Hillary's hypocrisy
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
(07/15/99)

Rather than criticizing Hillary Clinton, David Horowitz would do better to congratulate her for recognizing that dairy farmers in the Northeast -- family farmers who barely earn enough to survive -- desperately need the modest safety offered by the Northeast Dairy Compact. Clinton is siding with farmers, consumers and states that produced the dairy compact. Horowitz sides with the corporate giants who have spent millions to kill it.

Horowitz's understanding of the dairy compact's record is incorrect on several counts. Far from being imposed on the states, the dairy compact is a state-initiated, state-ratified and state-supported cooperative arrangement between dairy producers, processors and consumers, which assures a safe and fresh supply of milk for consumers and a fair price for dairy farmers. A study by the federal Office of Management and Budget has shown that six months after the dairy compact went into effect, the price of a gallon of milk in the compact region was five cents lower than in the rest of the country. The dairy compact's commission exempts milk used in federal nutrition programs such as the school lunch program and WIC.

The only sure way to maintain a fresh and stable supply of locally produced milk is to ensure that dairy farmers get a fair return for the milk they produce. Fewer dairy farms do not equal lower milk prices or a more stable supply of fresh, local milk. In parts of New England, before the compact's lifeline to dairy farmers, more than 40 percent of these dairy farms were forced out of business. Milk prices inevitably will rise in the long run if milk production is concentrated with fewer and fewer farmers, farther and farther away from the consuming public.

Horowitz is right about one thing: This is a battle between David and Goliath. The real Davids in this fight, though, are the family farmers, who are simply asking that a 7-day-a-week, 12-hour-a-day job yield a decent return for their product; they are fighting large, multibillion-dollar corporate Goliaths, whose real agenda is protecting their profits. Clinton deserves credit, not scorn, for championing the true "little guy" in this important debate.

-- Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
Washington

I read David Horowitz's column blasting the Northeast Dairy Compact just before I went out to the barn to milk our herd of Jersey cows this morning. Unlike most of our farming neighbors, this New York farm family opposes the compact on free-market grounds. But I was startled by Horowitz's claim that the compact "is expected to put $74,000 in the pocket of every New York farmer, well-heeled and struggling alike." This attention-grabbing figure represents about half the gross income, or double or triple the net income, of most of the dairy farm families I know. "That much?" I thought. "Maybe I ought to support the compact after all!"

Unfortunately for my pockets, 10 minutes of rudimentary research showed me that Horowitz's figure is nonsense. In New England, which has operated under the Dairy Compact for about two years, the percentage of the total producer price attributed to the compact averaged 3.41 percent between July 1997 and December 1998. In 1998, when the non-compact milk price rose higher than the floor price set by the compact for a number of months, this percentage averaged just 1.74 percent. I don't know what Horowitz imagines that New York farmers earn, but if he tried reading some agricultural statistics or simply talking to a few of us, he'd discover that 2 or 3 percent of the total producer price wouldn't pay $74,000 to anybody except, maybe, a handful of the largest dairy farms. For the vast majority of New York's milk producers, a modest few thousand bucks a year would be more like it. New England's experience also suggests that Horowitz's prediction of a 50-cent-a-gallon retail price increase is wildly unlikely. If history is any guide, the increase would be more like 12 or 15 cents a gallon -- bad enough, but nowhere near Horowitz's exaggerated numbers.

Hysterical hyperbole of this sort doesn't help anybody's cause. There are good, factual reasons to oppose the compact. Why make things up?

-- Catherine Frey Murphy

DAVID HOROWITZ RESPONDS ...

