houston agenda, august 1993

7/28/2019 Houston Agenda, August 1993

1/12

EXCLUSIVE!Agenda Scribe SexuallyHarasses KHOU Starlet!RON PAUL . @ ZONING ...Jury Rebuffs ATF Threat o rin Idaho Trial Menace?HoustonAgenda

ol. 2 No. 4 A Look at Current Issues Augus t1993

and politicsat the library~ h r i s t i n Hartung's

Dirij Books

WEATHER ,' ,' ,', Showers of bribery allegations sink Judge John Lindsay 's reelection forecast. Hartung's hot and' ' ', ' cold review of good sex-bad sex sends ripples throughout lower elevations. Barometric pressure up. Hurricane season brings possibility of high winds from political debate on zoning.


2/12

2 HoustonAgenda August

,.

STACKS, '& TAXESJBY NIC :OLAS 5 . MART IN

WHY T H EHOUS TONPUBL IC :LIBFIAFIV ISON LIP::ESUPPOF I T .HOW we C:ANSAVE IT

A great library contains the diary of thehuman race . -H. W. BeecherFirst in virtue among city institutions, thepublic library was long venerated byAmericans. Civic pride often manifested itselfin grand and hospitable book warehouseswith imposing collections. More often thannot, prior to the dem olition of culture by TV,the person who ached for self-improvementwas directed to the "hospital for the mind ,"not some addlepated support group.Today these soul clinics are themselvesailing. Their budgets have been whacked,their independence called into question, andtheir administrations sodden with bureaucracy and politics. The library environmentdescends increasingly to the tone of a postalbranch or unemployment office, though frus-tration among the bookies seems less proneto result in gunplay.While many city governments haveexploded in size and budget, it is a raremunicipality where the local library hasshared in the loot. In Houston the situationhas been somewhat unique, but equally dis-turbing. In 1987, the city 's total spending wasalmost $1.4 billion, out of which $3.9 millionwas the public library 's materials budget, forbooks , films, et cetera. In 1993 , the city'sspending has been forcibly slimmed to $890

million, while the library materials budghas sunk to a piddling $2.7 million . To loat it another way, the city 's budget camdown by 36 percent and the library materibudget shrank by 31 percent. So, while tcity has been relatively compassionate intreatment of the public library, the resultstill a system devastated by budget redutions.Madonna and '!WainIn addition to financial contusions, cilibraries also suffer the odd bloodletting ovthe content of their inventories, which avariously criticized for sexism , racism , ansemitism, obscenity, and more.A couple of years ago the local gedarmes descended upon a Cincinnati amuseum and charged the director wiobscenity for displaying the photographsthe dead homosexual, Robert MapplethorpThese pictures included one of a man withbullwhip protruding from his bottom, asecond photo of a fellow serving as the recetacl e for his partner's liquid excremeInstanUy it became one of the most popumuseum exhibits in the history of Cincinnalong identified as the heart of the countranti-pornography movement. (Savings aLoan Crisis con artist Charles Keating,first gained fame as a Queen City purity crsader.)


3/12

AugustMeanwhile , the Cincinnati PublicLibrary had in its collection a coffee table edi-tion of these same Mapplethorpe pictures ,available to all comers. This did not sit wellwith some residents, but the officials whobusted the museum were not emboldened tobring an obscenity charge against the library,and the book remained in the stacks.Similarly, as Madonna 's book Sexmounted the best-seller list, Houston Public

Library (HPL) was reported to have a copy onorder, which , due to her publisher's decisionnot to print a second edition, never materialized. Learning of the order, hundreds of people called and wrote to the library and cityofficials to protest the procurement of whatthey considered to be pornography. As aresult of the public snit, several copies of Sexwere donated to the library where they haveremained as reference items to this day.At various times and places, groups havedemanded the banishment from libraries ofJames Joyce's Ulysses, Twain 's Huck Pinn ,and thousands of other books deemedimmoral, inaccurate, or offensive. Sometimeslibraries stand resolute in defense of freechoice, other limes they knuckle under lopressure by the hands that feed them.The Bureaucracy ProblemCompared to Federal Express, the US. PostalService is monstrously outmoded and ineffi-cient. Similarly, public schools are often outperformed on every level by private ones, andeven by parents who teach their kids at home.By almost any measure of care, socializedmedical systems are inferior to their freemarket counterparts. Governments buildcrummy cars, dangerous power plants, andmiserable agricultural systems. Is it any surprise, then, that government libraries sufferfrom comparable inefficiencies and ineptitudes?Ten years after fax machines began togain wide usage , the Houston Public Librarycan only vaguely sense that they might beused to improve service, and their purchase issaid to be years away. At a time when manysmall restaurants, printers, and office suppli-ers are taking orders by fax , the HoustonPublic Library puts callers to its referencedepartment on hold for 15 minutes or more.For that matter, it is not even possible to callanother department, say Social Sciences,without first enduring the torment of holdingfor the reference department to answer.Telephone reference has 42 lines, but only 5or 6 people manning those lines to fieldqueries and to serve as the answering servicefor all other departments. The personal com-puter revolution has meant as much to thelibrary as conscience does to a politician.From your den in Tanglewilde, you can callup as much information about the San Mateo,California Parks and Recreation departmentfrom your home computer as you can aboutHPL.Circulating materials are obviously thelifeblood of the library. Yet it wasn' t until1992 that HPL hired a collection agency totrack down people with overdue and stolenlibrary books. Is il imaginable thatBl ockbuster Video would allow thousands oftapes to go unreturned for years beforeenforcing their repossession? Library officialscan 't begin to calculate how many books havedisappeared over the years; they have no reli-able method for tracking inventory. If apatron requests a book from the inactive

