>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — Reader writes that tolls are not an answer

Here are 10 things I don’t like about the possibility of tolling bridges over the Ohio River:

1. Tolls are a regressive tax — the charge doesn’t vary according to income, and thus affects roads users on low incomes more than it does those who are better off.

2. Tolls are inefficient — a very large proportion of what is paid in tolls goes into the cost of collecting it and corporate profit.

3. Tolls are wasteful — apart from the cost of a collection and enforcement bureaucracy, authorities that operate tolls tend to be overmanned and looking for ways in which they can use up the money as fast as it comes rolling in.

4. Tolls are unfair — tolls are paid on top of other taxes on roads users — so drivers are paying twice.

5. Tolls don’t encourage fuel economy or distinguish between cars with different fuel consumption or using “greener” fuels. They lead to more wasted fuel as drivers detour and take longer routes to avoid tolls. It is better to charge for roads through taxes on fuel as this helps to conserve fuel supplies and reduce emissions by encouraging drivers to be more careful with their use of fuel and to car share.

6. Tolls cause some drivers to make longer journeys on less suitable roads which increases congestion and the risk of accidents.

7. Toll collection causes vehicles to slow down or stop. This is annoying for drivers. It also wastes more fuel, and leads to more accidents as the vehicles approach the tolls trying to get into a lane with the smallest queue and fumbling for cash. Fully electronic tolls reduce these harmful effects, but do not remove them; and in many cases there is a mixture of electronic and cash tolls which can cause more delays and accidents as drivers detour to get into the correct toll lane.

8. Tolls are often privately run, and even where they are not there is a great temptation to cash in by selling the toll money making machine. Private operators and their bankers usually make large profits. It is cheaper to pay for roads through either taxes or government borrowings — which are eventually repaid through taxes.

9. If there are two areas, one with tolls and the other without, then businesses, potential employees and tourists will prefer the area without tolls. Tolls reduce beneficial “agglomeration” effects as they divide people and businesses.

10. Tolls, particularly on river crossings, divide communities and create a “wrong side of the tracks.”

— Shawn Reilly, Louisville



Realizing our place with God

In watching Tiger Woods’ public apology, I noted sincerity and a passion to change. Also noted were a lot of me’s and my’s — my children, my marriage, over and over. This was reprinted with never an “our” children or “our” marriage.

Tiger Woods, besides being narcissistic, seems pick up a “thread” that runs through Buddhism, which he spoke of in closing. That particular thread is improving my anger, happiness, mood, to the exclusion of others, but “self.”

This particular thread is not only absent in Muslim, Jewish and Christian teaching, but actually an antithesis in those writings. The Ten Commandments, the prophets, the laws, and Jesus teach a vertical and horizontal relationship — I is to God, and I is to you (I-God, I-You)

The I-God, I-You view eliminates us taking the other as an “it” to be used, or to make a profit off of, or to only take pleasure in. When we have an I-You relationship, we see the “other” in their full humanity, with dignity and freedom and as the image of God. This view eliminates greed on the backs of others, pleasure at the cost of others, and offers dignity rather than sexism or racism.

Maybe, we haven’t come as far as we should have in the Muslim, Jewish and Christian teachings, but we as individuals are making headway, as long as we remember the paradox of being finite and the possibility and hope of the transcendent in our midst.

Remembering that we are not  “gods,” but finite, and that “the Spirit blows like the wind and we know not where or when,” and the reality of transcendence, can give us better roots with others.

May the peace of God be with you.

— Steven Fetter, Jeffersonville



The pen versus  the sword

The pen, like the sword, is an inanimate object. Each is a piece of metal. One larger than the other. Both have a point to prick, puncture and punctuate.

When held in hand, right or left, it’s as it appears — one a sword, the other a pen. What gives muscular motion to one gives animation to the other. The pen is grasped on the diagonal. A grasped sword is thrust horizontally. The pen strokes with purpose of bestowing honor. Honor is heaped on the skilled swordsmen.

Infamy has the pen, deceitfully been drawn. In infamy, the sword has been drawn. The vindictive sword draws blood. The pen, under duress, is written with blood. It is ennoble to live by decree of the pen. Lesser noble to die by the sword.

The word cuts as a double-edged sword. The penned word wounds the heart. Degradation is breaking of the sword. Degeneration is lacked use of the pen. Submission is unconditional surrender of the sword and pen.

The Constitution was written with pen and has weathered many storms of sword, such as Patrick Henry’s penned speech, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, curtailed the British sword.

Other sons of liberty stood shoulder to shoulder, building a republic, holding the fabric of a nation together with strokes from their pens. A nation, built with the pen, moved mountains, such as Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation.

It isn’t revolution we seek, it’s restitution of the institution of our founding fathers’ original Constitution.

Take pen in hand and vote the rascals out this fall.

— Leroy Heil, Jeffersonville