There are so many misrepresentations and false statements in Sen. Leahy's letter it is difficult to know where to begin. It is false, for example, to claim that Hillary Clinton is siding with "consumers" in backing the milk compact, since consumers groups are in fact opposed to it, because consumers would be gouged by the artificially supported milk prices resulting from the compact. The senator, who is the legislative author of the compact, misrepresents the facts when he suggests that it is a case of small farmers vs. "corporate giants." In reality the structure of the milk industry in the Midwest states that oppose the milk compact and the Northeast states that support it is the same. There are big farms and small farms in similar distributions in both regions. The difference is that the Northeast has a large urban population and therefore it produces more beverage milk than the Midwestern states, which produce more milk solids like cheese. The compact affects the price of beverage milk only. It benefits corporate giants as well as small farmers in the Northeast by making children pay more for a gallon of milk, and puts Midwestern dairy producers at a disadvantage.

The 50 cent per gallon rise in milk prices I projected for the new compact, which will include additional states, is an estimate put forward by consumer advocate Mark Green and Rudy Giuliani among others. Milk prices in the compact states have increased 7 percent since 1997, when the compact was first instituted (according to the OMB), or 25 cents a gallon. Of course the amount of the rise will depend on how the cartel is administered. I should have qualified my claim about the pricing and also about the amount of money going to farmers. The $74,000 figure is an average. Of course the larger farms in Vermont, Massachusetts and other states in the compact will benefit more than small farmers who may not see a fraction of this sum.

The bottom line is that this is a futile government intervention to put off the inevitable. Milk production by small farms is inefficient. Artificially raising prices to protect inefficient farmers at the expense of children and especially poor children, which is what Hillary Clinton supports, does not reflect the kind of priorities she otherwise claims to be hers.

Famous for being famous
BY BILL WYMAN
(07/18/99)

Bill Wyman is not shoveling dirt , but slinging mud on JFK Jr.'s body before it's even been recovered. Regardless of whether his premise -- that John Kennedy Jr. was more style than substance -- is true, his timing absolutely sucks. His comments are out of bounds, not because they run contrary to the public idolatry surrounding John Kennedy Jr., but out of common courtesy for the recently deceased. Wyman either should have saved his comments for a later date or, if he felt so strongly about Kennedy's supposed vapidness, shouldn't have waited until now to slam him.

Unfortunately, John Kennedy Jr. is most likely under 110 feet of water, and in no position to defend himself from a classless act like Wyman. Apparently Wyman's conscience is submerged at about the same depth.

-- Fred F. Smith Jr.

In attacking a nation's regard for a poised icon, Bill Wyman has bought into exactly what he seems to be rejecting. Does he so desperately need an excuse to buck the inevitable outpouring of media mourning? In acknowledging the hype surrounding fallen John Kennedy Jr., he has answered questions we haven't asked. We were satisfied to watch JFK Jr. grow and stumble and celebrate. And in the end, we are saddened to see him go.

No one ever proclaimed him a writer. No one was ever able to put their finger on precisely what his role was in our society. So it is useless now, and indeed disrespectful, to ponder his vestigial qualities as a celebrity. In this day and age, his grace, damn good looks and potential only beginning to be tapped were rare qualities worthy of our astonishment. The fact that he accomplished anything in the face of our grandiose expectations and beneath the weight of such a legacy is amazing. He was a true gentleman.

-- Karen Cameron Boyden

After a weekend of virtually 24 hour coverage on all major networks of the disappearance of JFK Jr. (and, oh yeah, those other two people), I was left with the very same feelings about Kennedy articulated so well by Wyman. It sounds like he was a nice guy, and I'm very sorry for his family, but have I missed something here? Clearly in this country celebrity, in and of itself, is the most important credential.

-- Russ Lehman
Olympia, Wash.

The beautiful and the damned
BY JAKE TAPPER
(07/17/99)

Referring to Christy Turlington and Cindy Crawford as "eye candy" offends me. The writer assumes a male (and, it should be noted, heterosexual) reader -- John Travolta is an "actor," but Cindy Crawford is a sex object -- and objectifies these women in an insulting way. Obviously Turlington and Crawford are known (and rich and famous) for their physical beauty, but referring to them as "eye candy" is degrading.