stacks and the book is not located, the assist-ing librarian simply shrugs his shoulders. Anybusiness which operates like this is destinedfor a date with bankruptcy court; but this sortof bureaucratic bungling is normal for institutions which get their money from taxpayersrather than operating in the open marketplace. There are no rewards for efficiency, andno penalties for inefficiency.HPL has some bright and capableemployees , but no special benefits alight onthe more diligent staffer. The library eschewsordinary business practices; and since lheentire library culture is that of a socialized

bureaucracy, even the best employees learn togrumble and fall in line. As a rule, librarianslook askance at the rough and tumble of busi-ness. Instead, they are serving a higher purpose, removed from tasteless competition.They don 't have customers, they havepatrons, thank you .One exquisite example of bureaucraticlogic at HPL: In 1989 the Pine Arts department distributed a survey asking patronswhat sort of audio recordings they enjoyedand would like the library to buy. Afterresponses had been gathered for severalweeks, a patron asked the librarian in chargeof the survey when it would be published andwhether it would be used to guide future purchases. The librarian responded that theresults would not be circulated, and that thelibrary had already made its music purchas-ing decisions before the survey was ever ci r-culated! Pity the poor idiot who imagined hisvote might count for more than a Nigerian 's.In contrast, a commercial bookstore engagesin an unceasing survey of customer wants,often resulting in overnight additions andimprovements.If Jazz is your music, take a look at theHPI.:s CD collection. Does it excel in the clas-sics, like Ellington, Basie, Holiday? Does itfeature distinguished contemporaries, likeWynton Marsalis? Does it reveal a pattern ofpurchasing which maximizes selection andvalue? Three resounding nadas. There is pitifully little of the anthology of the vintage Jazzperformers who crafted the most importantindigenous American music form , and less ofthe important contemporary standard-bearers. It's as though the selection committeesaid , "Ellington is supposed to be important,let's buy one Ellington disk." That parsimony,though, applies less to classical music , whichis abundant and varied. One hopes that this isnot because the library staff holds BlackAmerican music in low esteem , but one won-ders .It seems that the policy is to buy three of

HoustonAgenda 3each disk . It doesn 't matter if the album is aclassic or disposable schlock: the rule isthree. Apparently, this is because it makes itmore likely that one disk will be available ifthree are in the collection. This means, obvi-ously, that only one-third as many differenttitles are thus owned; the collection is two-thirds less varied . Indisputably, if the libraryowned only one copy of an album it wouldmore likely be checked out when you went tofind it. But you could place a reserve on thatborrowed title and have it in due time. If thetitle has never been purchased-in favor ofthe second and third copy of something that

would rather watch his institution decayprimordial mud than repudiate the ideafree loans . Free circulation is the Holy Craof the library bureaucracy. You are more likly to convince gun owners to repeal thSecond Amendment, or journalists the F'irthan to talk librarians into charging patronsLibrarians have made the free lunch (in, there is no such thing . . the law of thstate of Texas. They have taken a notiowhich was as wise 200 years ago as it is spetacularly idiotic today, and they havenshrined it in the glorious heritage of politcal domination.

Circulating materials are obviously thelifeblood of the library. Yet it wasn 't until 1992that HPL hired a collection agency to trackdown people with overdue and stolen librarybooks. Is it imaginable that Blockbuster Videowould allow thousands of tapes to go unreturned For years before enforcing their repossession?doesn't interest you-you will never hear it atall. F'or regular library patrons, it is hardlynecessary to pass comment on the inattentive, often surly, attitude of library employees.Just like the post office.The SolutionF'iguring in inflation, the library has lostalmost half of its annual materials budget inthe past six years , while patronage hasremained steady. The staff is acutely aware ofthe compromise in selection and service dueto insufficient budget, but they cannot imag-ine any solution beyond waiting for the taxspigot to be turned back on. (ApparentlyMayor Lanier assures them this will happensoon.) The staff must be developing empathyfor the dialysis patient who wails for a donorkidney while his own deteriorates.If you want to trigger convulsions in alibrarian, the easiest way is to suggest that hislibrary charge patrons for borrowing materials. This strikes at the heart of the fullysocialized bureaucrat. It conjures up imagesof expectations, hard work, responsiveness,even ruthless capitalism.That reaction is not unique to HPL; thebureaucratic malaise is a universal characteristic of public libraries, the same way lowerSAT scores are a feature of almost all publicschools. In Cincinnati, the public librarycharges for video tape rentals, which theyconsider quite normal and justified, but try totell them that it would be equally sensible tocharge for books and they hit the roof. InHouston, the library can 't imagine chargingfor video tapes. (Why do libraries loan videotapes, anyway? Is there a shortage of videorental stores? Do the video stores love tocompete with the government, which handsout product for free? Public librariesshouldn't stock popular movies al all, free ornot.) If you press the idea of fees for materials,you will discover that the typical librarian

