Letters to the Editor Continued

Lottery Funds Some, Not All, of Education
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Charlotte B. Pierce's letter, "Wasn't the Lottery Going to Fund Schools?" contained some questions about the Virginia Lottery that we are happy to answer.

In fiscal year 2009, Virginia Lottery profits totaled $439.1 million statewide. By law, all Lottery profits are required to go to K-12 public education in the commonwealth.

It is very important to note that Lottery funds were never intended to be the sole funding for Virginia's public schools. In fact, Lottery funding is only about 7 percent of the total budget for public education in Virginia. We at the Lottery are very proud of what we help raise for education in the commonwealth, but the majority of funding comes from other sources.

A lot of good information about the Lottery, including year-by-year sales and profit figures, can be found by visiting www.valottery.com or e-mailing us at info@valottery.com. We appreciate the opportunity to provide answers. John Hagerty, Virginia Lottery.

Richmond.

Richmond Ignores Her Lost Souls, Too
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The article titled "Slavery Museum Property at Risk," caught my attention. Last year I reviewed the public records personally at Fredericksburg's City Hall regarding the property. This was triggered by my visit earlier in the day to the Slave Garden and finding the gate locked and grounds poorly maintained -- which was distressing.

The public records and additional information eventually provided by the government entities lead to an interesting path. Do I agree with Doug Wilder's apparent questionable intentions about building a slave museum that appeared to benefit the Silver Cos.' request for an interchange off the nearby highway? No. However, as a Caucasian I consider black history to be history that belongs to all of us -- no different from the history of other ethnic groups or civilizations.

The lost souls of the past need a voice. Has Richmond shown respect to those who suffered in the chains of history? Court is now in session. Soon we will find out.

Nancy Frantel.
Midlothian.

She is absolutely correct in her interpretation. Further, our Constitution, as written by this nation's forefathers, was clearly intended as a restriction on the power and scope of a central government. They recognized it as an imperfect document written by men in an ever-changing world. To this end they provided a process of making changes to this ruling document.

The process is clearly spelled out in Article V. It requires passage of amendments by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratification by two-thirds of the state legislatures. While this process is lengthy it has been deliberately designed to avoid excessive and poorly thought out amendments that later have to be revoked (such as Amendments 18 and 20). While this process is time-consuming to those who are anxious to impose their will on others, it is absolutely the best method ever devised by man.

The idea that the Constitution is simply a document that gets in the way of government is the rambling of those who would like to overthrow the United States government and should be viewed as such.

Terence Cooper.
Burgess.

Or they could become self-funded, or the "public option" in a hybrid system, forced to upgrade the quality of their product to maintain traffic on the theory no one will pay for a lousy, accelerated job. This would mean parking the best, most experienced personnel in the lower courts, where decision-making is typically determinative. If litigants are satisfied below, such positioning could eliminate the need for some of the vast appellate bureaucracy -- more potential budget savings. Because here's the clunker we have now: There's the "avoidance canon," where judges either don't decide or rule on a ground which really doesn't resolve anything, but disposes of a matter to get it off their desk. Expensive and inconclusive for litigants who expect and deserve more than a drive on the road to nowhere.

Another major problem, at all levels, is law-clerk justice. Just out of school, a bunch of mostly 25-year-olds in training, making impactful decisions that their bosses blindly sign off on. As these rulings travel up the system, they are routinely rubber-stamped by more apprentices, who cover their peers' tracks in this self-interest network where everyone's paving the way for their next career move. A stop sign should be put to this extra-constitutional exercise of judicial power and payment of redundant salaries.

In a Virginia running on fumes, officials need to look past their blind spots to non-retread solutions. That includes the commonwealth's side street and back alley courts. It's as easy as A, B, See . . .

Karen DeLuca.
Alexandria.

Our public universities have unilaterally chosen to expand the protected-class list to justify preferential treatment in hiring, firing, promotions, and pay for folks they believe deserve preferential treatment based on a claim of sexual preferences or practice (homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, etc.). The rub is that state taxpayer money is being used by these state institutions to hire, promote, and otherwise benefit this newly created protected class without any state legal authority.

Sen. Mark Warner's statement that this decision "authorizes our public colleges and universities to discriminate" is ludicrous. Does he really expect us to believe that if we allow our notoriously liberal universities the freedom (a non-regulated right) to choose that they will discriminate against all those who are not designated as a protected class?

Any preferential treatment of one person over another due to the other person's group identity is in effect discrimination against those who do not receive the special consideration.

Your conclusion that Cuccinelli is "not hiding his conservative political philosophy" is correct in that this philosophy demands adherence to the laws duly enacted by the legislature. If someone disagrees with current law, then they have the right to work through their representatives in our legislature to change the law in question. This has been a foundational principle of our representative political system that comes "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

To do otherwise is to invite legal anarchy where everyone does as they think best.

Harry H. Hanger Jr.
Chesterfield.

Alexis de Toquevuille said, "America is great because she is good." Is Richardson unaware that America sends out more money and missionaries than any other country?

Regarding no condemnation from Jesus: "The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." But he also said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

Heaven and hell are "inventions"? Jesus said hell 11 times and heaven 101 times. Why quote him at all if it's just a lie?

Richardson asks, "Does my God send two-thirds of the people on Earth to hell?" Does he really want to know Jesus' words in Matthew 7? "The way is narrow that leads to life and few are those who find it." My "God of love" is also a "God of justice."

I don't know who his god is, but where does he get the gall to quote Bible verses, then pick and choose which ones are church inventions? Isn't it absurd to quote from the best seller of all time then say it's all "to frighten the uneducated"?

As for Richardson's final admonition, "It's past time we stop preaching and Bible studying," may I suggest if he wants to preach, he needs some serious Bible study first -- go to Africa and dig wells.

Clareann Berchtold.
Maidens.