The Coastal Post - September, 1996

Letters Sept 96

Dear Mr. President

As your administration's first term nears a close, environmental issues are a top priority to votes across the country, particularly in California. Californians consistently rank the environment as an issue of critical importance and the state continues to face a myriad of environmental threats. While many elements of federal environmental policy require the cooperation of Congress, we wish today to call your attention to several issues which are critical to California environmentalists and whose outcome your administration can dramatically impact. All of these issues will require significant actions on the part of your administration over the next several months. The action your administration takes on each of these issues will have an important bearing on how California environmentalists evaluate your administration's record:

Auburn Dam

Now that Congress has eliminated funding for this billion-dollar boondoggle, the Administration should move immediately to select another alternative that provides Sacramento with a reasonable and affordable level of flood control. Auburn Dam, as it is still proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers in a final report, would destroy an important American resource at huge federal expense for extremely limited public benefits. The Administration should adopt other flood control options for the region.

Bay-Delta Accord

Do not withdraw federal water quality standards in the Sacramento Delta so long as water users continue to challenge the Bay-Delta Accord. The Bay-Delta Accord paved the way for new state water quality standards in the Delta. As part of the deal, the federal government agreed to withdraw pending federal standards. Now, less than two years later, water users, including some who signed the Accord, are legally challenging the new state standards. As long as those challenges are pending and the Bay-Delta Accord has not been fully implemented, the federal government should not withdraw federal standards.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act

Fully implement the CVPIA. It is essential to California's environmental and economic future.The Department of Interior-sponsored CVPIA Implementation Forum was created to pursue the worthwhile goal of improving CVPIA implementation. This effort, however, should not degenerate into an effort to administratively weaken the CVPIA at the behest of powerful agricultural and urban water agencies. In conjunction with your administration's unacceptable proposal to weaken implementation of the Reclamation Reform Act, weakening the CVPIA would be a death knell to efforts to reform federal water policy in California.

California Forests

There are several discrete steps that you can take to protect California's old-growth forests. First, you should publicly support the "debt for nature" acquisition of the 60,000-acre Headwaters Forest, which includes the largest privately owned old-growth redwood grove in the world, and is key habitat for marbled murrelet and coho salmon. Second, you should cancel a series of environmentally damaging timber sales that are proceeding under the authority of the timber salvage rider. (We would be happy to provide such a list at your request.) Finally, in the context of the Forest Service's regional plan and EIS for the Sierra Nevada (a revised draft of which will be issued shortly), we urge you to insure full protection for the Sierra Nevada's remaining old-growth forest and to strengthen, not weaken, existing safeguards for the California spotted owl.

Ward Valley

Refuse transfer of federal land to the State of California for the site of a nuclear waste dump at Ward Valley. The potential health risk to millions of Californians of dumping nuclear waste in unlined trenches, just 20 miles from the Colorado River, is too great to take a chance on shallow land burial. The administration is in a position to stop this transfer and require further research on proposed alternative nuclear waste disposal options—for example, on-site, above ground, monitorable, retrievable storage.


Maintain federal authority of over wetlands permitting. Ninety-five percent of California's historic wetlands have already been filled. Now, the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed delegation of wetlands permitting to state, local and regional agencies (such as California's Regional Water Boards) which are especially susceptible to political and economic pressure. They should not have authority over wetlands permitting. California simply cannot afford any weakening of wetland protections.

Each of these positions commands broad support from the vast majority of the California public and is essential to the future health and preservation of the California environmental. We request an opportunity to discuss these issues with you further on your next visit to California. In the meantime, we urge you to follow the lead of the California public and move swiftly to resolve these issues in a manner that is consistent with your commitment to environmental preservation.

Thank you for your consideration of our views on these issues.


Executive Director

California League of Conservation Voters


Executive Director

Save San Francisco Bay Association


Legislative Director

California Public Interest Research Group


Executive Director

Save the American River Association


Executive Director

The Bay Institute


Executive Director

Bay Area Nuclear (BAN) Waste Coalition


Physicians for Social Responsibility/Los Angeles


Regional Director

Sierra Club


Western Water Project Manager

National Resources Defense Council


California Director

Clean Water Action


Campaign Director

Greenpeace, USA


Associate Conservation Director

Friends of the River


Executive Director

Coalition for Clean Air


Executive Director

California Communities Against Toxics


Physicians for Social Responsibility/

Greater San Francisco Bay Area

Untrue Rumors

I am embarrassed for you and for "Anonymous" Coastal Post. (August 1) re: the problems of the West Marin Little League. I am writing as a parent of Little League players for nine years (that is, two sons, 15 collective seasons and about eight different coaches); also my husband coached and managed for a couple of years, he and my sons have umpired, and I was also a team parent for many of those years. My brothers grew up playing in the WMLL, my nephews also.

My real disgust is not just with the untrue rumors printed, and the implied bribery in that sad commentary, but it is unacceptable that the Coastal Post allowed a disgruntled parent to cruelly slander a couple of innocent nine- and ten-year-old boys, and then print their names! Have you no morals, no shame, no common sense and no kids?

If "Anonymous" were at all involved in the WMLL they would understand that it is impossible to buy your way onto a team, as players are selected one by one on a rotating basis by the coaches. There are player agents present to make sure the teams are as even as possible and are fairly picked, to prevent those kinds of accusations. Players cannot be "permanently benched"—it is against League rules.

Coaching is a demanding, time-consuming, thankless job. If you think that most coaches' kids benefit, then be a coach. Yes, some verbal abuse occurs in all directions, just as in some homes and some jobs. Those issues should be handled by the parents, the coach and if necessary, the WMLL board. That abuse is peanuts compared to the public personal assault on those two boys. Kids brought up to the next level are there to learn how to play in that level; if they already had all the skills, we wouldn't need coaches and all kids would be in the same division. Moving a kid up is an opportunity to encourage better play, not discourage. Sure, Little League has the same problems it has had forever, but that is the fault of adults, not kids. I believe, for the majority, that Little League is a good experience.

I find it interesting, in light of the Bolinas coaches' "fair share" of problems, that "Anonymous" would choose to name the two Valley coaches. It occurs to me that someone from Bolinas should not be so upset or outraged that a rival team would be bringing up "unqualified" players. How does someone from Bolinas know so much about the skill levels of players and the coaching practices of teams so far away? I suspect that "Anonymous" is a little more local than Bolinas. The Bolinas Bobcats won the division this year, the Valley teams did relatively poorly. Perhaps that will encourage the Valley coaches to draft even more "unqualified" players to support their "neurotic need to win." A contradiction perhaps?