This is a nation where "poor" kids we$120 tennis shoes; where welfare recipienhave color TVs; where the underclass is swell -off- says the same legislature whicimposed the free library law-that they capay $500 a year for car insurance; where th"sin" tax on cigarettes is hailed by compasionate progressives despite falling dispropotionately on food stamp users. But it is notcountry where people can pay a quarterrent a book. Actually, that's not quite correcThey can pay a lot more than a quarter, anwith a clean conscience, if it is squeezed oof them by the tax collector. Asking peopwho actually use the library to pay their wais immoral, but forcing people who never uthe library to pay for those who do is virtuous. So goes political logic .Librarians assiduously harp that th"poor" will lose access to materials if a costimposed . There is no evidence to support thiThe "poor" keep R. J. Reynolds in businesthey sustain many a liquor store; they are thfoundation of state lotteries, and the friendevery impulse-buy convenience store owneIf patrons had to pay for loans, librarianwould immediately yelp that the poor webeing deprived of Shakespeare's sonnetwhich might be plausible if the poor were bfans of Shakespeare today. Perhaps we're jumisinterpreting Rap lyrics. (You may noticincidentally, that poor people are perfectcapable of paying to use copying machinesthe library.)The truth is, according to HPI.:s publinformation office, that no data have evbeen collected revealing the economic statuof patrons. For all the administration knowour "free" library has no higher percentage"poor" patrons than video, record, or boostores. The library does, however, havemuch higher ratio of unwashed indigenwho roam the stacks and crawl the floosneaking peeks at female undergarments.The argument for charging patronoccupies two categories: practical and ethica


4/12

4 HoustonAgendaOn the first score, the collection is dismal and getting worse fast. Many books arein lousy shape, and thousands of others aresimply AWOL. Many superb titles are neverbought. If HPL were a hospital it wouldn'thave needles and catheters, much less CATscanners and sonograms.Why is it that retail information sellers-video, record , and book stores-arethriving, while the toll -free variety-public

libraries-are emaciated?On the second score, why should taxpayers-like those offended by Madonna's comicbook-have lo pay for its inclusion in thelibrary's collection? Why should anti-abortionists have to pay for materials which promote abortion? Why should pacifists have tofoot the bill for books which monger war.Why is it ethically superior to compelsupport for expression than to prohibitexpression? If speech is so important that itssupport must be compelled, why doesn ' t government exact a subsidy for newspapers?Why aren 't people compelled lo purchasecable TV? Why isn 't Rush Limbaugh fundedby the National Endowment for the Arts?If I am pie-eyed over Madonna,Limbaugh , or Tracy Lords , I shouldn't expectsome taxpayer who detests them to pay for

my dopey pleasures. By the same token , if notax money is involved, morality crusadersforfeit the right to involve themselves inlibrary materials selection and policy mak-

CORRECTIONIn our June issue, the cover photo of the BillyBlues saxophone were by photographer ToddYates. The photos of the various non-conforming real estate properties in the featurewere by photographer Ken Rabalais .

Subscribe to theHoustonAgendaFor hard-hitting reportsand commentaries ongovernment, media, andthreats to yourconstitutional rights.We venture where otherpapers dare not go .

Make check or moneyorder payable to:HoustonAgendaP.O. Box 7926

Houston, Texas 77270-7926Subscription rates for 12 issues:Registered voters $17.76Unregistered voters $19 .84

For a free subscription to FAX NEWSabout zoning. Call 224-4144.Houston PropertyRights Association

ing. The exploitation of tax dollars for libraryfunding unfairly pulverizes the moral preferences of conservatives . It also gives vice fanatics the excuse lo demand that adults havenothing more lusty to read than The Virgin'sGuide lo Se/f-preseroalion.Patrons and PatronageIt is lime lo throw out the obsolete, destructive tax-and-spend library paradigm.Librarians should brace for the end of adolescence and the beginning of an adulthoodwhere they learn not to sponge off mom anddad. They should discover that it is more honorable to solicit voluntary contributions thanto expect the political bandits to smugglethem enough to get by on each year.If we want hollow, intellectually moribund libraries, let's continue on the presentpath; we 've almost reached our goal. If wewant exciting, bustling, evolving institutions,with computers, faxes, phones that work, andan obsession with customer service, then let'stake the library off welfare and put it onworkfare. Make HPL earn its way back torespectability.By privatizing the library we would create a more capable, independent institution.