-- Jennifer Grant

The last Kennedy
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
(07/17/99)

David Horowitz's reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. as "the last Kennedy" perpetuates one of the darker aspects of the Kennedy family's legacy: its sexism and its lack of expectations for its women. In fact, Caroline Kennedy has assembled a family legacy of accomplishment far greater than her brother's and probably would have continued to do so even had he lived. She is the "last Kennedy."

-- Anastasia Pantsios

Nazi family values
BY AMY BENFER
(07/15/99)

What unconscious prejudice is unwittingly revealed by the writer's question, "how does Idaho breed racists when everyone here is white?" Does she mean that the converse is true? That it's easy to understand how a person can become a racist after coming into contact with Jews, blacks, gays or Latinos? Besides, the answer is obvious: Racism, like any prejudice, thrives on ignorance.

-- Frances Luckin
Johannesburg, South Africa

Why act like you want to see our side of things? Why act nice when you cannot even quote us properly? Next time, Amy Benfer should not try to act like she is a different kind of reporter; she should be up-front and tell us she is the same kind of reporter as the others. Benfer stretches the story to fit her view, misquotes us and adds her own commentary to make us look dumb. She never wanted to see our side one bit. She wanted to look brave facing us haters, but her article proved who the haters are.

-- Christian Teague
Office manager
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations

This piece is very much pro-Nazi and Aryan Nations. It is not an example of objective reporting, but rather an attempt to humanize these evil individuals who teach racial hatred to their children, condone the murder of other races and refuse to admit members of the press who are not of the "aryan" race. What message are you sending to your readers?

-- Bill Maniaci
Director, Jewish Defense League of Nevada

"Nazi Family Values" shows that more and more people who espouse white supremacist beliefs are otherwise ordinary people. Saying they "hate" is not only ineffective in combating such ideas and actions, but it is a gross simplification of a complex social movement. As for "hate", asking a 6-year-old to choose between her parents and a group of strangers that is (to her) hostile without reason will only frighten her and give credence to her parents beliefs that it is "us against them."

The rise of white supremacy is inextricably linked to the hostility that blacks and other minorities have toward whites in general. Black racial separatists encourage this hostility, teaching young blacks to stereotype ALL whites as oppressors, and have confused them so that they can't tell the difference between George Wallace and a white motel maid. White racial separatists, like their black counterparts, prey on confused young people. White young men -- who are taught from kindergarten in amoral, liberal public schools that they are responsible for all the horrors that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time simply because of their race and sex -- are particularly vulnerable. It is well known that if an abusive mother or father constantly tells their child he or she is lazy, stupid, slutty etc., the poor child often embodies those characteristics as a teen or adult. Is it any surprise that many young white men are becoming savage killers, when they've been taught in school that that is all white men have ever done?

It's a shame Benjamin Smith killed himself, so we could not have the pleasure of executing him. But for the liberal media and public schools to shunt all responsibility onto conservatives and not recognize their own role in fermenting this backlash is dishonest and irresponsible. And despite the media's infatuation with hate crimes, the incidence of whites murdering any minorities pales in comparison to the numbers in which blacks are killing each other.

-- Lillie Wade

I wonder if the people of Idaho understand how sad many of us ex-Idahoans feel about our home state. I lived in Idaho for 33 years. I grew up in the same home that my father knew as a child. Yet I find it harder and harder to go home, to see my folks and visit old friends. I am no longer blind to their luxury of ignorance. I can no longer be silent when they make their ignorant racist comments. When your day-to-day life seldom means having any dialogue with a person from a different culture, it is nearly impossible to push the walls of ignorance back. I know.

-- Linda Fitch

The Matt Drudge of porn
BY MICHELLE GOLDBERG
(07/13/99)

In the future, when writing an article about a man who, conflicted or not, is proud to be a Jew, please do not illustrate using a figure with a cross around his neck. We Jews are not Christians, and we are proud not to be.

-- Aaron Schatz
Cambridge, Mass.