The WMLL Board spends a great deal of time dealing with many issues. I would suggest that these accusations be taken to them, but then, you wouldn't be "Anonymous."

In closing, that was a gutless, cowardly attack on innocent kids. "Anonymous" is an embarrASSment to all. I would strongly suggest that they remain "Anonymous."

As far as the Coastal Post is concerned, it was irresponsible journalism to publish those kids' names. You owe those kids, big-time. I hope your lawyers are well paid. I now understand why your paper is free.



cc: Point Reyes Light

Vicious Gossip

We are responding to the letter "Little League Has Big Problems."

We find the article incredible, that someone so insensitive has gone so far as to mention children and adults names, pertaining to nothing more than vicious gossip.

You should practice what you're advising and investigate yourself before writing such nonsense. We are curious—have you talked with the Board Members who represent West Marin Little League, managers, coaches and the majority of parents?

Pucci's should be proud for the great energy and sportsmanship they put forth through the season. Not one child was relegated on our team. Each and every nine positions played on the team were considered skilled. It's sad that some parents don't see it that way.

Armed warfare broke out on our team? What an inappropriate statement. Disharmony at times is more like it. Water, if called a weapon, that was thought of, but not used, to cool off a misunderstanding.

Coming forth speaking the truth, communicating between us adults seems at times so difficult. And in the end can magnify our disagreements.

But the saddest part is the over-all confusion such a letter puts upon our children. We hope the letter from Bolinas is soon put in its right perspective.



Cowardly Attack

To a "Concerned Little League Parent"

First of all I find it hard to believe you can call yourself that. You are a coward. You are not willing to sign your name, but have no problem using the good names of two young innocent children. You seem to think by writing your letter you could somehow help the West Marin Little League. I fail to see how your letter was to help. All you did was hurt people. If I truly thought you wanted to be of some help, I would normally say get involved by donating your time to coach or be a member of the board, but then you could not remain anonymous.


Children Victimized

I am outraged that you would print a letter from an anonymous so-called concerned parent who wrote in your August 1st paper "Little League Has Big Problems." My son is Trent Lenhardt, who is one of the young, innocent children that was victimized in your paper. It was said he was an unqualified player and was to be moving up to a major league team due to a friendship among coaches. This is not true, and "concerned parent" has no facts to base this allegation on.

I feel it is necessary for you to print an apology to my son in your next paper, September 1st.


Anonymous Hearsay

Dear Concerned Little League Parent

The letter you have written concerns us very much. What bothers us the most is the fact you bandy around the names of two innocent children, and do not take their feelings into consideration at all. (In order to protect you and your child or children, you did not sign your name!)

We are suspicious of letters with allegations that start, "Word has it..." "It's said..." "One coach is said..." Who says? What is fact and what is hearsay?

If you have these concerns, take them and the facts to the Little League Board. Do not write an anonymous letter, pointing your finger at so many people.


El Verano

Falsely Accused

In your August edition you printed a letter in which we were falsely accused of the illegal act of bribing a coach to assure a space on a team for our child who was described as unqualified. It was unethical and completely wrong of you to publish these false statements which impugn our son's integrity as a participant and cast doubt on his ability to succeed. Furthermore the cowardice of this anonymous letter by an adult who thinks nothing of slandering children with the pretense of making Little League a better experience for children does not warrant the paper it is written on. The lack of sensitivity to children shown by your stupidity to print such a slanderous accusation with no effort to ascertain the truth is unacceptable.

As a consequence of this letter our child will be subject to ridicule and embarrassment by his peers for the rest of his life.

Pursuant to Civil Code 48a we demand the following:

1. That our letter be published on the front page of your next edition along with an apology to Jake Bourne for printing false information about him and his family, and apologize for any social embarrassment he will suffer in the future.

2. Acknowledge that no effort was made on your part to investigate these accusations and determine their validity.

3. Promise to never again publish a letter so damaging to a child without first trying to seek the truth.

4. Provide us with the name and address of the person who wrote the letter.

We have personally spoken with members of the West Marin Little League Board and we share the opinion that all circumstances point to the author of this letter residing in Nicasio or San Geronimo Valley and not in Bolinas as named in the paper. We feel that it is unfortunate that this person did not have enough guts to at least sign their name to the letter, if not enough guts to address the Little League Board directly.

Please be advised that we have been in touch with an attorney and will seek restitution if each and every one of our terms is not met.



Beyond Monetary Value

Editor, Independent Journal

This Monday's editorial page featured the guest commentary by a member of the North Bay Council related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the proposed expansion of the Lucasfilm facility into Marin's open space and ag lands.

Without directly commenting on the Lucasfilm project, I think that several points need to be made in response to the commentary that relate to so-called economic benefits from growth and to the application of CEQA.

I speak as co-chair of the grassroots environmental group known as "Friends of the Esteros" (FOEST). FOEST was the lead plaintiff of a broad coalition of environmental interests in the CEQA lawsuit that invalidated the first Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Rosa subregional wastewater treatment plant expansion project a few years back. We are still very much involved in the preparation and review of the next EIR for this project of great regional significance.

In general the public has a very limited understanding of the history of California development and of the history of environmental degradation that has resulted from many decades of unmitigated exploitation and abuse of natural resources. The original CEQA statues were passed in the '70s and since that time have been crucial to the protection of the remainder of California's once rich legacy of natural resources and native species. Moreover, CEQA gives citizens the ability to raise important questions about a wide range of potential impacts of proposed private and public projects that affect the health and well-being of any and all species of life.

Like every other regulatory statue, CEQA has been subject to some abuses by special interests, but to fully appreciate the value of CEQA one merely needs to look at the interests who are continually trying to weaken or eliminate the act in the state legislature. Essentially, CEQA is opposed by the development, public agency and business interests, both large and small, who would rather not have too much public scrutiny given to the quality of life and health issues that are of serious concern to the residents of cities, suburbs and rural area alike.

This is a time when cancers are epidemic, when increasing traffic congestion, over-population, air and water pollution, and disappearing species—generally declining expectations and standards of living—are among the most compelling concerns of all age groups. The simple gloss of short-term "economic benefits" used indiscriminately to dignify any and all forms of growth does an enormous disservice to the public interest.