:' :. .i ~ \Quickly vaulting to the front of the parade ofMadonna's Sex critics was comely councilwoman Christin Hartung, herself possessedof a fondness for bawdy novels. She suggestedto Mayor Lanier that it might be a good ideaif a citizen's committee was empowered toevaluate books donated to the library as totheir conformity with community values. Themayor showing no interest in her idea, itpetered out along with the debate over Sex.A decent interval having passed, andscores of library patrons having fondled reference editions of Sex, the Agenda recentlyreturned to Ms. Hartung to ask her flesh outher proposal and reflect on its prudence inlight of subsequent events . Did she sti ll thinka citizen's oversight committee was needed?How did she respond to critics who accusedher of advocating censorship? We put thequestions to her.The oversight committee the councilwoman advocates , ''would advise the city onbook donations," she says. "It would be similar to the arts commission that advises thecity on art donations. When people offer todonate art to !the city), we don 't just acceptany piece of art that's offered . We have a committee of citizens who look at it and decide ifits something that we want to accept." Givenauthority only over donations to the library,Ms . Hartung concedes that only "a very

Right now it's like a Third World country thatblows its annual World Bank allocation andcomes crawling back for more. As long asdependency rules, the situation can neverimprove , unless the government strikes oil.The HPL constantly awaits the next bigstrike, and it just isn't going lo come. Themayor and council will keep the patient onminimal life-support so that they can't beblamed for his demise. They'll rituallyannounce their loyal support for the library,like Chinese politburo members do whenthey trot out some petrified political fossil.The politicians just want to make sure HPLremains in their pockets so they can hand outnew branches as juicy political plums andcontrol the flow of patronage.How difficult would self-sufficiency be toattain? If each of the library's 850,000 cardholders paid a nominal $10 yearly for borrowing privileges, the library would start with arevenue base three times as large as thematerials budget it has today. Charging aquarter per item circulated would bring inanotfler $2 million a year. Then there are feesthat could be charged for computer searches,facility and equipment rentals, research assistance, and a host of services presently nonex-

Augustistent. As industry saw the transformationthe library into a lean, modern system, corprate donations would pour in . WouldnCompaq love to reach an intelligent, weread audience by becoming the "official sposor of the Business department" for $100,0a year? Put Conoco 's logo on tote bags, andPhillips 66 dust cover on every book : the posibilities are endless. Philanthropic donatiowould defray the cost of serving people geuinely unable to afford the cost of library sevices.The Texas Library Systems Act, bettnamed the Librarian Welfare Protection Ashould be repealed . This is the foolish lawhich prevents libraries from even consideing modernization. Librarians, the speciinterest group which got this law passeshouldn 't have it around to excuse their frmarket phobia .If the Romanians can depose Ceaucescthe Germans can knock down the wall, athe Argentines can privatize their precionational oil company, can't Houstonianswhat's necessary to create a vast, uninhibiteand flourishing library? 1993, Nicolas S. Martin

Into the grooveMADONN A STIMULATES OUTCRY

FROM COUNCILWOMAN HARTUNG

BY NICOLAS 5. MARTIN

small" number of books would be evaluated.The mass of materials purchased by thelibrary would remain indisposed to citizenreview.The frenzy over Madonna seems to havebeen the only trigger for her review committee proposal. "I looked at the book fromcover lo cover and I personally found itobscene," she says. "My point is, that its sucha controversial book that if adults want tospend the $50 to buy it that they ought lohave the opportunity to do that, but that wehave such a short book budget that I haveworked ceremoniously to try to increase overthe last few years."Wouldn't the advisory committeebecome a magnet for groups demanding censorship? Might some moslems demand thatthe library not accept books by SalmonRushdie? Might some anti-abortionists arguethat pro-abortion books be excluded? Mightsome liberals wish to bar books which aren't"politically correct"? Ms. Hartung acknowledges that prospect and says that those areprecisely the sort of citizen objections thatshould be taken seriously. "When you're talking about a public facility, you really need tothink about everyone involved. There is lotsof art donated that is never put up at CityHall. For one reason we may not have enoughroom, and another reason is it may not be

appropriate."With apparent inconsistency, the coucilwoman seems exclusively lo focus hinterest on donated materials. She defenthe judgement of the library staff in decidiwhich books to purchase. "That's whyhave a library director," she notes. "They loat what the needs of the city are, and thlook at the type of requests they need , athey know what their readership is. A lotthe pocketbooks that they purchase are aUe bit racy; stuff that I read. I read practicaeverything on the New York Times bestsellist. I don 't think that we should be censorstread a real thin line there."Thin Blue LineMs. Hartung's critics suggest that the lineso thin as lo be invisible.Director of the Texas ACLU, JJacobson, rejects the oversight committout of hand. "This country was founded the notion that individuals should be allowto form their own opinions, unfettered frogovernment approval. The function of tlibrary is lo provide citizens with the widarray of idea and opinions, and once olibrarians lose their independence the repulic is in jeopardy. In essence, what you atalking about is censorship."The censorship warning is also sound


5/12

Augustfrom other quarters. For example, PaliStevens , of the Committee for Justice forWomen, says that she doubts an advisorygroup can be populated with discerning andimpartial members. "How do you know thatsomebody 's non -political? How do you knowthat they 're thoughtful; that they don 't havea religious agenda? I'm very uncomfortableabout committees attempting to impose theirviewpoint, even if they feel !their decisionsare] well thought-out and non-political. Bythe very nature of a committee like that itbecomes political."Even Paul McClintock , an activist in theconservative faction of the Republican Party,expresses some hesitation about intrusion onlibrary freedom , though he concludes that

