ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, July 29, 1996 TAG: 9607290086
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
SINCE THE National Forest Service's decision to recommend the no-action alternative in its draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding American Electric Power's proposed 765-kilovolt power line, I've heard and read misleading comments about using federal land for this project.
Some comments have indicated this 765-kv power line should be put on federal lands to protect our private lands. It is our public (federal) lands. William Damon, supervisor of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, is responsible for the use and protection of this land for all of us.
It's a misconception that building this power line on federal land will protect private land. Even if the Forest Service had agreed to the line's crossing some of the eight to 17 miles of federal land being studied, about 90 percent of this 115- to 120-mile power line would be built on individuals' private land. While in some areas there is greater impact to adjacent private land than to federal land, the conclusion of the draft EIS is that the overall impact is too severe on both federal and private lands.
The word "environmental" in regards to the impact statement doesn't equate to "tree huggers" as some may believe. The draft EIS evaluated not just the impact to wildlife and endangered species, but evaluated the impact on our historic and cultural resources and our drinking water, the loss of property value, and the number of displaced families and homes.
I believe anyone who will take the time to become informed by reading the draft EIS will agree that the Forest Service has made the correct decision.
MARK HILEMAN
CATAWBA
Temper the rush to corporate control
I CRINGE every time I read a letter to the editor that uses the word "socialism" as an epithet. It's worse when the writer tries to equate the policies of Democrats with socialist ideals. A recent example is R. Keith Whitley's July 16 letter (``Government does it best. Yeah. Right.'') in which he decries the U.S. Postal Service's federal subsidy and its resultant low postage rates.
Democrats are capitalists. So are Republicans. But the apparent gentler nature of the typical Democrat makes him or her an easy target for those who believe that a totally unrestrained free market is the closest we can get to God's heaven on Earth. A capitalist, Democrat or Republican, feels it's natural for "owners" to wield inordinate influence in the political, economic and social lives of their "workers.'' Democrats temper our current rush to a global corporate state by injecting a little humanity into the process, but there's no fundamental critique of the system as a whole.
Instead of a scattered Band-Aid approach to our problems (a little campaign-finance reform here, a bit of environmental regulation there,) the socialist sees the threat in the corporate agenda that pervades every aspect of our lives, and proposes a huge infusion of democracy. Get rid of the boardroom full of millionaire CEOs and owners, and put some of us regular folk in there. Will you see plants closing, leaving communities high and dry or continuing toxic discharges into our air and water? I think you'll see people trying to put profits to proper use, considering humans' well-being along with the bottom line.
When one considers the entire political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans sit right next to each other. With this perspective, a Republican calling a Democrat "socialist" is sadly laughable. The scope of the debate regarding our country's future is frighteningly narrow, which suits the corporate interests quite nicely. Personally, I think we ought to scrap a few B-1 bombers, and make sending letters free.
BRET NELSON
CHRISTIANSBURG
Constitution didn't cover school issue
I READ with disbelief Kimberly Pitzer's July 18 letter to the editor, ``A rush to judgment for Mary Baldwin,'' and the statement, ``The Constitution's 14th Amendment says that all U.S. citizens, regardless of gender or race, are entitled to the same liberties.'' It does not! The Constitution says, ``No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.''
This was adopted July 28, 1843, three years after the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery), when the word ``liberty'' meant exemption from slavery, bondage, imprisonment or control of another, and it had nothing to do with who should go to which school.
It's these kinds of statements by those who translate the Constitution to suit their own ends that cause so many problems in our country.
COLIN J. BROWN
SALEM
Medical tests using animals are cruel
TALK ABOUT misleading campaigns waging a war of public opinion with false ads, staged situations and inaccurate headlines! The July 17 commentary, "PETA's own lack of ethics'' by Michael Fumento, is a perfect example.
He implies that PETA is a violent organization that conducts raids on animal-testing laboratories. Absolutely untrue. PETA abides by a code of conduct that attracts attention with sensational, often amusing, photo-ops with celebrities and volunteers. Nonviolence is practiced with regard to people, property and animals.
Violence exists in the laboratories that purchase animals (your pet could become one of them) for unnecessary, medically uninformative tests that put money into the pockets of animal breeders and animal collectors. Many options exist today for testing new drugs and medical treatments, including computer simulation and other technologically advanced methods. These satisfy needed requirements for safety and feasibility. The only thing lacking is rule changes from the Food and Drug Administration that exempt often-torturous animal experimentation.
There are instances where animal testing has given the wrong and dangerous impression that certain products will not harm humans. One well-known case is thalidomide - the drug that produced children without limbs when administered to pregnant women.
Please do not attribute animal testing as beneficial to Christopher Reeves. When I last saw this brave man, he was admirably attempting to resume a normal life, but he's still completely paralyzed and unable to breathe on his own. What about spinal-cord drugs that passed animal testing but had no effect on humans?
I accept Fumento's challenge, and would wear a bracelet with a tag saying "do not resuscitate, do not administer any drugs or therapies that necessitated animal testing.''
He could include himself under the "parasite" label he inflicts on animal-rights activists.
PAT PRATALI
SALEM
Debate's sponsor deserved a mention
IN YOUR informative July 21 article (``Warner and Warner face off in first debate''), your able writer described the Warner vs. Warner debate at The Homestead in Hot Springs ``before a crowd of lawyers'' and a panel of journalists, including one from your own staff.
It would have been more informative of the writer to also report that the sponsoring organization for the debate was the Virginia Bar Association, the largest and oldest voluntary organization of lawyers and judges in the commonwealth.
The VBA has established a tradition of such statewide political-campaign debates, as yet one more valuable project in our continuing effort to be of service to our members and the public. Moreover, in this case, we were able to arrange with C-Span for coverage. This carried the debate to thousands of others not present at our meeting. We believe that the resources, time and effort to present these exchanges are very well spent, but do deserve notice in reports of the event.
DOUGLAS P. RUCKER JR.
President
Virginia Bar Association
RICHMOND
LENGTH: Long : 143 linesby CNB