ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, December 29, 1995 TAG: 9512290117
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
WITH CHRISTMAS just over, I am writing with great concern about a seemingly innocent, much publicized recording that just might steal away the innocence of some unsuspecting parent's child.
I am writing of the "Waiting To Exhale" soundtrack which I happily purchased for my 10-year-old daughter. Some of the best female recording artists of today are featured on the soundtrack, including Whitney Houston singing a new blockbuster hit.
Imagine my horror when I began listening to track six (by TLC) and the most graphically obscene lyrics fairly scorched my ears! The song is nothing less than pornographic in the extreme and includes, very clearly spoken, the "F" word connected to mother more than once. I thank God my daughter was not in the car to hear it; I promptly returned the CD.
My point is this: When parents knowingly purchase some albums these days by artists such as Green Day, with a title that means excrement, they shouldn't be shocked that the content is not fit for young ears. I purchased a recording that featured some of our finest female artists and was totally unprepared for the sexual assault to my senses, much less the harm that that filth would have done to my young child's innocence. That recording needs a warning on it! It is like a stroll through a beautiful rose garden ruined by the strike of a hidden cobra.
Parents need to wake up and listen to what their young people are buying. The schools have trouble getting juveniles to attend the dances because music that is not fit to be played in a school is the general rule at home. Walk in a music store and look at the recordings your children are buying. There are pictures on them that are not fit to be seen; just imagine what is heard!
Where is the line that should be drawn and not crossed? If the recording industry is not doing it, only the parents can. Children need some form of guidance in what they are allowed to bring into their homes. Clean music may not be cool, but it is the right choice for young minds. LYNN FITZPATRICK ROANOKE
Teaching is about more than money
I WAS saddened that your newspaper allowed so much Commentary-page space on Dec. 17 for the self-serving piece by Tim Poland ("The sad state of Virginia's colleges").
When the unnecessary verbosity and histrionics are removed from the article, we find a person who seems to be quite unhappy in his chosen field. He is apparently threatening to quit unless paid more money. Perhaps he should try some other field.
One of the greatest teachers of all time taught wherever he was, without pay. He taught but three years. He did not simply stir an occasional "flash of light in the eye of a student." Rather, he set fire to his students' souls and sent them out to tell the then-known world, which they did.
We now date time by his birth. He is Jesus, the greatest teacher of all time. He is that model that all who wish to teach would be wise to study and try to emulate.
It is not money, but good teachers, that make good schools. NORRIS D. BUNN JR. MONETA
Clinton contradicts himself on Bosnia
SO MUCH for our national security.
On ``60 Minutes,'' Dec. 10, the president was interviewed by the show's entire staff about our involvement in Bosnia.
When asked why we were sending our troops to Bosnia, the president alluded to the fact that, among other reasons, our national security is at stake.
Upon being asked what will happen if, after the projected one year of involvement, peace is not achieved, the president responded that we will have given Bosnia its opportunity for peace, and our troops will be withdrawn.
Not one of this elite group of news journalists asked the obvious follow-up question: What about our national security?
It appears that maybe we don't have a real compelling reason to place our troops in harm's way. JOHN E. ARNESEN MONETA
TV's air is still polluted
THE CURRENT discussion about the subjects shown on those daytime talk shows hits home.
WDBJ-TV (Channel 7) should be applauded for getting rid of all shows of this type over the past two years. It has shown tremendous responsibility in the programs that it shows during the 4-to-6 p.m. viewing time.
Also, WSLS-TV (Channel 10) should be applauded for taking off the trashy Ricki Lake program. But it should be faulted for airing the bubble-headed Danny Bonaduvee's program. Fortunately, it is shown at 11 a.m. weekdays when schoolchildren are at school - at least, when school is in session.
Of course, such programs that are the target of controversy are still aired in this area by WSET-TV (Channel 13) and WJPR/WFXR (Channel 21/27). The latter may have a legitimate excuse for airing these talk shows, since its network affiliate does not supply very much daytime programming.
However, Channel 13 has no excuse. It is strange that this station that shows Sally Jesse Raphael and Ricki Lake weekdays also shows the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour. It would seem Falwell should have something to say on this subject since his friend, William Bennett, is spearheading the current debate about the effect of these broadcasts on American society. DAVID LYNCH MARTINSVILLE
Where are the road's benefits?
THE SPECIOUS arguments for the so-called smart road were further advanced by one more person with a vested interest in the project - the vice president of a stone quarry (Dec. 9 letter by Martin Willis, ``Stay on course for the smart road's many benefits''). In his commentary, Willis said: "A personal computer in each car would exchange traffic information and regulate speed of each car [and] passengers could sleep, read or watch television.''
Amazing! But first, each person driving would have to buy a GM car with the computer, and then could sleep, read or watch television for 6 or 7 minutes - as the smart-road proposal now exists.
In the lifetime of most people now living in the New River Valley, there will be no benefit, and the costs, environmental and financial, would be huge.
I don't deny the value of long-range planning for advanced technology. But a single person driving a 4,000-pound vehicle along ribbons of steel and concrete is not a very progressive way of looking at transportation.
There are some alternatives to this situation. Europe and Japan have used rail and light-rail systems for years, and are now investigating the design of high-speed personal rapid-transit systems that are safe, and reduce congestion and pollution at a much lower cost than ``smart'' roads.
I personally object to The Roanoke Times' snide attacks on state Sen. Madison Marye. He, like most of us, is not an expert on this smart-road proposal. He is trying to do his job, which is to represent the best interests of his constituents and not just the interests of Roanoke and Virginia Tech. BET FONTAINE BLACKSBURG
Why slower is safer
IN RESPONSE to the letter from George Noewatne Jr. (Dec. 13, "Good riddance to the 55 mph limit"), regarding the 55 mph speed limit:
He speaks in his letter of interstates that are designed to handle speeds in excess of 70 mph. He also states that one of the main problems on these roads is inattentive drivers.
I emphatically agree with both statements. However, when he advocates higher speed limits I fail to understand his logic. In fact, it is contradictory.
How can he conclude that inattentive drivers are the main problem and then advocate higher speeds?
Because roads are designed for high-speed driving does not make drivers on these roads any more capable than they are on any other road. In fact, on limited-access high-speed highways, they become even more complacent because these roads are safer.
Higher speeds give inattentive people less time to react to rapidly changing traffic conditions or situations. Inattentive drivers, and all others on the road with this very small minority, are safer if their speed is more restricted. STANLEY A. KNOTT MARTINSVILLE
LENGTH: Long : 144 linesby CNB