"having to pay taxes to support the promotion of a view you oppose is obviously atremendous concern." Ultimately he shedshis reservation in declaring that "govern ment-and that includes city governmentand public libraries-has a responsibility toserve the public in a morally justifiable way,and that includes the society's morals."Ms. Hartung's defenders include abortion opponents, anti-obscenity conservatives,and some unashamed defenders of censorship . "I'm a fan of Christin Hartung," saysCray Wakefield , of the Houston FamilyAssociation. "If she was interested in thisthen I think it deserves some thought"Suzanne Reynolds , President of TexasRight to Life, says that "a lot of the pro-abor-

SEX , STACKS & TAXES , pt. 3


6/12

6 HoustonAgendaby Nicolas S. Martin As a rule , television news reporters love doingenvironmental stories, since they have theelements of scandal and catastrophe whichmake for great TV. The segments are pagansermonettes, scolding us for our calloustreatment of Mother Earth, and supplyingexperts who warn us to mend our filthy, prof-ligate ways . Environmental reporting dove-tails nicely with the social progressivism ofreporters, the obsession of Americans with

health at any cost, and the vanity of experts.But they are a lousy source of valid information about science or the environment.Information is beside the point in theseproductions. The viewer isn 't meant to evalu-ate the facts of a story. In 90 seconds or fewer,the reporter preaches a little doom-andgloom, blends in the sound bites of the expertwhose views confirm the reporters worstfears, and breezes to the exhortation for us towise up .This sort of reporting is almost a dailyritual on news shows around the country,including Houston 's. It is precisely this kindof journalism which galvanizes popular senti

LOST IN THE OZONE ment about pollution, the Greenhouse Effect,pesticide toxicity, and the other safety con-cerns . Green reporting is to journalism whatbrown shirts were to National Socialists: apowerful symbol of being on the "right side ."

HAZE COVERS GREEN REPORTINGAT CHANNEL 11 FILM AT 10

A sample reportI was sure it would be illuminating to dissecta single example of environmental reportingon a local TV station. For my experiment Iselected a piece which appeared on the KHOUevening news, Sunday, August 1.

"The press stands in approximately the same relation tolife as reading tea leaves stands to metaphysics"

Karl Kraus

This report fit the model for environmental reporting described above. I chose itbecause it was 'typical , not exceptional. I haveno reason to believe that green reporting atKHOU is better or worse than at otherHouston stations. If truth is the target, theaim of green reporting fa lls well short inmost instances. Many scientists think eco-journalism has become as hazardous to thepublic as a poorly tuned car. The latter pol-lutes the air, the former the airwaves .

ONPRIVATE P R O P E R \ ~SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 1 16:30 P . M. TO 10:00 P .M .

H O U S T O N R A C Q U E T C L U B10709 MEMORIAL DRIVE (NEAR VOSS)

RESERVATIONS NECESSARY; SEATING LIMITED$25 PER PERSON, $1 0 PER STUDENT

( HORS D'OEUVRES & REFRESHMENTS)

The reporter covering the story wasVicky Cooper, who has been with KHOU for

A S E MINA R OF THEF R E E E NT E RP RIS E

E DUCA T ION C E N TE R

F E A T U R I N GHOWARD BAETJER

CENTER FOR MARKET PROCESSESJ A C O B G . HO R N B E R G E R

FOUNDER , THE FUTURE OF FREEDOM FOUNDATIONDAV I D HOWARD

VICE-PRESIDENT, THE ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA

.,.. (713) 984-1343 ..

Augustjust five weeks. Before that she was the pducer of the Health Line series for the BayCollege of Medicine, an experience whisho uld , one imagines, equip her satisfactorfor green journalism.In her story, Ms. Cooper planted sevepropositions for viewers to harvest. Then swheeled out two experts who supposedly cofirmed her impressions. She seasoned hbrew with the opinion of a young woman sand her crew happened upon at MemorPark .The reporter based her story on this pmary idea: the lungs of people who engagestrenuous exertion may be permanently daaged on hot days when street-level ozoconcentrations are elevated. As if one mascientific controversy weren't enough for tjournalist, she also spent part of her 90 sonds reporting her impression that depletiof stratospheric ozone is leading toincrease in skin cancer. (To make this clethere are two scientific controversies". Tfirst is that there is too much ozone closethe Earth's surface. The second is that poltion is causing atmospheric ozone todestroyed too rapidly, hence the famoozone "holes ." While they both involve ozothe two issues are unrelated .)

