Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
The San
Francisco Chronicle
JUNE 26, 2000, MONDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A20; LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LENGTH: 1398 words
HEADLINE:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
BODY:
GORE VOTE WILL HELP
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Editor -- Thank you for your editorial ("A Challenge to
Women's Rights," June 13) about the restrictions proposed by the FDA on RU-486.
Please keep pointing out how inappropriate it is to inject politics into
personal medical decisions.
I hope women are listening. The next
presidential election has enormous implications for women's rights for the next
20 to 30 years -- not just for the four years of the next presidential term. I
am speaking of the next president's nominations to the Supreme Court. In
November, I will be voting for Al Gore, not because I think he'll be the
"perfect president," but because he will nominate mainstream candidates to the
Supreme Court -- ones who believe women should continue to have the right to
control their own bodies.
Perhaps in the future, the Republican Party
will remove the very personal issue of abortion rights from their platform. At
that time, I plan to get really picky about such things as campaign financing,
taxes, etc. Until then, I am voting to "save" the Supreme Court from extremist
appointments, and I hope others will have the long-term perspective to do the
same.
C.R. PROCTER
Moraga
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMPASSION AND BOOKS
Editor -- Add me to the list of City Lights
Bookstore devotees, and not just for the books. One late Friday evening I was
perusing a collection of short stories when I noticed a barefoot, down-and-out
woman curled up in a back corner. At first glance I was aghast and gave the
employee a "something needs to be done about this" expression. The silent look
back at me was so full of accepting compassion for the haggard woman that I
immediately felt at ease and ended up buying several books reflecting the myriad
joys and sorrows of existing in the real world. Thank you City Lights!
SUSAN BARRETT
San Francisco
-----------------------------------------------------------
SIERRA'S STAND
Editor -- Contrary to K.R. Hammond's letter (June
19), the Sierra Club is not silent on population issues. Indeed, it has had a
national population program for more than 25 years, and our members have
consistently voted population a priority environmental issue for the club to
work on.
The goals of the Sierra Club's Global Population Stabilization
Program are to stabilize population growth and reduce wasteful consumption of
natural resources in order to protect the global environment.
Our
members voted in 1998 to remain neutral on the issue of immigration, and instead
to attack the fundamental, core issues that result in rapid population growth
worldwide. This means we will continue to educate the public about natural
resource consumption and promote universal access and information to
comprehensive reproductive health care and family planning, education for girls
and women, and economic opportunities for women to help free them from poverty
and provide them with choices for the future.
Citizens concerned about
the issue can take action immediately by asking their members of Congress to
remove the"global gag rule" from the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill now
being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives. This amendment restricts
funding to family planning organizations in other countries and will be debated
in Washington in the coming days. U.S. funding for international family planning
programs has considerable impact on our efforts to protect the environment by
giving people the world over the ability to determine the size and spacing of
their families.
The world's rapidly growing population affects every
spot on the globe. Only global solutions can deal with this big-picture problem.
CARL POPE
Executive Director
Sierra Club
San
Francisco
-----------------------------------------------------------
COLUMN ERRORS
Editor -- Debra J. Saunders' latest plug for
George W. Bush and the Texas death penalty (Chronicle, June 21) has several
regrettable errors. She quotes George W. making the Strangelovian statement that
"the death penalty -- saves lives." No study or anecdotal evidence has ever
shown the death penalty to be a deterrent. In fact, murder rates are higher in
states that have the death penalty (6.6 per 100,000 population) than states
without it (3.5 per 100,000).
As for saving the death penalty for the
"sickest creeps," who's going to make that determination? In this society, in
this system, only black creeps, Latino creeps, poor creeps -- never rich, white
creeps get the needle or the chair.
Lastly, her call for raising the
execution age from 17 to 18 years old because "kids too young to vote and buy a
beer are too young for lethal injection" is not only macabre, it's erroneous.
The drinking age is 21. Human error, you see, can pop up anywhere.
JEFF
GILLENKIRK
Board of Directors
Death Penalty Focus
San
Francisco
-----------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REFORM
Editor -- As America's businesses
and individuals bathe in a roaring e-commerce economy where communication is
virtually instantaneous, especially in the Bay Area, the U.S. Postal Service is
in desperate need of a retooling to ensure its survival.
Thousands of
businesses and consumers are now ordering merchan dise and paying bills online.
America's method for both personal and business communication is changing from
the days-long wait of the mailman traversing through rain, sleet, snow and gloom
of night, to a minuscule, seconds-long wait of an e-mail order confirmation
number.
The rules governing the procedures of the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS) were enacted decades ago, years before the Internet was envisioned as a
tool of business and communication. If the USPS is to remain as a reliable and
affordable means of communication, changes need to be enacted. The Postal
Modernization Act, (H.R. 22) will position the postal service to operate
efficiently in the 21st century.
For competitive shipments classified as
express and priority mail, the proposed legislation will allow the commission to
set competitive rates, but also ensure that its massive first class and standard
mail business does not bankroll its competitive shipments and threaten private
carriers.
The time for meaningful postal reform is now.
Congress should adopt H.R. 22 to help ensure the future viability of the
Postal Service.
PATRICK ONTIVEROS
Tomlinson,
Zisko,
Morosoli & Maser
Palo Alto
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLEANER CARS
Editor -- The recent Public Policy Institute of
California poll shows that Californians view air pollution as a top threat
(Environment a Big Concern for Californians, Poll Shows, June 21). With
transportation the largest single source of air pollution in this country,
cleaner cars are an essential part of solving the air pollution problem.
California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program is putting cleaner cars on our
roads and pushing automakers to use technology to reduce air pollution. Because
conventional gasoline vehicles are inherently dirty, we should settle for
nothing less than zero-pollution technologies promoted by the ZEV program.
The poll also found that only 36 percent of Californians approved of
Gov. Gray Davis' handling of environmental issues. By vigorously supporting a
strong ZEV program, Gov. Davis could show Californians he is committed to
finding solutions to our environmental and public health threats.
MICHAEL PANCOOK
Media and Outreach Coordinator
Union of
Concerned Scientists
Berkeley
-----------------------------------------------------------
OUT
OF LIMITS
Editor -- Once again, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
has taken city time and money to "call" for action on a non-San
Francisco-related issue, in this case a boycott of products made by Basic
Vegetable Products and Best American Foods, makers of bulk vegetable products.
Is this boycott relevant to a San Francisco company (no listing for either in
the phone book) or San Francisco employees? Why are the supervisors spending the
time and money on this boycott when they were elected to deal with issues
relevant to San Francisco?
Further, I had not read of this issue before
seeing the note in the "San Francisco Boardwatch." So, what does this "call"
mean without publicity and who is benefiting from this?
SUSAN BERNARD
San Francisco
LOAD-DATE: June
26, 2000 
