playhouse - occupancy 664 - providing a ratio of six listeners to every player (assuming the house was filled). This, in a city with enormous audience potential, not only from the music-loving population but also from people of Slovak background. So, how can one expect the Roanoke Civic Center's 2,475 seats to be filled - especially by an unknown orchestra on its first American tour, preceded only by recordings of lightweight Johann Strauss Jr. repertoire?
Perhaps the turnout wasn't that sparse after all, but simply realistic.
SYLVIA CRAFT
ROANOKE
Flag's symbolism has been distorted
I OBJECT to some of the fantastic revision of Southern history that continues to be expounded in letters to the editor. I'm a member of the 28th Virginia Infantry, Co. C, Reactivated, Longstreets Corps., Army of Northern Virginia. The 28th Virginia Infantry was formed in New Castle in 1861, and was composed of farmers and merchants from Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke counties, almost none of whom owned slaves. These men didn't make sacrifices and suffer hardships to preserve slavery but to preserve a way of life and a value system they felt to be under attack by a foreign aggressor.
The victors write history, and that's precisely what's happened with the Civil War. The revision that has become uncritically accepted in the North, and widely adopted in the South, casts this struggle in largely black-and-white terms: All Southerners were racists, and fought the war purely for preserving slavery. Northerners were engaged in a crusade to free slaves from cruel and rapacious masters. After a more in-depth study of events and issues surrounding this period, one can see this version of history isn't true.
In fact, the vast majority of soldiers of Southern Confederacy armies had no direct connection to slavery. Most foot soldiers were poor farmers, craftsmen or merchants, and had very little in common with wealthy, slave-owning landowners. However, they understood an invasion when they saw it. They had a strong sense that a powerful federal government was out to impose its will on their state and local governments, and to exert control over them. That debate has, by no means, been put to rest.
The Confederate battle flag was co-opted as a symbol of racism by purely racist organizations after the Civil War. I can understand anyone's dislike of any symbol used for racial purposes. Our anger and energy should be directed at those who distorted this symbol. When I see the battle flag, it symbolizes Southerners fighting and giving their lives for their homes, families, honor and way of life - which, for the most part, didn't include slavery. This is the history we should be proud to promote, not false and damaging notions based on revisionist history.
JERRY ALDHIZER
GOODVIEW
The courts, Bible and abortion issue
ACCORDING to the California Supreme Court, a person can be convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus that's progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks. This is striking because such a fetus could have been legally aborted if it were not yet capable of surviving outside the womb - generally not earlier than about 25 weeks.
Some celebrate this ruling (though it's sure to be appealed) as a move toward recognizing the fetus as human, even at early stages of its development. Yet those who wish laws and behavior were guided by biblical standards have reason to object to this decision. The one Bible passage addressing the fetus' legal status is considerably more lenient than the California Supreme Court. Exodus 21:22-25: ``If people, when brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman's husband, subject to the approval of the judges. If further harm is done, however, you will award life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.''
The implication is that destroying the fetus is wrong, only to the extent that its loss is regretted by the pregnant woman and her husband. The fetus isn't treated as itself deserving of legal consideration. If it were, then the ``life for life'' condition would apply to it as well. Clearly, the fetus here is something less than a human.
This biblical position may strike many as being too unconcerned about the fetus as well as the pregnant woman. It strikes me that way. But let's acknowledge that a conservative position regarding abortion doesn't simply proclaim God's transparent will. Rather, it's a moral position, influenced by a number of factors, requiring articulation and rational defense. The slogan, ``abortion is murder,'' doesn't end a discussion by invoking God's will - it's only the beginning of a discussion.
JAMES C. KLAGGE
BLACKSBURG
by CNB