The person at KHOU who assigned MCooper to report such a story clearly assumthat ozone pollution is a problem . How lowould a journalist keep her job who reportthat "despite the erroneous beliefs ofboss, there is no ozone health hazard"?In my interview with her, Ms . Cooptold me that there were several days of prepration for the report. She confirmed thatnews staff "did call around earlier in the weto find some people" to interview. It is evidthat this was not a spontaneous, unplannstory, and there was plenty of time to colla broad sample of expert opinion, read soscience articles, or even lo kill the storylack of evidence .For the story to make sense, it hadconvince viewers of the following things : ozone is causing lun g damage ozone levels in Houston were at hazardolevels at the time of her report ozone is being depleted from the stratophere ozone depletion causes ultraviolet (Uradiation from the sun to reach Earthgreater amounts greater (UV) radiation levels have ledmore skin cancer the "man on the street" is a health expertOzone is a health hazardFor her story to have power, Ms. Cooper hto at least prove that ozone was a heathreat to the people shown jogging on thot Sunday. To gain that proof she turnedDr. William Esche nbacher, pulmonary scialist at Baylor, because "he is the one wdid the health studies." She came away frthat interview more fi rm than ever in hview that the ozone levels in question werdefinite hazard. What did Dr. Eschenbachsay to convince her?Not much . interviewedEschenbacher the day after her report airHe explained to me that he doesn ' t beliethere is sufficient evidence to prove thozone-in the levels in Houston air-


7/12

Augustamounts , ozone unquestionably harmslungs. The first rule of toxicology is "thedose makes the poison ." Everything , including oxygen and water, can be deadly.)Prom the outset, the doctor's opiniondirectly contradicted the major point of Ms.Cooper's story. He said that "some experts atthe EPA would like to make a connectionbetween pollution and chronic lung diseases,but we don 't have the data I o prove such aconnection! ." Further, Dr. Eschenbachernoted that the existing data "are circumstantial and not as solid as we would need toprove a causal relationship Jbetween ozonepollution and lung diseaseJ ." He said thatresearch has "a long way to go" before prov-ing such a relationship .Ms. Cooper must have been so enam ored of her "Lungs Destroyed By OzonePollution" headline that she overlooked thefact that her major expert completely disavowed it. In our interview, she still insistedthat Dr. Eschenbacher supported her scarypremise, despite the fact that his forthrightposition is that there is no conclusive evidence that such a hazard exists.Unfortunately, Dr. Eschenbacher's reservations about the ozone hazard never made itinto the reporter's story, and she provided noother expert to corroborate her assumption.As more proof of her careless listening,Ms. Cooper told me that the doctor's labstudies exposed subjects to "about 1.5 ppm"of ozone. In fact , that dose would be lifethreatening. The actual exposure of the doctor's subjects is about 90 percent less thanthat amount.Verdict: The reporter produced no evidencethat ozone pollution is a health threat.Ozone levels in Houston were at hazardous leve ls at the time of her reportIf there is no proof that ozone pollutionposes the threat of chronic lung disease , itstands to reason that it would be difficult tolink that unproven hazard to people inHouston . But that was, after all, the purposeof her report, so the reporter persevered onthe momentum of her own conviction thatthe threat was real.Did Ms. Cooper ask Dr. Eschenbacherabout the specific risks of ozone pollution inHouston? "No ," she told me , "we talkedabout !the risks] just in general, becausegenerally we don 't get very specific for televi-sion stories." Did Ms. Cooper ask the doctorhow a person might determine the conditions under which there might be a healthrisk from ozone? ''We didn 't get into that atall ," she replied. Did she inquire how oftenpeople are exposed to ozone levels whichmight present a hazard? "No , no we didn 'tget into that at all," she insisted. ''We talkedjust about when things are very warm, whenthere's sunlight and there are cars around ; itexhibits certain chemicals ... " Did herexperts tell her whether the alleged problemhad gotten better or worse? "No."

It appeared momentarily that she mighthave uncovered one bit of support for herscary headline from the second expert sheinterviewed , University of Houston physicsprofessor W. R. Sheldon. When I asked her ifthere was evidence that ozone pollution wasincreasing she exclaimed, "Absolutely. In factI think that was one of the lsoundJ bitesfrom Dr. Sheldon, !although] we might nothave put that in Jthe story] . He said it has

increased one percent per year."Actually Dr. Sheldon 's "bite" wasincluded in the store as it aired, but Ms.Cooper's recollection of it couldn 't be morefaulty . The doctor was talking about atmos-pheric ozone-not surface pollution-andhe said the levels were going down by onepercent per year, not up as Ms. Cooper rec-ollected.According to Dr. Eschenbacher, "Mostof the monitoring stations have shown adecrease in ozone levels in Houston" inrecent years .Verdict: The reporter found no evidence thatozone pollution in Houston is a health hazard.Ozone is being depleted from thestratosphereAt first Ms. Cooper denied that she carriedany biases into her story, but she changedher tune by the time I asked whether she

said had concluded there was an stratospheric ozone depletion problem. "Yes,indeed we said there was a hole in the ozoneand that it's being depleted. We said it'sincreasing down here on the ground. Wedefinitely said that."Does KHOU have conclusive proof thatstratospheric ozone is being depleted byhumans? The only evidence their reporteroffered was the opinion of Dr. Sheldon, andhe would readily admit that his opinion isfar from the final word on the subject. Infact, some of the top atmospheric scientistsin the world do not agree that human activity is harming the Earth 's ozone layer.l'or instance, Dr. Robert T. Watson,head of NASA's upper atmospheric researchprogram , has said that his group does notbelieve that ozone changes in the atmosphere are man-caused. The evidence isstrong, he noted, " that meteorologicalprocesses alone can effectively depress areasof ozone over the Antarctic continent."Science magazine summarized the evidenceby saying that "the recent !ozone] lossesmay be natural and may result from long-term fluctuations of the general circulationof the atmosphere ."Ms. Cooper says that KHOU overlookedresearchers who do not agree with the manmade ozone depletion theory because,"Apparently we didn 't know that those peo-ple existed ." Additionally, she told me thefollowing :What we try to do is go with what the majority orscientists believe. I haven't spoke with every scienlist on the race or the Earth . But the scientiststhat I did speak with told me this and I have to gowith what the scienti sts say. Once again I do

HoustonAgenda 7believe that the scientists al the Baylor college orMedicine and the University or Houston know whatthey're talking about.