It is not enough to advertise potential benefits of a given project or policy based on an oversimplified view of economics that utterly fails to reconcile long-term social and environmental impacts and costs. Unfortunately, an endangered species cannot be assigned a value quantified in dollars; the peace and tranquility of a country road has no identified monetary value until it affects someone's market value or tax base. And most of all, the long-term consequences and cumulative impacts of expanding human claims on the environment are rarely questioned or analyzed by the government agencies legally responsible to protect the public interest.

CEQA remains one of the few effective alternatives that common citizens have to the aggrandizing politicians, business interests and bureaucrats who are completely mesmerized by the allure of short-term economic gain at the expense of the public's health, tranquility and natural legacy. The best aspect of CEQA is that it is a well-developed legal mechanism and doctrine that allows the average citizens a truly democratic means to cut through and challenge the self-interest and ineptitude that runs rampant through our public and private institutions.


Mill Valley

Secrecy, Conflict Of Interest And Subterfuge

In 1985, Norwin Yoffie of San Rafael wanted Marin General's private board of directors subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Marin Judge Henry Broderick ruled for secrecy. Is he still a judge?

* * *

Regarding the Marin General recall election, Dr. William Rothman says, "If someone votes in a way to curry the favor of the corporation on which he is dependent for his income, he has voted with a conflict of interest." Doesn't that make sense to you? It seems logical to me. Let's get conflict of interest out of our corporations and governmental agencies. Let's start with Marin General.

* * *

I recently read in the IJ that people with sick hearts who consumed vitamin E pills daily could reduce heart attacks by 75 percent. How many participants were in the study? And who did the study? Was it the drug industry? Or Prevention magazine perhaps? Don't let the drug industry sell you on all these vitamins. Spend your money on something valuable, like good food.



Human Rights For Minors

Re. Media and Media-ocracy, July

I picked up a copy of Mother Jones recently, and I think it about tripled my appreciation of the Coastal Post. It must be tough being a "liberal" these days. Both the cute rhetorical tone and the incongruous, disjoined nature of the opinions show that critical thought congealed some time ago, and "progressive" now refers to an odd array of notions still cabalistically recited by the faithful.

You know: We're supposed to love the First Amendment and hate the Second, protect "war toys" and quietly bankroll Israel's traditional slaughter of Palestinian children, honor a woman's right to become a physician of her own gender, live in terror of big corporations and leap naked into the protective arms of big government, revile any alternative to "public education" and sociably stop our "activism" there, lest we should rupture the code of smarmy silence, the petty cronyism, the actual default of interest and quality-control that's likely to rule in any school district where an ethnic minority presence makes white liberals feel like saints, while providing ready, unspoken excuses for endless "troubles."

Surely these days, as we confront the limits of our planet's resources, and as the input of perspectives widens, it becomes harder to prop up the old factions. As comprehension grows more global, we must find terms that hold together within the requirements of a sustainable, planetary ecology. With no geographic "frontiers" left to plunder and re-populate, progress must now turn inside; we must, at last, find internal stability, as we ride out our sudden collision with the perimeter of the Earth. Deep ecology must, at last, address the psychological roots of our time-honored military and environmental spending binges. In fact, we can already begin to discern a set of ideas that hold together "organically," and the new test of this "holistic" coherence leaves a scattering of archaic notions still chattering in the air, like cartoon characters that run off cliffs but remain briefly suspended, too self-absorbed to realize what has happened.

Nowhere is the organic, unpretentious nature of reason more apparent than in the Coastal Post, along with the fundamental importance of truly open and genuine debate, in lieu of which our mainstream "civil-libertarians" preside over a sterile—and, in the key moments, brutally censorious—charade. So Mark Van Proyen's uninformed praise for the Time magazine/Marion Write Edelman version of child advocacy is, I trust, subject to re-consideration.

As a coherent world view finally starts falling into place, it's natural that the largest remaining hole in the puzzle has to do with the human rights of minors. The schism between adults and minors has always been the most extreme, most fundamental, and most universal, or global, social class power imbalance. While adult authority is necessary, it must be applied with great care; every failure in this utmost responsibility registers sooner or later as damage to the social fabric.

Every society that survived the test of history had to socialize its children in a way that "worked" for its own geographic situation: as with sexism, the question of fairness, or of ultimate psychological health, hardly arose—not when survival so often fell to the most compulsively dominant or aggressive. But the changes of the past century require us to start over completely. With the collapse of traditional child socialization guidelines, including some traditional protections, all that remains is the random authority of the adult class. With no external, unifying vent for our dysfunctions, we see them now burbling chaotically among the kids. No priority in the emerging "global village" is more immediate than the development of new child-socialization systems, sustainable systems, able to produce biologically fulfilled, psychologically stable, and functional citizens in a global society.

Bridging the age old schism between childhood and adulthood is the fog shrouded way to social sanity: it will require nothing less than genuine advocacy for the human rights of minors, as free as possible from adult notions—whether apparently well-meaning or openly demagogic. Yet our mainstream "child advocates" make no pretense of such objectivity. When Kathy Lee Gifford cried, "How dare you say I don't care about children?" she blurted out the entire philosophical basis of our "child advocacy" industry, Marion Wright Edelman included. In fact, the more funding or prominence a mainstream "child advocate" receives, the less likely she is to address the perfect lack of accountability that reigns when a social group has no political representation—or traditional protection—whatsoever. The real status of modern-day minors is seen in the fact that "advocacy," when it pertains to them, is one of those entirely presumed "liberal" notions with no meaning at all. Ten years now, but they've been nicely deleted from the "public (i.e., talk show) debate" and conveniently "overlooked" by any "advocates" who wish to court mainstream and media rewards. Such inexcusable examples reveal a quality of adult world attention or "advocacy" that removes all mystery from the whole array of gruesome youth-related statistics. Real minor's rights activists, who do serious work in real schools and real communities, not only see, but are threatened daily by, local varieties of equally indefensible examples, lost in pervasive adult world "discretion" and denial.

Thus our most incisive newspaper analysis proves only that Kathy Lee's brand of child advocacy isn't quite the thing—and if that effort is worth so much print, the Edelman alternative must indeed seem nice. But isn't an endorsement by Time magazine cause for suspicion? Actually, Edelman's brand of "caring," being more carefully posed—and marketing the "admirable" illusion of real child advocacy proceeding nicely—is much more harmful in the long run. When the next generation of us is given the priority they require, child advocacy won't be used as a demagogic ploy and prop for adult liberal notions; it will genuinely guide us toward real progress.

