OCR Text |
Show Opinions from our Readers . . . Dear Mr. Taylor: In defense of justice and common sense I am compelled to respond to the letter of Mr. Sy Gif-fin Gif-fin (Dec. 12 editorial) concerning large families fami-lies and welfare. I am in full accord with Mr. Gif-fin's Gif-fin's implied opinion that our welfare system is grossly abusive to our tax dollars. But then Mr. Giffin continues: "Whether the cause is carelessness, ignorance, or plain social so-cial irresponsibility, any parents who have more than, say, two children are placing an unfair burden on the rest of the community." Perhaps Per-haps people who have any children at all are getting get-ting more from their tax dollar than those who have fewer or none, and perhaps an adjustment should be made. But to suggest that anyone who chooses to have "more than, say, two children" (How about one or zero?) is either careless, ignorant, ig-norant, or irresponsible irresponsi-ble is something less than reasonable. Mr. Giffin further states that "this irresponsible irre-sponsible breeding spree" is the "major cause of our economic and social problems." Indeed, our society is presently plagued by innumerable in-numerable ills, and, no doubt, many of them can be traced to a shirking of parental duty. But not just on the parts of poor parents, or parents of more than two children. We are a nation of plenty and, generally, an affluent people, and we have been taught to take waste for granted. We have also been encouraged encour-aged to believe that leisure lei-sure time is superior to work; and we learn that getting something for nothing no-thing is the just reward of the clever. (After all, if high-ranking officials can do it, then certainly we are justified, for, otherwise, how can a "decent man" survive?) These philosophies, not large families, are at the root of our nation's problems; pro-blems; nor do large fa-miles fa-miles have a monopoly on these philosophies. I have been acquainted with many large families in my life, not one of whom has been on welfare. wel-fare. Of course there are exceptions, but exceptions ex-ceptions go both ways, and, as generalizations are destructive to objective ob-jective thought, they should be avoided. Sincerely, Mrs. Wayne Gold Moab. Dear Sam, Within this country the authority to govern is derived de-rived from the consent of the governed. The Department De-partment of the Interior derives its authority to govern SE Utah from the consent of remote (to us) cities and private land states, this despite the fact that our problems bear little resemblance to the problems of these remote (to us) places. We have no voter or financial fi-nancial recourse to the policies and decisions of this Federal dictatorship. dictator-ship. The Department of the Interior seems ' to pursue a policy ot over-conservation over-conservation with no regard re-gard for human problems prob-lems or progress. Its policy seems to benefit only pressure groups and nearly every move it makes erodes the opportunities oppor-tunities and rights of the less financed general public. It is absolutely essential essen-tial -that we reject this destructive and illegal authority and return this area of government to the proper responsible local governments. Most royalties and taxes from resources should remain within the counties of their origin to be used for the problems of said counties, as is the case in private land states. The Homestead Laws should be administered by County Governments as the BLM has defied this legitimate law and improperly repealed it by administrative acts. Federal Agencies should be welcomed if they would assist us and cooperate co-operate with us rather than attempting to con trol us lor ine purposes of other people in far away places. Sincerely, Joe Stocks Moab Dear Mr. Taylor: In three days, 600 Moab residents signed a petition peti-tion asking the County Commission and City Council to investigate the advantages and disadvantages disad-vantages of television, in Moab, by translator and by the present cable system. Those who signed the petition are unhappy with either the high cost, poor service or poor reception re-ception of the present cable system. I feel that the cost to the public for each system sys-tem should be carefully examined by our council-men council-men and commissioners before a decision is reached rea-ched to either renew cable ca-ble company's franchise or to introduce "free" television by translators translat-ors i If the translator system proves to be more economical for television te-levision reception of comparable quality, then I believe this community deserves the choice of the system to be utilized. Positive support and action ac-tion should also be taken by our elected leaders. Apparently a few of our elected officials have already made up their minds as to which system sys-tem they prefer, and when confronted with a change, they only give opinions why a translator transla-tor system will not work. However, they have no facts to back their opinions. opin-ions. Some of these men have stated that Green River has poor television, televi-sion, but they fail to realize that Moab would not receive that same signal. Moab would receive re-ceive a signal from Or-angeville, Or-angeville, Utah which is a much better signal. The difference in television tele-vision reception quality would be small in comparison com-parison to the economic difference that would benefit be-nefit the public. The important thing to me however, is that the commissioners and councilmen should have open minds and consider both alternatives before making a decision and gather all facts. The public, pu-blic, that elected them to their olnces, should also be informed of these facts. Sincerely, Susan J. Leatham Moab |