
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, November 17, 1995                   TAG: 9511170023
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-18   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

PROTECTIONISM LOOKS BETTER EVERY DAY

I HAVE always been in awe of George Will's erudition, which is fearsome. He can take either side of any argument, and still put his opponent down. So I would think a lot more than twice before trying to knock heads with anyone who knows words like ``autarky,'' or who can quote obscure writers like Ramesh Ponnuru (Nov. 6 commentary, ``Buchanan's protectionist claptrap'').

But I can assume an empirical position to challenge his criticism of Pat Buchanan's protectionist policies. If Will supports Ponnuru's view that ``free trade protects ordinary citizens'' from big government, big labor and big business, they are both strictly off the wall. All that free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement have done for this country has been to increase the trade deficit, reduce average family income, reduce opportunities for worthwhile employment and jobs, and increase employment at minimal wages.

It's obvious to a blind man that something is badly out of sync in the United States when our dollar is dropping like a stone in comparison to the Japanese yen and the German mark. Japan has strict trade barriers, and its economy is booming.

If Buchanan's numbers are slightly askew on income derived from a tariff on Japanese imports, it's no further off the mark than Will's implying that imports reduce unemployment. That's on a par with the crazy notion that having all our consumer goods produced in foreign countries is good for the American economy. As a service economy, what are we going to service when production exceeds demand and consumption dries up in this country as it has in all the other Western Hemisphere countries due to falling personal income?

Since we're approaching, or already in, Third World status, protectionism, big government, big labor and big business look a darn sight better than where we are now under free trade and NAFTA policy.

WILLIAM A. JUDGE

BEDFORD

Witches do not worship the devil

AS WITCHES, we would expect a diatribe about one of our most important holidays from Christian fundamentalists (Oct. 29 Extra section article, ``Hallow-lujah''), but to read that the Encyclopedia Britannica says that Samhain (Halloween) is the one night of the year on which the devil is invoked shows how badly the Wiccan religion is misunderstood.

We concede that Halloween (Samhain, pronounced Sew-in or Sow-in) has pagan origins. It was, and is, recognized as the third of three yearly harvest festivals, and in most Wiccan traditions, as our New Year. We also believe that the veil between the worlds is thinnest on this night. And so contact with those who have passed on, but haven't yet been reincarnated, is easiest.

However, we don't invoke, pray to or worship Satan, as we don't believe in the Christian duality of God and the devil. Our duality is the God and Goddess who are known by many names, and who are both within and surrounding us all. We have but one rule: ``An' it harm none, do as thou wilt.'' We don't have blood sacrifices, nor are we a cult. We believe that whatever one does, for good or evil, shall be returned.

Witches do not attempt to persuade others to adopt their beliefs, although we'll explain them if asked. Indeed, most witches keep their faith undisclosed to all but a few, because of the misunderstanding seen in the uninformed who call us Satanists and have the beliefs of those quoted in the article.

We're sure many Christians reading this sincerely believe that we are, at best, mistaken, or, at worse, truly evil and headed for hell. That's fine. We're all entitled to our beliefs, and to worship in the manner we choose. But do not call us Satanists.

MICHELLE R. CARPENTER

ROANOKE

Editor's note: Five others also signed this letter.

Pay, not service, is the bottom line

I FIND it interesting, although not surprising, that most civil-service employees aren't coming in to work without a guarantee of being paid. They more than likely will be paid for the time they're off due to the federal-government shutdown.

However, they appear to be willing to let the public that pays their salaries go without necessary help, information, etc. The hardship caused to many of us seems to have little meaning to these government workers - as is frequently the case, even as they sit in their offices.

The quality of assistance available from civil-service employees has declined as their salaries increased. Again, it isn't surprising that they sit at home and let the work pile up. No doubt they're counting on overtime pay to catch up.

CALDWELL BLAIR

SALEM

by CNB