The sources of all our societal dysfunctions, ancient of modern, are lost in the unchecked chaos of adult biases and interests that rule our current child socialization. The mess can be sorted out by nothing less than direct and objective advocacy for the human rights of minors. If we withhold that from each new generation, we really mustn't expect the world to get any better, despite our best post-adult remedies and "liberation."


Kids' Headquarters, Inc.

Mill Valley

Assisted Suicides Prevalent

Researchers reported at the 11th International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver that physician-assisted suicides among people with AIDS are probably far more common than previously believed.

A survey of 118 physicians who treat people with AIDS found that 53 percent had helped their terminal-stage patients die. A similar survey in 1990 found that only 28 percent said they had.

A British researcher also reported that between 10 and 20 percent of the patients with AIDS in British Columbia seek their doctors' help in dying. The report also indicated that 83 percent of the people with HIV and AIDS in Canada that were interviewed considered suicide a valid option for themselves, and that 44 percent had made plans for some sort of euthanasia. (Out NOW!, Vol. 15, No. 15, p. 10, San Jose)

Comment: I am wondering what percentage of these AIDS patients are gay men? I would offer a suggestion of around 98%. In any event, the vast majority of AIDS patients are still gay men. The obvious question is why the medical profession is so helpful in getting rid of gay men when they practically NEVER assist people with cancer of other terminal diseases to die?

I don't think one needs to be very bright to see what is going on here. Surveys have already shown that the majority of medical doctors are uncomfortable with gay men (homophobic?). Is it any wonder that they are so ready to come up with the "final solution" at this point in time?

Those of us who do not believe in HIV as a pathogen see this as a continuum of increasingly lethal prescribed drugs ending in DEATH. How many would never have died if they had not fallen into the hands of their doctors? First the poisonous "cocktail" and then the coup de grace... "Cocktail" sounds so innocent, doesn't it? As if we are going to a party...

What is so appalling is that these poor victims believe they are being kindly dealt with and that a gay newspaper can print this as a straight news story without seeing the obvious double standard that is taking place.

We have come a long way from the days in the 19th century. (Yes, my dears, it was just a little over 100 years ago that gay men were still being hanged for sodomy. Look it up.) Now they have invented a 100% fatal sexually transmitted disease and then brainwashed us into clamoring for the prescribed poisons and the outcome is always as it has been planned from the beginning—DEATH.

And all the while they continue to do research on the phantom virus, extracting billions of dollars from the US. taxpayers who don't have a clue as to what is happening. It is such a perfect scenario that I believe it must have been invented. If it was not invented, then it is repressed homophobia which drives the whole thing.

Will history ever tell the truth about this one?


San Francisco

Justice vs. Vengeance

One of the saddest aspects of the Polly Klaas episode is the victory and glorification of the god of hate.

No caring person will dispute the horror of the kidnapping and murder of an innocent child. We must all identify with the grief of her family, knowing that this could happen to one of our own children.

That a certain person perpetrated this act, and that his identity was Richard Allen Davis has been judged as beyond all reasonable doubt.

How can we help but share the family's grief, and how can we help but feel anger?

Feeling anger, however, is a far cry from hating and seeking vengeance. To consciously wish and intend the harming of a human being is to hate. The death penalty is the product of the collective hate of an electorate.

That the death penalty is a deterrent to crime is a wishful belief, unsupported by solid evidence. Its true function is none other than to achieve vengeance. It may be comforting to define vengeance as "justice." Somehow "justice" sounds better than "vengeance."

If vengeance = justice, then we would have to admit that all the bloody wars in Serbia, Burundi, Rwanda, Indonesia are constantly fueled by justice!

The news photos and reports of smiles, relief, rejoicing—gloating over the jury's call for the death penalty of Davis—is a sad reminder of the influence of hate in our society.

Anger is understandable, a spontaneous emotion, shared by everyone. Hate, however, can be controlled. To be proud of hate and pleased with vengeance is shameful, a curse upon the God of Love.




As the Executive Officer of the Marin County Courts, I am writing to correct two errors contained in Joan Reutinger's article ("Black Point Project Tricky Deal Shot Down") in the August 1st edition of the Coastal Post.

First, Honorable Gary W. Thomas is not a "Visiting" Judge. He has served as a Marin County-Superior or Municipal Court Judge since 1972, having been elected four times as a Judge by the voters of Marin County. Secondly, Judge Thomas did not "sign a secret agreement with the developer" in the Black Point Project case.

Thank you for this opportunity to correct the record.


Court Executive Officer

Seadrift Has Always Been Private Property

Dear Joan

Your article in the August issue about the COAST lawsuit contained a statement that the multi-agency Settlement Agreement "greatly reduces the public access to the Seadrift Beach." That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

The Seadrift Beach has been private property ever since the State rejected William Kent's offer to donate the entire spit to the public. That unpopular fact has thrice been affirmed by the courts. The public has NEVER had legal access to the beach (above the mean high tide line).

Contrary to a contrived misconception, the Settlement Agreement does not take any rights AWAY from the public but rather GIVES them—for the first time—legal rights to most of the beach. Perhaps some one should say "thanks" instead of complaining.

It is ironic that the Seadrift owners were initially vilified for evicting trespassers from their property and are now being sued for prescriptive rights on the grounds that trespassers were not evicted.

Let's separate emotional feelings about the beach from the facts, and remember that public beaches got that way by being purchased from or donated by those who owned the property.


Stinson Beach

Toxins In Tiburon

Why is there so much concern, trepidation and furor over "Fair Isaac's plans to build on the former PG&E; property in San Rafael." Surely it's not only because of the small traces of lamp black? Since when is carbon THAT hazardous to the public's health?

If indeed environmentalists are concerned with health hazards, they should look at the location of the new Tiburon Library and Town Hall, presently under construction. The recommended investigation of an Environmental Impact Report was by-passed in favor of a "negative declaration" by three members of the Town Council, in spite of the knowledge that the site was a former railroad repair and maintenance yard. The land was the collective site of one-half century's use of toxic pollutants. Lead paint residuals, buried parts, hydraulic fluids, and the accumulation of years of engine oil and lubricant seepage are in the underlying soil, constituting a true concern. The Environmental Protection Agency never bothered or asked questions and the public will never know of potential dangers.




Coinciding with the 11th anniversary of the nuclear freeze vote date in Mill Valley, the Citizens' Action Party will be interviewing candidates for President of the United States Tuesday 8 pm September 3 at Mill Valley City Hall. We invite all concerned to witness.

