ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, July 17, 1996 TAG: 9607170017
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
WHILE I was in the process of formulating a response to Art Poskocil's egregious commentary (July 1, ``Shameless GOP has created a beast'') on conservatism, Greg McMahon's excellent critique appeared (July 13 letter to the editor, ``Most see the Republicans' `problems' as the solutions''). Thank you for publishing his response, although it was the least you could do after printing the misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies from the vitriolic pen of Poskocil.
Being a Christian and conservative places me, I suppose, with the ``Christian right.'' However, I and many of my friends are not one-issue voters. Nor do I fit the other characteristics Poskocil ascribes to us.
Liberals, with too much help from some conservatives, have altered the terms of (un)civil discourse. We tend to talk past, rather than to, one another. And we'll soon need radically revised dictionaries to keep up with the redefinition of words. A reduction in the runaway increase in Medicare (and other) costs is now a ``deep cut'' (Mark Warner), and a desire to protect the unborn is now ``extremism'' (Ellen Goodman). ``Compassion'' is favoring a policy that, after 30 years and several trillion dollars, is producing an ever-increasing underclass.
But the most alarming trend in modern culture is to place less and less importance on character. What have we come to? If God (he is in control, you know) permits the re-election of Bill Clinton, it will be exactly what we so richly deserve!
DANIEL C. ESAU
ROANOKE
Halt destruction of national forests
THANKS TO Robert Egbert for his June 3 letter to the editor, ``Now it's logging without laws.'' This federal law allows the overseers of our national forests to ignore decades of conservation law at will.
``Logging without laws'' is a sneaky piece of legislation that anti-conservation extremists successfully tacked to an unrelated bill in 1995. Citizens from coast to coast have already documented numerous cases of forest and wildlife-habitat destruction under logging without laws. As Egbert says, there fortunately is a remedy. Legislation to fully repeal logging without laws has been introduced and already has 147 co-sponsors.
Conservation will no doubt be a major issue in this year's elections. Incumbents and challengers alike should be asked what they would do about logging without laws. We as citizens must go beyond this. In the years before the '94 elections when anti-environmental forces took over Congress, too many so-called allies of conservation sat on the fence.
In 1996, the people we put into office must take a pro-environmental, proactive stance. They must pass legislation that prohibits clear-cutting and other forms of even-aged logging outright. Elected officials must pass legislation that gives permanent protection to roadless areas, scenic areas, important habitat of wild animals, watersheds of trout streams and older forest. We must have a wildlands legacy to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
What direction is our country to go - that of conservation pioneers like Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir or that of Charles Taylor, R-N.C., author of logging-without-laws legislation? Taylor received $70,000 worth of campaign contributions from the timber industry and timber multinationals. You decide.
SHERMAN BAMFORD
ROANOKE
Feminists trampled VMI
NOT SINCE the late '30s, when Hitler's National Socialists slashed traditions, burned books and trampled a culture in my native country, have I been as angry and disgusted. History has repeated itself.
On June 26, avowed feminist Justice Ruth Ginsburg, supported by six confused justices of the highest court in the land, decided to destroy the Virginia Military Institute (June 27 article, ``VMI must admit women, Supreme Court rules 7-1''). This is a stark tragedy.
The feminist argument of equal opportunity for admission to VMI is based greatly on an element of self-service (of benefit denied). It's lacking even a trace of any element of service beyond self to community and society at large. It is, as stated in the brief, the desire to reap the benefits of the VMI network of alumni.
VMI would never condone its adversative system (for men) to be imposed on women. It would demean and denigrate womanhood. But then, perhaps, it wouldn't matter to these women. Civility means nothing anymore, decency and truth are outdated, crudity and deceit rule the times.
No, VMI men will have no part in Madam Ginsburg's vision. They still value honor and integrity.
ELINOR D. WRIGHT
LEXINGTON
LENGTH: Medium: 87 linesby CNB