Apparently this budding green reporteris unaware and uninterested in the fact thatscientists often disagree about scientificissues, just as politicians disagree about poli-tics. Most environmental controversies arecontroversies because the evidence isn 't con-clusive . It is rank arrogance for a reporter topick one side in a scientific debate anddeclare it the winner. It is naive to think thata scientist isn 't touched by the same vanityand prejudices as the ordinary person, or thathe won 't put the best face on his opinions forthe TV camera It is a reporter's job to sepa-rate fact from opinion , not just count heads.Scientific veracity is not established bymajority votes.Ms. Cooper located only one scientist toexpress an opinion about ozone loss: Dr.

Sheldon. He told her he supported the man-made ozone depletion theory, and since hisviewpoint supported her original bias, that isthe view which was represented in her story.Verdict: Ms. Cooper chose only one side of hescientific debate over ozone loss and present-ed ii as an established fact.

Ozone depletion and skin cancerOne of the essential tenants of the ozonedepletion theory is that stratospheric ozoneloss will lead to greater UV radiation levelsreaching the Earth's surface. It is thoughtthat the ozone layer blocks the entry of UVradiation through the atmosphere.Ms. Cooper's story included speculationby Dr. Sheldon that increased UV radiationwas already harming humans and plants. Thisis plausible since the number of skin cancercases in the U.S. (skin cancer is caused by UVradiation) has gone up dramatically in recentyears. But did Ms. Cooper elicit evidence fromthe doctor to support his speculation?When I interviewed Dr. Sheldon, heacknowledged that he was not an expert onthe biological effects of radiation. "I'm not abiologist; I don ' t do that," he said .Nevertheless, Ms . Cooper had the doctorspeculate on camera about biological issueson which he has no professional expertise,and he unwisely complied .If the reporter had pursued the truthinstead of gathering support for her biases ,she might have had second thoughts aboutrelying on Dr . Sheldon as an all-purposeexpert.According to Ms. Cooper, Dr. Sheldontold her that the amount of UV radiationreaching the Earth had been increasing due

to ozone depletion. Actually, the opposite hhappened .Scientists at the National Oceanic anAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) regulaly take measurements which have revealedsteady drop in surface UV radiation sin1974 . NOAA scientists also report that UV flover the U.S. has declined by five to 18 pecent during this century.. Dr. She ldon acknowledged to me thatdid not know of these reports on declininradiation levels. If Ms. Cooper had botherto ask him , though, he would have told hwhat he told me . When I asked him, poiblank, if he knew of any studies which shoincreasing radiation levels, he said, "In factdo not''When I asked Ms. Cooper why she didninquire about decreasing UV radiation, ssaid , "I don 't think that that's true I hat tlevels are declining!." In the face of a complete absence of evidence, she appointed he"/ have no idea ipollution caused heasthma, or if pollution

~ --...... made it worse," th_ reporter told me. "Sh- feels that it makes iworse; and that's whayou put on television iwhat people believeabout themselves."

self the expert.She didn ' t ask the doctor for any proto back up his speculations as long asmade statements she wanted to hear. Agathe story was constructed around her grebiases, and those of her news departmenThe widely held view among experts in dematology and radiation biology is that skcancer rates have gone up because peophave spent more time in the sun in recedecades. Sunbathing has its price .Dr. Sheldon was also offered as an expon the effects of UV radiation on plants. Bas mentioned, he readily admits that he"not a biologist .'' He told me that he "is reanot very familiar with the studies" dealiwith the effects of UV on plants .By contrast, botanist Alan Teramura, tleading expert on the effects of UV on plansays that even with a 20 percent declinestratospheric ozone (which is extremeunlikely to occur), "We wouldn 't see planwilting or fruits dropping unripened frotheir vines," due to increased UV. He saNorth America wou ld experience "subshifts" which would increase the growthsome plants and crops, and decrease othe(Southern states, like Georgia and l'loridnormally receive twice as much UV from tsun as a northern state like Minnesota .)Verdic t: The reporter relied on the uniformed opinions of her subject withorequ iring proof. She substituted her biasfor scientific fact, and she showed a total laof amiliarity with the issue she was assignto cover. She provided no evidence thatradiation levels had increased, or that skcancer rates are related to ozone "holes.

see 1Vozone holes, pg.


8/12

8 HoustonAgenda

point to homesHouston - Pr.ozoners their argument forsimilar to this o n e ~ - s house conformszoning . H o w e v d e r r d i ~ a n c e and would notto the propose obe forced to change .