W. M. EDELMAN, Chair

Citizens' Action Party

Facing Facts In The Mid-East

I want to pay tribute to a small newspaper which has the courage to print articles such as are rarely seen in our controlled press. For many months I have been clipping the columns of Edward W. Miller on the explosive, confused, tangled and miserably reported situation in the Middle East. Miller's columns are a breath of fresh air sweeping over the endlessly repeated one-sided reporting we are given by the major media outlets, and presenting a fuller view.

Rabbi Berenbaum (July 1) attacks Mr. Miller as "ranting"—"a man who seems obsessed with a passion for fermenting anti-Israeli...and anti-Semitic feelings among your readers." He does not challenge the accuracy of the uncomfortable, carefully-researched facts that Miller presents. He just feels they should not be said. By equating Miller's columns with the Protocols of Zion, Berenbaum makes an outrageously absurd statement. The Protocols were carefully calculated lies and exposed as such. The facts in Miller's columns are all documented.

If any sanity is to be achieved out of the turmoil and tragedy of the Middle East, it can only come out of facing the facts. Israel can never achieve security by attacking its neighbor Lebanon where people quite rightly resist invasion of their land. It can never be secure by the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the brutal suppression of the Palestinians. Only negotiation, sincere and honored, and a recognition of other people's rights, can give that security. That Great Handshake at the Peace Accords on the White House lawn is a farce. One after another the promises made then by Rabin have been broken. And Arafat is no holy savior.

It is a very complex and disturbing situation and not helped by our government's support of just one side. We supported all the earlier attacks on Lebanon and made no protest at the horrible destruction of cities and villages, the countless killed and the seemingly endless streams of refugees. In the violent 1982 invasion of Lebanon we, almost alone among the nations of the world, did not protest the murder of women and children in the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatilla by Israelis' Lebanese Christian mercenaries with the approval and assistance of Israeli General Sharon.

We made no protest over the barbarous "collective punishment," for the actions of a few, of the entire West Bank population imprisoning Palestinians within their own land, barring food medicine, hospitals, jobs. This is something—collective punishment—not even done to the Germans for Nazi war crimes.

Of course there have been outrages on both sides—one operating from strength, one from weakness. The Palestinians, robbed of their land, their homes, their freedom, react out of anger, frustration and anguish. They do not have the might of an army—they use bombs. The Lebanese have formed a resistance force, Hezbulla, to fight against invasion of a foreign army. Only the Palestinians and the Lebanese are called "terrorists" in our news media. Never the Israelis. It is this one-sided picture that needs the information given in Miller's columns to help assess the long crisis in the Middle East.

I wonder if Rabbi Berenbaum ever listens to the voices of those within Israel who have a different view on the politics of their succeeding governments—those who have worked for peace between Jews and Arabs, who work for the rights of the Palestinians, who work for a world of justice and humanity. Would Rabbi Berenbaum condemn them as anti-Israeli, as anti-Semitic? What would he say about the young men who refused to serve in the army of occupation in the west Bank and Gaza during the Intifada when their government told them to "break the bones" of the children and instead chose jail?

Has he read the Jerusalem article, reprinted in the New York Times of May 5, 1996 from the Hebrew language newspaper Haaretz by the columnist Ari Shavil, written after the massacre by the Israel army in Lebanon of the women and children fleeing the destruction of their villages and seeking refuge in the United Nations' refugee camp at Qana? The Haaretz article is headed "How Easily We Killed Them," pointing out how the repetition of killing in Lebanon has blunted all feeling, and stating that "A massacre is a massacre. Even an Israeli one." It concludes "So now Qana is part of our biography. Precisely because we have tried to deny and ignore the outrage it remains affixed to us.

And just as the Baruch Goldstein massacre of praying Muslims in Hebron and the murder of Yitzhak Rabin were extreme manifestations of some rotten seeds planted in the religious-nationalist culture, it now seems that the massacre at Qana was an extreme manifestation of rotten seeds dormant in our secular Israeli culture: Cynicism, Arrogance, Egocentrism of the strong. A penchant to blur the distinction between good and bad, the allowed and the forbidden. A tendency not to demand justice, not to be adamant about the truth." (Again, our country made little protest.)

These are words spoken by an Israeli out of love of Israel and out of pain. Would Rabbi Berenbaum call him anti-Israeli? Anti-Semitic?

An honest approach to the continuing tragedy in the Middle East is needed. Our country cannot continue siding with Israel right or wrong. There is another side. We must acknowledge the whole picture for any solution.

I write this letter out of great love and admiration for those I have known in Israel who have struggled for the dream of a full life in Israel for Jews but not one based on the ruthless suppression of another people. I hope Mr. Miller will continue writing about the facts that are so rarely given us, and that the Coastal Post will continue to print them.



Let Bolinas Lagoon Fill In

From our home office in Greater Metropolitan Bolinas, we have compiled for you a list of the top ten reasons why we should throw up our hands and let the Bolinas Lagoon fill in:

#10 – Instead of sharks, skates, cockles and ghost shrimp we'll have flowers, grass, 'coons, and snakes. Call it "The Bolinas Meadow."

#9 – Instead of a beautiful view of water, ducks and egrets, we could have a wonderful shopping mall, including Lucky's and Home Depot.

#8 – Move over kayaks and canoes—a dirt bike raceway will entertain us until the permit goes through for low-cost housing.

#7 – With all the West Marin ranches being systematically shut down by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the "Bolinas Meadow" could provide a corral for equestrians and a field for cows.

#6 – There won't be any more of those tell-tale low tide odors.

#5 – There won't be any reason to spend another half-million of the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars for state and federal employees to come out and scratch their chins thinking about whether or not the Bolinas Lagoon should be dredged.

#4 – The final frontiers, including Kent Island and Dipsea Road, can be fully developed.

#3 – There won't be so many marine bird species for the bird watchers to keep track of.

#2 – The tourists won't be hanging their gluteus maximi out into Highway One while watching the seals sleep.

Beside the fact that the Bolinas Lagoon gives seals an area to haul out, it gives us a chance to go fishing, have a tug of war and provide a geographical boundary, the number one reason to turn our backs and let the Bolinas Lagoon die is: (drum roll please...)

#1 – We'll have another unobstructed access to Seadrift and the beach!



