DATE: Monday, September 1, 1997             TAG: 9708300004

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B8   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Letter 

                                            LENGTH:  103 lines

LETTERS TO EDITOR -- THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

ANIMAL RIGHTS

No common sense

in eating burgers

Common Sense for Virginia is described as ``a pro-animal-use organization that exists because PETA does'' (news, Aug. 25). Let's analyze these two organizations' names.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: PETA staff and volunteers, indeed, live up to this name and to their motto: ``Animals are not ours to eat, wear or experiment on.''

Common Sense for Virginia: Where is the common sense in eating a hamburger, a nasty food that may kill you in a few years from heart disease, stroke or cancer; or may kill you in a few weeks from an E-coli infection?

Where is the common sense in wearing fur, a heavy, vain garment that may represent the deaths of 60 innocent animals?

Where is the common sense in stalking and killing defenseless animals?

Common Sense for Virginia has not thought through the possibility that animal exploitation is wrong. Welcome to the 21st century! Go veg, lose the fur, drop the gun!

Betty J. Atkinson

Virginia Beach, Aug. 25, 1997

WATER SAFETY

Governor ignores

his family's welfare

I am pleased that Governor Allen and his family were able to enjoy the Garden of Eden of Hampton Roads, Back Bay and False Cape State Park. Unfortunately, Governor Allen showed lack of concern for his health, safety and welfare and that of his family as evidenced by the picture in the Aug. 15 Pilot. The children are in life jackets, but I see no sign of the adult Allens in floatation devices. As an example for the children, the adults should have had theirs on.

A picture on the front of the B section shows the elder Allen and his son on bikes, clearly in violation of city law which mandates helmets for children. Common sense mandates helmets for adults, especially under conditions in Back Bay and False Cape.

The story states father Allen rocked the canoe until the children yelled, ``then sat down and tucked chewing tobacco under his lower lip.'' I guess the governor has not had time to read about water safety, bike safety or the information on mouth cancer being caused by chewing tobacco.

Susan N. Westbrook

Virginia Beach, Aug. 15, 1997

PORTSMOUTH

Raze abandoned

stores, signs too

In regard to Vision 2005 in Portsmouth: I heartily approve of the goals, even though I was required to paint my house when I could ill afford it. I also approved of razing old, abandoned houses.

But what about ``old, abandoned'' businesses? There are two, one on London Boulevard and one on High Street, and I'm sure numerous others, that still have old signs and eyesore stores that have been standing for years.

Are not merchants who abandon these places required to remove old signs and improve their lots?

JoAnne Pruitt

Portsmouth, Aug. 21, 1997

MAGAZINES

Queen of mean's

new target: JFK Jr.

Once again, the queen of mean-spirited columnists has brought her specious brand of argument to us for consideration. Suzanne Fields likes nothing better than to affect a pose of moral outrage, and she has chosen for her pedestal this time (Perspectives, Aug. 21) the current issue of George, John Kennedy Jr.'s political magazine.

The object of Ms. Field's objection is not only JFK's prose, but his pose, as well. Writing on the subject of temptation, Kennedy is photographed in heavy shadow, crouched with arms around knees, peering up at a dangling apple. So dark is the image that offense could only be found in the mind of the viewer.

She goes on (and on), picking apart Kennedy's article, taking umbrage with each choice of word and phrase. She obviously doesn't like him, his politics, his magazine or members of his family, living or dead.

With the tone of a schoolyard bully, she resorts to trivializing Kennedy by repeatedly referring to him by his childhood nickname. I'd have hoped any writer so critical of another's efforts would be above such taunts.

Roberta Baker

Norfolk, Aug. 21, 1997

ROAD SAFETY

Kids in truck

aren't protected

While driving down Virginia Beach Boulevard, I observed a man driving a pickup truck with two very young children in the bed of the truck. At a stoplight, one of the children stood up and started walking toward the tailgate and the father began to take off when the light turned green. This small child almost fell out of the truck into my path, as I was driving behind them.

I immediately called the Virginia Beach police dispatcher and discovered that the law only prohibits dogs from being in the back of a pickup truck. I find this outrageous! Family pets are more protected than family children?

We should try to pass a law protecting children whose parents are not concerned about their safety in the back of trucks.

Robert Talley

Virginia Beach, Aug. 24, 1997

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu