No change on herbicides

As attorney general, Eliot Spitzer supported proposed legislation that would have banned toxic herbicides from being used to destroy lawn weeds. Spitzer initiated lawsuits to deal with misleading advertising by lawn-care companies and with overuse of lawn chemicals at public-

housing projects. He urged schools to stop using pesticides, particular herbicides, on lawns and athletic fields.

Spitzer recognized these chemicals cause cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and respiratory and reproductive disorders for humans, poison wildlife and domestic animals, and pollute our air and our drinking water.

New York State Assemblyman Alexander Grannis co-sponsored the lawn chemical ban bill. Because the state Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner during the Pataki administration was reluctant to address these issues, Grannis also co-sponsored a bill that would give municipalities some of the commissioner’s regulatory authority.

Although these bills died in committee last year, I hoped Spitzer’s election as governor, and Spitzer’s appointment of Grannis as DEC commissioner, would mean the state would finally take action.

Reintroduced this year, A.6045/S.3206 would prohibit use of toxic chemicals to control lawn weeds. At least 60 Canadian municipalities or provinces have already enacted such laws.

Two months ago, I urged Spitzer and Grannis to continue supporting this bill. I also requested Grannis use his authority under current law to ban toxic lawn chemicals, and I requested Spitzer issue an executive order prohibiting lawn pesticides and synthetic fertilizers from use by state agencies, parks, colleges and highway departments.

To date, no reply from the governor’s office. The letter I received from the DEC’s director of pesticides management makes no commitment to support A.6045/S.3206, or to do anything new to deal with these issues.

All this reminds me of the saying _ "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Continued irresponsibility will eventually harm all of us.

Joel Freedman
Canandaigua
Freedman chairs the public education committee of Animal Rights Advocates of Upstate New York.

I found Sam Pollak’s July 14 column, "Blame goes beyond Bush" very disappointing. Mr. Pollak contends that while Bush and Cheney may be "incompetent, arrogant bumblers" who have done bad things; according to Sam, "It’s really not their fault." By Mr. Pollak’s reasoning, it’s the fault of people like me who voted for Ralph Nader, because that "cost Gore the election."

Do you favor outlawing all parties but the Democrats and Republicans, Sam? Hey, why not just have one party? After all, people voting for a second-party candidate could cost the election for your favorite. Did it ever occur to you that the Democrats fielding a candidate cost Nader the election?

Sam also blames _ are you ready for this? _ Bill Clinton. Yup. According to Mr. Pollak, our soldiers are dying in Iraq because Bill couldn’t keep his fly zipped.

At least he blamed Congress. The War Powers Authorization Act was absolutely the most disgusting surrender of congressional oversight in my memory.

Sam also blames John Kerry. Lots of blame to go around, but none for the only ones who deserve it: the actual criminals themselves, Bush and Cheney.

Glaringly absent from Mr. Pollak’s list of blame is the U.S. Supreme Court, circa 2000. If ever there were blame earned it was the partisan crooks on the high bench who stopped the recount in Florida. It’s likely that Gore won Florida. And had Katherine Harris not removed thousands from the registered voter rolls, he most certainly would have.

Instead of dumping on liberals who saw real hope for this country in the integrity of Ralph Nader, Mr. Pollak, how about putting the blame squarely where it belongs: Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor and Kennedy.

If you doubt this was a partisan highjacking, read "The Betrayal of America" by Vincent Bugliosi.

Michael Perry
Davenport

I read Joel Canfield’s letter on July 13 with shock and disbelief. Does Mr. Canfield really believe that every uninsured family in this country is lacking health insurance because they are "slackers" who "spend their paychecks on booze, dope, etc."?

His statements were appalling. His attitude is an example of Bush’s "compassionate conservatism" and one of the reasons Bush has among the lowest ratings of any president in the history of this great country.

I am very lucky to have a job that allows me to buy health insurance at a reasonable cost. Not every person in this country is as fortunate. And certainly the children of this country are not to blame if their parents cannot afford health insurance.

The American people have a long tradition of helping those in need.

It is a national disgrace that we have not found a way to decrease the outrageous profits made by insurance and drug companies and provide health care to those less fortunate.

Barbara Kaplan
Delhi