Eureka Valley Memoirs

I thoroughly enjoyed Judy Borello's "Eureka Valley Remembered," being an old Eureka Valley girl myself. I lived on Collingwood between 18th and Market from 1952 until I graduated from Mission High (in the same class as Carlos Santana) in 1967. I came back again to live on 19th and Douglass streets after my first son was born from 1970 to 1974. My aunt, uncle and cousins (the Shoafs) lived for many years just down the block from us in the house with the big palm tree. We lived directly across the street from Albert Gianquinto and enjoyed listening to his piano practicing on many occasions.

Though I went to Douglass school and then James Lick instead of MHR, and was a few years behind Judy, I spent many days hanging out at the playground and the Castro Theater, not to mention Dick's ice cream parlor where my addiction to good ice cream began. Eureka Valley was indeed a great neighborhood to grow up in. It was a safe, happy and secure place where you knew you were cared about and watched out for.

I attended a funeral this spring for Timmy Kilkenny, an old Eureka Valley boy, and was amazed at the number of people that showed up to pay their respects. It was a sad but heart-warming experience being there with so many old friends and neighbors. Though I've lost most of my old Eureka Valley contacts, I still get news of many and will always feel lucky to have grown up in such a special place.

Judy, what is your maiden name? I've heard you talk of Eureka Valley before, and it has driven me nuts trying to figure out who you are. We must've crossed paths.


Point Reyes Station

Praise For Local News

Please sign me up for a year. Nice paper. What a concept... A Marin newspaper with news about Marin!



On Independence Day

Re. Fielding Greaves letter:

So it's not just me and my son who have suffered from the excessive volume at Rowland Theater. Is it because the people in charge have already had their eardrums damaged, so they don't perceive the sound to be painful? One should not have to remember to take along earplugs to the movies or stuff tissue paper into one's ears to endure what one hopes to be a pleasurable experience. Please, Rowland and other theaters who continue this abusive practice, wake up: Nothing is accomplished by cranking up the volume except customer alienation.

* * *

Mark Van Proyen's abject cynicism about people and movies is scarier than the Aliens in Independence Day, the movie he writes so disparagingly about.

Evidently tears did not stream down his eyes, as they did mine, on watching the July 4 segment when all the armies of the earth unite to save the world. No, I don't want to project that aliens from outer space are the only things that could unite this world and stop the insane fighting among nations, but I relish the idea that something will!

Bill Pullman, the "some guy" in Van Proyen's report, did not in the least resemble George Bush or Bill Clinton, but bore an uncanny resemblance to John Kennedy, who, in spite of his personal faults, did inspire this nation to believe in ideals.

True, the women did not get to be loudly heroic, but the quiet heroism of saving people damaged by the carnage has always been women's role, and though not all of us can be fighter pilots, most of us can do good deeds, and imagine that the fighter pilot's stripper friend's good deeds were replicated the world over by other heroic women.

This summer "blockbuster," which has been under attack from a number of commentators as being "mindless," led me to think and write at length about my father's military history and my personal world view. The reason some movies are mindless to some viewers, is they forget to take their minds along, or their minds rarely get purified from sour expectations.



Scorned Due To Illness

My situation is that I'm on SSI for a medical problem which I have been receiving treatment for during most of the last 10 years.

The trouble is I don't know when I'll be able to produce for the economy again. My illness doesn't allow me to do that now.

But the worse problem is my disease is looked down upon by many, many Americans, so it's quite difficult to heal. It's like it's a crime to admit you have this problem, because there's so much prejudice against it. It seems like this illness will be like a mark against me for life, no matter what. Like it's a crime.

Well, if certain illnesses really are thought to be crimes by a lot of people, why not make those sicknesses against the law? That would make things simpler. If my illness were considered illegal, then I would not have admitted to symptoms and would have had the option to try to hide it. With the threat of prosecution, I could have avoided the crime.


Canadian Admirer

Congratulations on a rare, because honest, newspaper! Please fax price for one year subscription by surface mail. In what field is columnist Miller's doctorate, and is it from UCB?


British Columbia


Editor's note: Miller is an M.D.

Predatory Thug's Best Friend

Good news for gun owners, bad news for prohibitionists. A new, exhaustive, two-year study by University of Chicago researchers John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard, covering all 3,054 U.S. counties over the 15-year period of 1977-1992, demonstrates conclusively that right-to-carry (RTC) gun laws bring significant reductions in violent crime—murders down 8.5%, rapes down 5%, and aggravated assaults down 7%.

"The results overwhelmingly supported the idea that these laws deter violent crime," reported USA Today, adding that this research "may reshape the gun control debate."

The study also shows that if those states which don't have RTC laws had adopted such laws in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, over 4,100 rapes, more than 11,800 robberies, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

As expected, the study found that property crimes (burglary, larceny, auto theft) increased as criminals responded to the threat of being shot by switching to crimes less personally dangerous to themselves. The study estimated the gains from reduced violent crimes at $6.6 billion, offset by an estimated $417 million loss due to increased property crimes, for a net gain to society of about $6.2 billion.

Also as expected, the usual furious mendacious minions of gun prohibition—Rep. Charles Schumer of New York, Sue Glick of the Violence Policy Center, Douglas Weil of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Stephen Teret of the Center for Gun Policy and Research, G.E. Ernst of Phoenix Publications—all were quick to denounce the study as "flawed"—as soon as it was announced, before even bothering to read it. They thus demonstrated yet again that their sole agenda is not crime reduction, but the mindless disarming of law-abiding citizens, thereby strengthening the power of the armed criminals who prey upon society.

Gun prohibitionists are a predatory thug's best friend.


NRA Director

Lofholm Disputes Dissidents

I have take a hard look at my position on the Marin Health Care District Board in light of the recent events over the last several months, culminating in my being subjected to a recall election by the voters.

At the heart of these problems is a small group of dissident extremists who thrive by attending and disrupting Board meetings, making personal attacks on the members directly and in the press, as well as on Board members' families.

They seek to:

• Overturn the 30-year lease between the District and the hospital

• Undo the merger between California Health Systems and Sutter Health

• Examine or interfere in the day-to-day operation of MGH via this Board

• Rescind the staff reductions made commensurate with the lower occupancy rate

* Force personal financial disclosure of the non-public board members who are not covered by public disclosure laws

The District Board has no legal authority to act on any of these matters; it is outside our legal charter to do so. This fact is known to these dissidents, but it is apparently of no concern.

The motive and backgrounds of this group of extremists who dominate Board meetings and keep the Board from functioning should be checked out before anyone accepts the validity of their accusations. The principal protagonists are:

• William Rothman—a physician and formerly contentious Hospital Board member, rejected by voters when he sought re-election

• Nancy McCarthy—a lawyer and former disruptive Board member, rejected by the voters when she sought re-election and who has spent the last 10 years attacking MGH and anyone affiliated with it

• Norman Carrigg—a physician who has perennially criticized MGH for over 30 years.

