Saturday, May 12, 2001

Is anyone enthusiastic about nuclear reactors?


Mr. Milloy cites an Associated Press poll as a basis for his statement that “support for nuclear power is rising.” Only 29 percent of AP´s total adult poll respondents (290 out of 1,002) said they “wouldn´t mind a nuclear plant within 10 miles of their own home.” What´s more interesting, and Mr. Milloy didn´t disclose, is that 44 percent of the AP poll´s self-stated supporters of nuclear power (228 out of 518 “supporters”) would not want to live within 10 miles of a reactor. So much for the conviction of Mr. Milloy´s nuclear power “supporters.”

With all polls, unambiguous, unbiased and straightforward questions generally are considered more reliable. In this case, such a question is, “Would you support or oppose the building of more nuclear power plants?”



This was asked by ABC News and The Washington Post of 1,350 adult respondents on the same weekend as the AP poll. The answer: Sixty percent opposes building more reactors, and 37 percent supports the concept. In June 1982, the Harris Poll asked the same question and got the exact same results.

Let´s not get resold on nuclear power hype and hysteria, we can´t pay the price. Energy efficiency and renewable resources create an energy system our parents can afford and our children can live with.


SCOTT DENMAN

Executive Director

Safe Energy Communication Council

Washington

Don’t forget Kerrey’s role in overseas ballot fiasco


If Mr. Kerrey were just a regular old citizen, the Justice Department would already have him under charges. It sure didn´t take long to charge Lt. William Calley for the massacre at My Lai.


A.D. MILLER

Burke, Va.

The slippery slope of gun registration


At a press conference last year, Mr. Rocard stated: “Measures must be devised to limit the access to small arms, to curtail the supply of small arms and to reduce the demand for small arms. The weapons of violence must be brought back into the control of the state.” How does he propose to achieve this? Again, in his own words: “enhance transparency and accountability in the transfer of small arms small arms should be made traceable through universal marking and record keeping.” That can mean only one thing universal firearms registration. He doesn´t even bother to make an argument on how this will benefit society. For him, increasing the power of the government and reducing the freedom of the governed is an end unto itself.

While Mr. Rocard proposes restrictions on obvious military weapons such as machine guns and grenade launchers, he does not mention that his goal and that of the U.N. committee considering this plan is to bring all small arms under “the control of the state.” Once firearms are registered, it is only a matter of time before the confiscations begin.

I defy Mr. Rocard to cite a single example of a government firearms registration scheme that did not eventually lead to confiscation. Recent examples include efforts in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In each case, the citizens were persuaded to register in the name of reducing crime. Good, law-abiding citizens complied with the law. Their reward was confiscation and higher crime rates.


STEPHEN J. HATCH

Centreville

Cheating on the litmus test


We defined a litmus test as “a standard that qualifies or disqualifies potential judicial nominees on the basis of the holdings they would issue with respect to a particular case, or a class of related cases.” We went on to declare that “he Constitution allows the President and Senate to ask probing questions regarding the nominee´s overall legal acumen, judicial philosophy, temperament, and commitment to fairness and impartiality t is entirely appropriate to examine the nominee´s legal reasoning in prior cases for evidence of open-mindedness and willingness to consider each case on its own merits.”

We stand by this position. While it would be illegitimate for a senator to demand that a judicial nominee express any sort of commitment to reach a particular result in a case, it is absolutely within a senator´s purview to comprehensively investigate a nominee´s approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation.

And while we´re on the subject of hypocrisy, a review of Mr. Jipping´s past pronouncements is in order. Writing in your pages last summer, he excoriated Senate Republicans for supporting Mary McLaughlin for a federal district judgeship (“Trading away the judiciary,” Op-Ed, July 25). His reason for opposing her? “She received a 1998 award from the ACLU for her pro-abortion activism.”

In other words, he opposed Ms. McLaughlin because her political position on a single issue was sufficient for him to conclude that she could not be an impartial adjudicator. That´s a litmus test.


MARK KOZLOWSKI

Associate Counsel

Brennan Center for Justice

New York University School of Law

New York

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide