www.roanoke.com

Suing the state over shootings would be suing its taxpayers

The shootings at Virginia Tech were a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. However, Ira Stancil would have you believe that the state of Virginia and Virginia Tech are malevolent entities that somehow made negligent decisions and need to be punished ("Tech shootings involved more than simple negligence by the state," March 28 letter).

Virginia Tech is a public university and, just like a public corporation, it does not make decisions. Its executives do. If the governor felt, after reviewing his commissioned report, that gross negligence occurred, he should have fired these executives. If they felt they had been unjustly terminated, they should have the right to sue members of the committee.

Sadly, litigation lawyers will try to make a jury believe that the state of Virginia and its evil stepchild Virginia Tech are to blame and should be punished. The taxpayers of Virginia will have to pay, along with future students of Virginia Tech. If you feel you are to blame, by all means make out a check for your share and send it to each victim's family. Make sure you deduct legal fees. Turning this horrible tragedy into an excuse for personal gain is a travesty.

Virginia keeps campus vulnerable

While I, like everyone with a heart, feel nothing but sorrow for the victims of the Tech shooting, the offer from our state of $100,000 to the victims' families not to sue truly sickens me.

Did the state or Virginia Tech make that maniac execute those folks? Are the taxpayers to be held responsible? Do you think the politicians will get in their own pocketbooks to settle this?

The question nobody is asking is why these people were denied their Second Amendment rights while on campus. My gut tells me that whether any one of the victims was pro- or anti-gun at the moment the gunman pointed his weapon at them, they wished there was a gun in their pocket. Until we as a state tell our elected officials we're tired of them putting us in vulnerable positions, it can happen again.

Funny thing is, 'Pearls' is good, too

I knew Garry Trudeau was taking a three-month sabbatical from "Doonesbury" and I was more than ready to dislike its replacement, "Pearls Before Swine." But I find myself liking this comic strip very much. It more than holds its own with the other comic strips along this line.

The Roanoke Times could do a lot worse than keep this strip when Trudeau does return and replace one of the others. And please bring back Maureen Dowd to your Sunday commentaries. Some of these writers are so boring they make my eyes cross. Lately, that includes George Will, unless he is writing about baseball.

Attack on McCain was short on accuracy

Concerning Harry Nash's commentary "The dangers of a McCain presidency," I believe you need to do a little fact-checking.

Nash makes his case by mostly quoting a writer for the American Free Press. This publication promotes conspiracy theories and anti-Israeli propaganda. Articles appearing on your Commentary page, unlike letters to the editor, need to be questioned for their outlandishness and accuracy.

You owe the readers of your paper more.

Keep down the damage to the taxpayers

I agree with your paper's March 26 editorial "Shifting hurricane risk to taxpayers," which argues adding wind coverage to the already insolvent National Flood Insurance Program will only overwhelm the federal government and place even greater financial burden on all taxpayers.

Adding wind insurance to the NFIP essentially lulls property owners into a false sense of security and promotes rebuilding in coastal areas routinely slammed by tropical storms. It's simply foolish public policy to use taxpayer dollars to encourage building practices that place human lives at greater risk, increase the cost of future storms and lead to environmental disaster.

A coalition of disparate groups including Consumer Federation of America, the National Wildlife Federation and Republicans for Environmental Protection, among others, is raising concern about this proposed irresponsible policy. There are better solutions to this crisis -- market-based solutions such as tax credits and other incentives to reward citizens who site, construct and upgrade their homes to minimize risk and withstand water and wind damage.

It's time Congress realize what this group of strange bedfellows already understands -- adding wind coverage to the NFIP is not a sound solution.

Government Affairs Director Republicans for Environmental Protection

It's what the candidates say that should count

Surely everyone realizes that Barack Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor says. But Hillary Clinton is responsible for what she says. She admits to making a mistake and "misspeaking" regarding her trip to Bosnia. Her excuse is that she was tired, but the film clip tells the real truth. Do the American people want a president who makes mistakes, misspeaks and cries when he/she is tired? Duh.

Guilt by association is no way to judge

Harry Nash's March 25 commentary, "The dangers of a McCain presidency," uses guilt by association and personal predictions of McCain's future actions.

Assuming the author believes guilt by association is an accepted form of judging candidates for what is probably the most powerful job in the world, consider the name of Antoin Rezko. This Chicago area resident was indicted in October 2007 and is facing extortion charges. Candidate Barack Obama purchased property from this friend at below-market price. Rezko has contributed about $250,000 to Obama political campaigns.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has publicly cursed the U.S. and exclaimed that white people have created AIDS to kill blacks. Obama has been attending his church for a couple decades.

Another candidate has been associated with Norman Hsu, a fugitive in a 15-year-old California fraud case. This troubled businessman has pumped about $850,000 into the Hillary Clinton campaign, along with vast amounts into other political campaigns. Consider the candidate's former husband's alleged associations with Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky.

Guilt by association is a dangerous method for judging anyone, including candidates for political office.

Rasoul's criticism doesn't wash

Sam Rasoul, fresh off another controversy for his violation of a Botetourt County sign ordinance, has apparently chosen to respond to some legitimate questions about his out-of-state fundraising by not just attacking me -- his former campaign manager -- but by lying about how I left his long-shot campaign and slandering my character in the process.

As treasurer for Democrat Drew Richardson's campaign, I authored a recent e-mail that noted how so much of Rasoul's money is coming from Ohio, Louisiana, Florida and other states -- almost anywhere but the Sixth Congressional District. This kind of scrutiny has prompted Rasoul to attack me, but in a personal, not a political, way.

Rasoul knows that I worked day and night for him, including weekends. He knows that I carried out every task he ever asked me to perform. He knows, too, that when I resigned (I wasn't "forced out," as he said), he called me to ask if he could talk me out of that decision. Is that the response of any employer to a "lazy" employee?