• Don Carney—a former COM student who was sued by the College District and has been involved in on-going controversies since coming to Marin in the 1970s

• Mary Cortez—a nurse who formerly worked for MGH and has bitterly attacked the hospital since leaving its employ.

They cannot accept the fact that legally the District Board can only oversee the lease between the hospital and the district, and to receive public comment on that lease. At least two of these extremists know the functions of the board, having served on it before being rejected by the votes. Is their purpose to dismantle the hospital, to drive it out of the community?After all, they've made a career out of opposing the hospital.

As I have voted in the public interest, and not according to their bizarre interests, I have come under numerous personal attacks, as have my family members. Citing conflict of interest, the dissidents circulated a petition for my recall. Their claim regards to businesses, one that I own, and one in which I have a minority interest.

Ross Valley Pharmacy leases a small space in one of the properties which MGH manages in Larkspur. I requested an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and I have been told that there is NO conflict of interest regarding leases that I or others on the Board have with the hospital. OPTION Care, a pharmacy and nursing service, provides, under contract, some very limited services to the hospital and its affiliates. The FPCC did not there may be a potential conflict, but it is unclear due to the small amount of income that I receive from the OPTION Care contracts with MGH. My net income from these MGH contracts with OPTION Care for 1995 was $189.62, about 52 cents per day. To put the contracts in perspective, MGH's revenues are $100 million annually with a net of several million. These dissidents claim this investment income influences my decisions on the Marin Health Care District board. How ridiculous!

The cost to the Board and community to hold a recall election exceeds $50,000. It is a tragedy that these dissidents have found ways to disrupt meetings and waste scarce community funds to serve their obscure, arcane and obsolete goals. It is a tragedy that the press has valued their word bytes instead of the facts and in doing so has misled the public as to who are the real villains in this little psychodrama.

In 1994 I chose to run for a seat on the Marin Health Care District Board to serve our community with the knowledge I had gained over the past 25 years practicing as a pharmacist in Marin. During the 42 years prior to my election, the District had never had a pharmacist serve on its Board. I believed this new perspective would help the hospital better meet the needs of our community as it faced the largest restructuring of health care delivery in U.S. history.

Private insurance companies and governmental agencies now together demand lower costs, fewer hospitalizations, more community-based health services, and the promotion of wellness and self-care. The changes imposed on MGH are part of the nationwide healthcare revolution. Eleven years ago MGH saw these changes coming and chose then to privatize the hospital since then MGH has taken the necessary steps to remain a vital supplier of health care to this community. It has improved its leverage in the marketplace while reducing the cost of delivering health care to Marin residents.

Other communities are facing this harsh reality only now. Even Kaiser will close several hospital facilities in Northern California, probably San Rafael. During this restructuring, MGH has served the community very well.

I have always acted in an ethical manner, faithfully representing the public's interests without regard to my own. If I prevail in the recall, I would continue to represent the interests of Marin's residents, not the interests of these dissidents. Therefore, I could expect to continue to be the target of the dissident extremists, assuring further disruptions of important Board meetings which our community can no longer afford.

I have appreciated the opportunity to be a member of the Marin Health Care District Board. I believe I have served our community well with my perspective on health care issues. I thank the members of our community for their on-going support.

The Marin Health Care District must be able to fulfill its legal authority. It cannot continue to be the stage for rancorous side shows. To enable this to happen, I reluctantly choose to resign my position on the Marin Health Care District Board effective at the close of our September Board meeting.


Ross Valley Pharmacy


America's Third Party

The Democratic party earnestly claims to be the "party of less government and lower taxes," even as the post-election wish lists of its traditional constituencies for new government interventions grow longer.

Meanwhile, the "radical" congressional Republicans happily endorse further wage controls and federal interventions in the health insurance business, while solemnly vowing to indefinitely continue looting enough additional taxes to "keep safe and secure" the bankrupt Ponzi schemes of the Farley-Roosevelt New Deal.

As the two incumbent parties thus busy themselves trying on each other's frock coats for size, is it any surprise voters are tempted to widen their gaze in search of someone who might offer some straight talk?

It is in that context that the considerable press coverage of Ross Perot's Reform Party convention in Long Beach the week of August 11, even though it conflicted with the Republican National Convention down the coast in San Diego at the same time, must be understood.

Unfortunately, the manipulative nature of the fiesty "just get under the hood and fix it" Texas immediately surfaced. Mr. Perot, who made his first billion negotiating plush computer service contracts with the government—yes, it was all tax money—loves to assume the pose of the modest, foot-shuffling lad willing to take us to the dance only if we ask him real nice.

This spring, Perot was back playing coy again, saying he didn't know if he would run for his own party's presidential nomination. Making the mistake of accepting this at face value, former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm threw his hat in the ring on July 9. Suddenly Mr. Perot's feigned reluctance evaporated as he forcefully informed his faithful followers in Long Beach, August 11, "I want to be your president."

Perot is welcome in the race, of course. But if Americans are looking for a well-thought-out and radically different platform, and a support structure of congressional candidates to keep a new party president in the game should another ever be elected (Abe Lincoln was the last), they were far more likely to find it in the nominating convention of the Libertarian Party in Washington D.C., July the 4th, than in Long Beach in August.

Despite the usual panoply of colorful charts and graphs, Bill Stall of the Los Angeles Times reported in a masterpiece of understatement that "Perot offers no detailed solutions to any of the problems he raised," in Los Angeles August 11. "Nor did Lamm, which speech focused on...campaign and governmental reform, fiscal 'sanity' and immigration reform."

Oh, fine. Blame it on the Mexicans.

Meanwhile, accepting the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in Washington July 6, financial newsletter author Harry Brown said," "We have to get rid of all the gun-control laws that leave our citizens defenseless in the face of armed criminals. We have to get rid of the asset-forfeiture laws that motivate law-enforcement agencies to conduct raids because of the property to be seized rather than because of any crimes committed.

"The only way we will reduce drug use in this country is to take the criminal profit out of the illicit drug trade by making drugs completely legal.

"I will submit a budget for the fiscal year 1998, cutting the federal government in half immediately and repealing the income tax.

"In the Libertarian administration of Harry Browne, every government employee will respect the Bill of Rights or pay the consequences. Any government employee found guilty of violating the Bill of Rights will be censured, dismissed, or even prosecuted.

"This is America, not the Old World. In America, it is the government that must bow down to the people—not vice versa. We are not the raw material for the reformers' grand schemes. We are not statistics in the Gross National Product. We are not to be toyed with by federal bureaucrats, like mice being tortured by cats. We are sovereign. It is the government that should obey us, not vice versa.

In the Libertarian administration of Harry Browne, things will change. As Thomas Jefferson said, "We will bind down the politicians with the chains of the Constitution."

Here is America's third party—the 24-year-old Libertarian Party that the Big Three networks and the big statist dailies of New York and Washington and Los Angeles don't want you to hear about.

How else to explain their endless insistence on describing as a "third party" the Potemkin-Village outfit being constructed as a personal plaything by a hermit Texan playing several beans short of a full burrito, while conveniently failing to note that America's real third party has been on the ballot in all 5 states for years and has fielded a presidential candidate in every election since 1972?


Assistant Editorial Page Editor

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Open Letter To America's Old Media

"A Libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are Libertarians whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not Libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

I respect the fundamental right involved, but I've never cared much for militias. I'm an individualist. As anyone who knows me will attest, I don't play well in groups.

Recent media attempts, however—using events like Oklahoma city and BATF harassment of Georgia and Arizona militiamen—to tar Libertarians with a brush of racist neo-fascism, have accomplished what the pleading of friends never could.

I know many individuals who've never smoked tobacco, yet consider themselves "political smokers" (defending the basic right to choose). I know flaming heterosexuals who consider themselves "politically gay." Thanks to the corruption of the round-heeled media who've transformed themselves from government's adversary into an eagerly cooperative fourth branch, I now consider myself enlisted—politically speaking—in the militia.

As my first official act, I advise the media to take a good look at the quotation above. It's called the "Non-Aggression Principle." It's what Libertarianism is about. It's all that Libertarianism was ever about. It's the heart and soul of Libertarianism, a lens through which Libertarians view everything. We've been trying to tell you this for 25 years, but you preferred to portray us a nutsies in propeller beanies, and now, as terrorists.

Does the Non-Aggression Principle look like something a terrorist believes? Or like something decent folks believe, who want a less violent world to live in, for themselves and their kids? Decent folks you've mocked, misquoted, defamed, misrepresented, and just plain lied about for a quarter of a century.

Who the hell are you to judge me or anybody else? To the last specimen, you're ignorant of history, law, economics, science; all you know is newsroom politics and competing brands of hairspray. You're fear-merchants, spinning fantasies of global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, desertification, second-hand smoke, vanishing millions of kids—each phony crisis designed as another excuse to increase government control over our lives—when you know perfectly well there isn't a shred of scientifically respectable evidence to support the least of these pseudo-scientific hoaxes.

Who are you to condemn anyone—whose first political concern happens to be the Bill of Rights, who happens not to believe the liars who gave us Vietnam, Watergate, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, who happens to be dissatisfied with both established parties, who happens to be interested in guns—who are you to condemn those whose only crime is exercising their inalienable individual, civil, constitutional and human rights?

I'll tell you: a self-congratulatory gaggle of hypocritical prostitutes who believe there's only one amendment to the Constitution and that it only applies to you. Anyone who thinks there's a significant difference between The National Inquirer and The New York Times, between Robin Leach and Peter Jennings, possesses more imagination than intelligence, and probably thinks there's a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Until now, as uncritical worshippers of socialist authority in all its vile forms, your joyously self-assigned job has been to convey government lies and threats to the public, while making every individual undertaking appear stupid, crazy or evil.

Now your whoring days are over. There'll be a price to pay for lies you knowingly tell, whether you're the wealthiest, most prestigious network anchor or the lowliest scrivener in a weekly suburban shopper. When you violate your trust as a member of the adversary media, when you sell yourself at yard sale prices to the police state you're supposed to protect the public from, your name will appear on our "Dirty Laundry Web Page."

In your past (like everyone's) you have lovers, spouses, siblings, employers, employees, landlords, tenants, teachers, and of course, your victims. Our Dirty Laundry Page will be their chance to tell 250 million of us everything they remember about you. We know the limits of libel and observe them—it won't help. You can avoid an unauthorized biography (nobody'll get mad enough to bring you to our attention) only by doing your job as it was meant to be done.

Let me help you a little. You delight in calling outfits like the Freeman "anti-government," foolishly believing your audience will receive that as the ultimate epithet. Get real: if you aren't anti-government, you're not doing your job.

They didn't teach this in the state classrooms your parents were forced to send you to; you didn't learn it in the schools of tamed journalism you attended, but America was created by intractable, stiff-necked sons of bitches who hated the very idea of government. Everything worthwhile accomplished with its borders since has been the work of individuals of the same stripe.

That it continues to exist today as anything but the world's biggest banana republic is due neither to you, nor the politicos you daily spread yourselves for, but to those both corruptly interconnected groups despise most: the same kind of stiff-necked, intractable, genuine dissenters, who must never be confused with your favorite poster kiddies, practitioners of officially-sanctioned petulance on the left.

This morning I heard some self-appointed "expert" on the radio, a would-be female Morris Dees, declare in her Bryn Mawr accent that a "resurgence" in militia activity results from America's "swing to the right." Truth is, there'd be no militia if George Bush hadn't broken his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution. There'd be no militia if Bill Clinton had never been born."Brady Bill-Bob" Dole's senescent fumbling doesn't help, nor does the Libertarian Party's belly-crawling disavowal of militias.

Militias are an attempt to communicate by those who reasonably insist that government be limited by the first 10 Amendments, and as a result, find themselves rendered politically homeless by the chronically convictionless, professionally unprincipled movers and money-monkeys who've conned, bribed, finagled and threatened their way into stranglehold control over all three parties.

Any analysis of militia that fails to center on Ruby Ridge and Waco—only the most conspicuous of many such atrocities—amounts to complicity. Why haven't you asked where somebody like Bill Clinton, who burned 81 innocents to death—22 of them children—gets off calling anybody else a terrorist?

Ms. Bryn Mawr is a willing accomplice to a murderous swath being cut through the Bill of Rights. She's earned her place on the Dirty Laundry Page.

Care to join her?


7:SAM SCHUCHAT, Executive Director, »ÝeņĎxł™ŠŹÓGožĆŁY4cýĆ0źŃ,_WH ýŐ<č√Ź$%p{tÖÁ  | ŹŮż'ůű