Letters to the editor

Economized ecology

The article about the plight of the snowy plover in Wednesday’s editions of this publication addressed a growing problem facing our country’s residents (“Rare bird plan sparks ire,” American Scene).

As our population continues to grow and enjoy a healthy standard of living, we are infringing upon fragile and often beautiful ecosystems. As a conservationist, I have an affinity for these wild areas, but the current solutions offered for their protection are unacceptable in an ecological sense as well as an economic one. The current model of endangered species protection discourages future property ownership and provides perverse incentives for current owners, namely: Shoot, shovel and shut up.

The current model of regulatory takings amounts to no more than restraints placed on property rights, which reduce the value of the property but leave the title in the owner’s hands. The owner is then left with devalued property and economic losses that cannot be recouped.

The residents of these communities and others like them made intelligent economic decisions when they decided to start businesses in these areas. They understood that the areas attracted tourists who would require services during their stays. Just because we want to protect an imperiled organism should not mean a few residents should pay for environmental amenities while the rest of us enjoy them free of cost.

SHAUN TANGER

Auburn, Ala.

Bush makes his case

Thanks to President Bush for an excellent job in presenting his case to the public (“Bush holds to June 30 turnover,” Page 1, Wednesday). Despite a very hostile and blatantly biased media, Mr. Bush remained calm and proved once again why so many Americans like myself are thankful we have a strong leader like him in office. Despite having to repeat himself over and over as he defended his efforts to make our country safer, the president highlighted the hypocrisy of his critics who have criticized him for not taking pre-emptive action before September 11 and for taking action after September 11.

Can you imagine the international outcry had we invaded Afghanistan in August 2001? What if we had enacted strict security measures at airports, detaining possible Muslim terrorists? The American Civil Liberties Union would have had a field day. Hindsight is 20/20, as the Bush-haters have proved. So is their blatant disregard for common sense.

JON ALVAREZ

Baldwinsville, N.Y.

•

“The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.” That’s one of President Bush’s favorite sayings, and he said it again at his press conference April 13. There aren’t many people who would argue with that narrow point, but it is important to keep that point in context. Are we better off without the nearly 700 Americans who have died in Iraq? Are we better off with the continuing American deaths and injuries there? Are we better off without the $1 billion we pour into Iraq every week? Who is going to pay for that? Could any of that money be used for American needs?

Are we better off with an invigorated terrorist movement in Iraq and in other parts of the world? Finally, at a time when we need all the help we can get to defend ourselves against terrorism, are we better off with less respect and support from the rest of the world?

DOUG LONG

Rio Rancho, N.M.

A few bad apples

Republican Delegate Donald H. Dwyer Jr. and the nephew whose essay on Islam Mr. Dwyer distributed are both wrong about the religion and what it stands for (“Delegate pushes race sensitivity course,” Metropolitan, April 9). Islam should not be equated with violence just because some mentally disturbed people who carry out acts of violence claim to be Muslim. True Islam teaches peace and not violence. I am a Christian, and I know that to be a fact.

If we start to stereotype religions based on the acts of a small group of people, what can we say about Christians who murder doctors at abortion clinics and Ku Klux Klan members who murder people and call themselves Christians?

In every religion there are going to be people who are not true followers, so let’s not be naive and equate the behavior of those people with the religion to which they claim to belong.

TWAMONOWIYE DANIEL

Baltimore

Law students can learn from Starr

I suppose one should not be surprised when a former Clinton staffer defends his boss and maligns Kenneth Starr (“A new curriculum at Pepperdine,” Letters, Tuesday), but that does not mean one should not be offended by the blatant disregard for truth and people with views decidedly different from those of Robert S. Weiner and his ilk.

Judge Starr did not “investigate consensual sex when no one complains,” as though there is nothing wrong with adultery in the Oval Office. Perhaps Mr. Weiner wants readers to forget that the investigation grew from the complaints of nonconsensual sexual advances filed by Paula Jones, then increased in scope when it was discovered that others had complained, including Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. Mr. Weiner thinks law students should be concerned about the problems of investigating “consensual” sex and related taping of conversations, testimonies, etc., but he expressed no concern about the immorality of adultery or the charges of harassment and rape.

Not only did Bill Clinton repeatedly break his oath of marital fidelity, but he gave false testimony under oath. He lied to the American people. He encouraged his staff to spin for him, and, in some cases, attack the character of others for him. Does Mr. Weiner agree with the tactics of Mr. Clinton, James Carville, Paul Begala, Sidney Blumenthal, et al.?

Judge Starr did not release “titillating reports” to the press; Congress did. He explained why the reports included sexual details: Mr. Clinton and others denied, dissembled, distortedandotherwise disrespected the truth and the rule of law. Should law students be concerned? Mr. Clinton’s attorney, Robert Bennett, was.

Law students and others definitely should hear more about what happened, what should have happened and why.

JEFF GARDNER

Manassas

•

Robert S. Weiner seems to be upset that Kenneth W. Starr will have the top position at Pepperdine University’s School of Law . What Mr. Starr did was certainly annoying. As a business owner, I have dealt with many lawyers who take up my time so they can sue my company for money.

Oaths are considered to be outdated. We think we can lie and that there is no punishment because “everyone does it.” After all, if everyone can lie under oath, why prosecute without hard evidence? If a person’s word is considered to be unreliable, our system of justice grinds to a halt.

Mr. Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment case. He sought to deny the legal right of his accuser to use the system to right what she felt was a wrong. People’s motivations are irrelevant.

It was not about sex but about lying. Without faith that a sworn statement is what the person believes to be true, our legal system will not function.

MICHAEL SPEIZMAN

Boca Raton, Fla.