Like Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network [Metro, May 14], I favor alternative sources of energy, especially for this region.

But before we jump on the wind-power bandwagon and beat our chests about how green we are, let's look at the bigger picture.

These massive wind towers -- as tall as 380 feet -- require a constant wind source, so many are being built along the ridges of the Eastern mountain ranges.

These mountain ranges are used by migratory birds, especially eagles, hawks and falcons. Studies have shown that these birds are at risk when migrating through a wind farm.

It is ironic that this agreement was reached about the time of International Migratory Bird Day, an annual day -- May 8 this year -- when we celebrate the amazing feats of these birds.

In a time when bird populations have suffered huge declines from West Nile virus and habitat destruction, we need to reexamine wind power and the ramifications of the criteria used to permit these power plants.

PETE GIVAN

Rockville

The writer is the owner of the Wild Bird Center in Rockville.

Post a Comment

Poor Lloyd Constantine.

The New York lawyer should still be celebrating last May's $3 billion settlement of a landmark case against Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc., one of the largest antitrust awards in U.S. history. Mr. Constantine represented retailers, led by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., that sued the card companies for forcing stores that accept credit cards to pay surcharges to accept debit cards. His firm, Constantine & Partners, requested fees of roughly $600 million.

But almost a year later, instead of savoring victory, Constantine & Partners is having trouble getting paid. A handful of lawyers known as "objectors" have swooped down on Mr. Constantine's case. Objectors are attorneys who earn fees by challenging settlements, usually arguing to lower the fees requested by other attorneys in successful class-action settlements. [WSJ]

I emailed Prof. Volokh:

"Would you make the same statement about Nazis, al-Qaedists, Klansmen? The logic of your position seems to demand it." He replied: Sure; I wouldn't fire a postman just because he's a Klansman, and the Supreme Court's caselaw would be on my side in this, see, e.g., U.S. v. Robel; Elrod v. Burns.

So, Volokh is not soft on Communists, he is a First Amendment scholar.