READERS WRITE

Loss of Dottie

Responses to “Elephant’s death a double loss,” Page One, Oct. 29.

Elephant could have roamed free

I read the sad account of the death of Dottie, Zoo Atlanta’s 26-year-old elephant and her unborn baby. It sounds like the people in charge of her care were deeply pained by her loss.

If these people truly care for these intelligent, sensitive and amazing animals, they’d realize how much better off and happier they’d be if they were allowed to roam free at the fabulous 2,700-acre refuge in Hohenwald, Tenn. No one needs to see elephants cooped up in a tiny facility when there is a first-class alternative. Please consider what’s best for the elephants.

BELLE CAMERON PIERCE, Sandy Springs

All of Atlanta shares zoo staff’s loss

Through my years as vice chairman of the Georgia Aquarium’s board of directors and now as the CEO, I have learned how difficult the loss of an animal can be. It is felt by the staff that care for the animals around the clock, volunteers who give their time and hearts and the visitors who enjoy the close-up encounters and educational experiences that occur every day at zoos and aquariums.

Our thoughts and well wishes go out to everyone at Zoo Atlanta. We know you gave Dottie the best home and care possible, and thank you for giving us as a community the opportunity to get to know her.

MIKE LEVEN

Leven is CEO of the Georgia Aquarium.

Handel lacks respect for desire to vote

I am incensed by Karen Handel’s condescending and politically motivated opinion column (“State cannot add poll hours without approval,” @issue, Oct. 30). I am neither a Democrat nor Republican and I take issue that extending voting hours is motivated by the Democratic Party.

All registered voters have a right to vote and if the State of Georgia was blindsided by the need for adequate machines in voting sites and computers that needed to work during this election, then I question Handel’s leadership. Her response showed she had no empathy or respect for Georgians’ desire to cast their votes. Her aggressive attitude about the issue appears to be motivated by her desire to help her party any way she can.

Remember, Karen Handel, you are an elected official whose job is to serve your constituents, not to make issues political footballs. I will remember you next election.

ALLEN WINISKI, Roswell

Fair Tax would apply to spending only

Instead of eliminating income taxes in November and December (“Try this idea for November, December,” @issue, Oct. 28), why not eliminate the income tax permanently? The FairTax would eliminate income tax, payroll tax and all taxes on productivity. You would pay taxes on what you spend, not on what you earn.

And, contrary to some campaign ads that aired on television recently, the FairTax would not add another 23 percent to the cost of everything you buy.

LISA CHAMBERS, Snellville

Science doesn’t back processed-meat ban

As a mother of two and a registered dietitian who has looked at the science regarding meat and health for 12 years on behalf of America’s pork producers, I want to set the record straight about processed meats and cancer in response to Krista L. Haynes’ opinion column (“Processed meat in school food hurts our kids,” @issue, Oct. 23).

The petition filed by The Cancer Project urging the USDA to stop supplying processed meats to schools is an extreme recommendation from an animal-rights group, based on insufficient science and designed to further the organization’s goal of removing meat and dairy products from the American diet. The Cancer Project is funded and operated by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a vegan, animal-rights group whose views are closely aligned with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

There is no scientifically valid reason to eliminate processed meats from the diet. Processed meats meet USDA labeling guidelines for lean meats. Just as important, research suggests eating lean, nutrient-dense meat can help fight our nation’s obesity epidemic, universally accepted as one of the greatest risk factors for developing cancer.

CECI SNYDER, Des Moines, Iowa

Responses to “Carter must debate book on Israel,” @issue, Oct. 29.

Carter, Dershowitz should swap sides

Alan Dershowitz writes that he will debate President Jimmy Carter in Georgia and he will “accept any rules, any moderator and any limitations” that President Carter would propose. This is a fabulous idea and President Carter should submit the following rules for a three-night debate.

The first night each person takes the side of the other and passionately defends how the other’s book is spot-on correct. Follow-up questions will be defended in the same reversed roles.

The second night President Carter will view the world through Jewish eyes and Alan Dershowitz will be Southern Baptist. After an hour, they will compare and contrast how each did and the impact their core beliefs have on their perception of Middle Eastern issues. The third night is the debate Dershowitz so desperately wants: each person presents the reasons his world view is correct. I’ll even moderate for free!

RICHARD CULLOM, Kennesaw

Debate doesn’t need to be in-your-face

The picture is Alan Dershowitz’s, as are the byline and the words challenging Jimmy Carter to a verbal duel in Atlanta. But the tone in the referenced article sounds Bill O’Reillyish.

Dershowitz just published “The Case Against Israel’s Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace”; Carter published his Israeli—-Palestinian book in 2006. “The time has now come,” Dershowitz writes, “for a full-scale debate between Carter and me about the issues that divide us.” Why?

The books are done. Instead of suffering an evening of gotchas, one-upmanship, faux anger and other titillations that pass nowadays for debate, why couldn’t interested Atlantans sit home and thoughtfully read the books? Why couldn’t the authors debate in newspapers and magazines (online?), just like the Federalists and anti-Federalists did 220 years ago?

Why, Mr. O’Reilly —- I mean, Prof. Dershowitz —- must it be in-your-face?

RONALD P. JAYSON, Decatur

Cars without lights can’t be seen at dusk

Every week I come home from church on Saturday at dusk. It amazes me that so many people drive without lights at that time of the day. Perhaps you think because you can see others, they can see you, but the biggest risk is not to them but to you.

Without lights you fade into the dusk and if you pull out at an intersection, it is impossible to see you. It is as dangerous as driving during a rainstorm without lights —- and it is just as much a hazard at dawn. Perhaps I value you more than you value yourself.

MADELINE KORFF, Canton