| Letters
are subject to editing for length, clarity, libel, and other considerations.
Please limit your letter to approximately four hundred words. Letter
submissions are due by the twentieth of the month prior. Please
see the Contact Us page for submission
options (e-mail, web, fax, mail).
By submitting your comments to the Sandoval Signpost you are granting
us permission to reprint all or an edited portion of your message
letters, opinions, editorials
The Signpost welcomes letters of opinion to encourage dialog in
the community. Letters are subject to editing for length, clarity,
libel, and other considerations.
re: What is the noble cause, Mr. President?
President Bush, you owe Cindy Sheehan an explanation. Ms. Sheehan
has been camped outside the your ranch in Crawford, Texas, waiting
for your explanation of why her son, a Marine killed in combat in
Iraq, died.
It is not enough to send your press secretary to tell Ms. Sheehan
that her son died fighting for a "noble cause’; Cindy
would like to know what you believe that noble cause is. We know
it cannot be protecting the world from Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction, because none have been found. We know this noble cause
is not to protect the world from nuclear annihilation, because Iraq
did not have a nuclear weapons program when we attacked. And even
though you and the Vice President still try to cloud the issue saying
that we are retaliating for 9/11, we all know now that not one of
the 9/11 attackers was from Iraq.
I feel for you, Mr. President. I would not know what to tell the
parents and loved ones of the killed or wounded soldiers what this
noble cause is either. Because as far as we can see, there isn't
one. And to admit that you may have made a mistake is just not in
your nature.
In spite of what your advisors, the right-wing, talk-radio DJs,
and the so-called "balanced news" pundits of FOX News
would have us believe, Cindy Sheehan is not a traitor. She is just
a mother of a fallen soldier who is waiting for an explanation.
If there are traitors in this conflict, it is the media who have
not had the guts—that Ms. Sheehan has shown—to ask the
hard questions about this war. You owe Cindy Sheehan an explanation,
Mr. President. In fact, you owe every citizen of this country and
every citizen in the world an explanation. We're waiting, Mr. President.
—GARY W. PRIESTER
Placitas
Pombo’s task force tears into the NEPA
—LAURA PASKUS
High Country News
As registering students chat in the glaring heat outside Rio Rancho
High School, a more subdued crowd fills the school’s darkened
auditorium: Lanky men in pressed Wranglers and new cowboy hats and
environmentalists wearing "I support NEPA" stickers all
await testimony about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
When President Richard Nixon signed NEPA in 1970, the law required
unprecedented environmental studies and public input for projects
involving federal land or money. But Republican lawmakers have become
increasingly critical of the law—and now, the House Resources
Committee, chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., is holding six
hearings across the country to solicit input about it.
And indeed, this August 1 hearing turns out to be stacked against
the environmental law. No members of any environmental groups sit
upon the stage, and today’s spotlight clearly belongs to the
energy industry. Dave Brown of BP America recommends that federal
agencies grant "categorical exclusions" for permitting
and leasing of oil and gas projects—that is, no environmental
studies would be required. He also asks that outside parties be
prevented from commenting on proposals, and recommends that taxpayers,
rather than industry itself, fund environmental studies.
Once the nationwide hearings end this year, the Resources Committee
plans to report its findings to Congress. But Congress is already
moving ahead on some fronts: The energy bill, signed by President
Bush in New Mexico on August 8, allows categorical exclusions for
certain oil and gas activities, and the transportation bill, signed
August 10, "expedites" the NEPA process for certain transportation
projects.
"Everybody wants their own private exemptions," says
Forest Guardians Executive Director John Horning. "And at the
end of the day, there’s going to be nothing left standing."
The author is HCN’s Southwest editor. High
Country News (www.hcn.org)
covers the West's communities and natural-resource issues from Paonia,
Colorado.
Western governors wary of roadless forest mess
When President Bush retooled his predecessor’s Roadless
Area Conservation Rule, his administration promised to restore local
control and give the states a say in managing national forests.
But now it looks as though the fate of those areas will rest with
Washington, D.C., after all.
The Clinton-era rule put 58.5 million acres of national forest
land off-limits to road-building, mining and logging. Under the
new rule, issued in May, governors have until November 2006 to petition
the secretary of Agriculture to protect roadless forests within
their states.
But after reading the fine print, even governors who initially
supported the new rule have balked at the cost of petitioning. If
a governor does not file a petition, or the petition is rejected,
each national forest will determine what activities are allowed
in roadless areas, just as it did prior to the Clinton rule. In
short, the new rule looks like a flop, which is perhaps, environmentalists
say, just what the Bush administration intended.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, D, who two years ago beseeched
the Bush administration to keep the Clinton rule, is the only Western
governor who says he is definitely committed to a petition. New
Mexico is currently enjoying an oil- and gas-funded budget surplus,
but the process is still daunting, says Ned Farquhar, Richardson’s
senior policy advisor on energy and the environment. "The governor
will petition with whatever resources we’re able to put together,"
he says. "But they’re probably going to reject it anyway."
Environmental groups say they may sue over the new rule as soon
as this summer, arguing that the administration’s repeal of
the Clinton rule was illegal.
On Capitol Hill, Reps. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and Sherwood Boehlert,
R-N.Y., and several co-sponsors plan to reintroduce legislation
this year to reinstate federal protection. Prospects for the bill
appear dim, however, with many Western Republicans steadfastly supporting
the new rule.
The author writes from Santa Fe, New Mexico. High
Country News editor Jodi Peterson contributed to this story. High
Country News (www.hcn.org)
covers the West's communities and natural-resource issues from Paonia,
Colorado.
|
