Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Take another look at what new museum means
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Letters: A home-school mom pays taxes, too
- Pick of the day: Home-schoolers reject public schools
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Take another look at what new museum means
As the new art museum takes shape on Salem Avenue, I am asking that we take a second look at what it brings to downtown Roanoke and to the Roanoke Valley.
Our culture is faced with the need to imagine, evolve and adapt new strategies, as we recognize the effects of obsolete and harmful public policies. We need opportunities to expand our ability to imagine new solutions.
The Art Museum of Western Virginia provides one. It is more than just a new and innovative building. It is a model for the role of art in our emerging society.
No longer just a warehouse for the products of previous generations, it is a work in process, challenging preconceptions at first glance and inviting active community participation on all levels.
With its focus on providing arts education for the entire 40-county area of Western Virginia, it serves as a wise investment in our most precious natural resource -- our children -- as we enter the global economy. It is a vote of confidence in the collective creative consciousness of generations to come.
I am inviting you to see the new museum as described by one 10-year-old art student, "The coolest thing Roanoke has ever done."
Neighbors help each other in battle
The logic escapes me as to U.S. criticism of Iran and Syria for providing support to Iraqis in fighting the invaders and occupiers of Iraq.
If a foreign country had invaded and occupied Mexico, would the United States refrain from providing support to Mexicans fighting the invaders and occupiers?
If it did provide such support, would it be logical for it to be criticized for providing such support?
Questions regarding the Catholic Church
The recently approved settlement of $660 million against the Roman Catholic Church for 560 victims of sexual abuse by the clergy brings me to ask these questions:
Why does the Catholic Church have to pay for these charges of sex abuse? Why has this church, if it was built by God's desire, allowed the priests to abuse children sexually?
What are they missing if they committed their vows to God such as humility, poverty, honesty, purity, etc.? Is it that they are not satisfied with what the church has ruled to them? Remember, they also are human beings and they have needs.
Why is the Catholic Church the only one that doesn't allow priests to marry? God never said that any church won't be allowed to follow this. He encourages overseers and deacons to follow his words, to have a wife and a family.
To the pope, cardinals and bishops: If our God has taught all this through his words in the Bible, why does the Catholic Church go against him?
Is it that this church believes only in its own rules, Bible and commitments? If so, it is questionable to be a Catholic.
Criminals don't care about victims' rights
Regarding the July 22 commentary "Guns = less crime: Equation doesn't hold up," by Sabina Thaler:
Economists on both sides of the issue can bicker about statistics all they want. If I or my family is faced with an imminent, deadly threat, I want the most effective means of self-defense available -- a firearm.
Thaler appears concerned with "real world" numbers, but believing you can eliminate guns and criminals won't murder without them is living in a fantasy land. Does she think that Seung-Hui Cho was concerned with her or anyone else's right not to be shot?
Where should people park for this meeting?
I would really like to attend either meeting today regarding the parking charges, but I do not think I will be able to find a parking space.
If I park on the street and the morning meeting runs overtime, I am likely to get a ticket.
If I try to get to the evening meeting, all of the slots will have been taken by the general public. Plus, those who have reserved spaces will not be leaving until approximately 5:30 to 6 p.m., and others will start arriving downtown for dinner. Where will they park?
The reason for the proposed charges, I believe, is to pay for a multi-story car park across from the police station on Campbell Avenue to accommodate the people moving downtown to live. In that case, let them pay for it.
Or the people building or renovating, then they could pass the cost on to the new downtown residents.
It's possible to collect on out-of-state drivers
Gov. Tim Kaine carefully explained recently the distinction between "fees" and "fines" to Virginians and why certain of the proposed abuser fees could not be enforced on out-of-state drivers.
But certain of those fees can easily be turned into fines on out-of-state drivers. For example, DUIs, transporting of illegal drugs, reckless driving or speeding over a predetermined limit. (I think the limits we have are fine except for passing, in some instances.)
Vehicular homicide is just that wherever it is committed. These fines would net a few out-of-state drivers who do not observe the law.
Non-Virginians should be charged the proposed fees. This would calm some of the objections of Virginians now calling the law unfair and will sock it to some out-of-state drivers.
Don't forget to include truckers, most of whom are from out of state. It will go on that driver's record with the company.
Personally, I think all of this is a poor substitute for a transportation bill that certain die-hard legislators will not pass. They are truly myopic and not looking out for the commonwealth now and in the future.
Fined for trying to drive safely
I'd like to make the readers aware of Virginia code 46.2-921.1 that states, "Drivers to yield right-of-way or reduce speed when approaching stationary emergency vehicles on highways."
As I found out the hard way about a month ago, this means you must change lanes if there is a cop on the side of the road with his lights on. He doesn't have to have anyone pulled over; he just has to be sitting there.
The law states that if it's reasonable, you must change lanes. As I found out in the courtroom, that simply means you must change lanes.
I wonder what he would have said if I had caused an accident in my effort to quickly change lanes in the heavy traffic that is on that section of Interstate 81 at 4:30 in the afternoon?
Using sound judgment, I stayed in my lane and did not cut anyone off or cause an accident. But I did get convicted of the offense, thanks to my decision.
I'd like to advise readers to be aware of the law and make their own safe driving judgments; just be aware that opting for safety may cost you.
Don't destroy the public's park
After reading your news article on Valley Forward (July 23, "Valley Forward invests energy in civic life"), I am even more appreciative of people like Betty Field, Gail Burruss and Dick Howard who look after the interests of all the citizens of Roanoke by opposing those who would develop public property for private profit.
Americans have seen enough of the Valley Forward agenda on a national scale, as the present administration in Washington privatizes public services and allows developers to control and ultimately destroy our national parks.
Roanokers should contribute to the efforts of the newly created Mill Mountain Conservancy.
Valley Forward only duplicates the services of the chamber of commerce.