AugustProzoners paint zoning as a simple, pain-free solution to Houston'sproblems. They don't mention that many of Houston's new, modernbuildings would have been outlawed if zoning had been in effect. Evenchurches will be crushed by miles of Red Tape. And yet, with all their ~ bureaucracy and billions of wasted dollars, cities with zoning still haveproperty being used in ways which zoning is supposed to prevent.

/

JI

1.


9/12

AugustLetters .......................... .We welcome fellers from our readers. Sendto:Houston Agenda, P.O. Box 7926, Houston,Tu.ras 77270-7926. Or, fax to (713) 864-3056.Our E-mail address at America Online is"Agenda " and our Internet address is"[email protected] .

Dear Editor,It looks like the proponents of zoning arecontinuing their program of misinformationand deception regarding zoning in Houston.To begin with , they have tried to claimthat deed restrictions do not work because(the y claim) less than half the residentialneighborhoods have deed restrictions. Buttheir own survey, made by Stephen Klinebergof Rice University , showed that 80% of allhomeowners in Houston live in deed-restriction neighborhoods .Despite the claim that zoning is needed toprotect residential neighborhoods, 80% arealready protected by deed restrictions . Onlyabout 2 or 3% of the city's land area consistsof single family residences without deedrestrictions . About 75% of the city is usedfor non-residential purposes, contrary to the

pictures the zoners try to paint.

Now they are trying to claim that in 1962,when zoning was soundly rejected in a publicreferendum, the opponents of zoning wageda divisive campaign aimed at racial minori ties. I was involved in that 1962 campaignand to the best of my knowledge racial issueswere never raised in the anti-zoning campaign.The truth is that the only real support forzoning came from the affluent white neighborhoods west of Shepherd Drive in southwest Houston . It is true that there was aneconomic diversity in the vote, but not blackvs. white. Zoning was rejected in over 90%of the precincts in the other parts of the city.It was the lower income areas that defeatedzoning , not the Black vote.The 1962 campaign centered around theeconomic aspects of zoning, how muchlower the housing costs were here, howmuch higher the cost of living is under zoning, how much higher the taxes would be,how much graft and favoritism there wouldbe under zoning . It was economic issuesthat defeated zoning in 1962, not racialissues.Meredith James

Seminar will examineprivate property assaultsA seminar on the regulatory assault onprivate property is being sponsored bythe Free Enterprise Education Center(FEEC). The organization regularly

Juob Hombtrger

funds college scholarships for highschool studentsbased on theirunderstanding ofthe principles of afree society andoffers teachers theopportunity to earnthree hours of graduate credit whilelearning about free enterprise.Paige Moore, director of programsfor FEEC, says that government is vio lating our constitutional right to lives,liberty and property by seizing or freez ing property or assets on mere suspicion that an offense has occurred. "TheFifth Amendment protects us from

being deprived of our life , liberty andproperty without due process of law.""I f you were told you had to screenyour house from view from a road ormove it or tear it down, that would violate your property rights. Or if FDAagents broke into your place of businessand ransacked it and held you and youremployees at gunpoint, certainly thiswould also be a violation of your property rights without due process of law .Yet these kinds of things happen withgreat frequency."The seminar will take place onSaturday, September 11 at the HoustonRacquet Club. The speakers wi II beJacob Hornberger, founder of theFuture of Freedom Foundation; DavidHoward, Vice-President of the Alliancefor America; and Howard Baetjer, economist at the Center for MarketProcesses in Fairfax, Virginia .

fl Lyric Piano studio id Learn to p lay the m usic you love A ll ages (4-80) Have fun Ind iv idually ta ilo red p rograms Develop increased self-esteemCurrently enroll ing students

880-53 15

HoustonAgenda 9NOT ICESClassifieds

FOR SALELegal size paper cartridge for AppleLaserWriter II printer series . Used once.Asking $45 or will trade for somethinginteresting. 787-6806.

Lunch with the Houston Properly RightsAssociation. We're protecting your rights.Every Friday, Holiday Inn inside West Loop,near Richmond. $7.50. Call Nancy Barber,524-9131.

1986 Dodge mini van. Body perfect. Runsbut needs new head gasket. $1750 . 864-6930 .

The charge for classified ads is 5 cents perword. There is a 20 word minimum. Sendyour copy, your name, address andphonenumber to: Houston Agenda, P.O. Box7926, Houston, Texas 77270-7926. Checksor money orders only please.

rruption favoritism At; -- ~ " m f f s temptation graft bias segregation bribesl!Xtorcion corruption f anta Officiai' -;"'1uion gr.ift bias segregationb1ibe exto1tio n corrupt.ion fav,, gudty in zonj " L:.,.. \ lffe-gation bribes 0 1 1 i , , ~ \ ) ~ o n Co 1ay.,.," . , _ng Payoffsegregati1w ' \\t-, \n $l' iJi 11l l ty ~ r,ffs temptanon ! ;u .1:,:. 4 . ~ o r ~ \ o n case ~ . i < J t . l " e ~ O l l j lillalfi .. < lcmptation~ J . a J t o f t \ .. v


10/12

10 HoustonAgendaTV ozone holesfrom page 7The man on the stre et is a health expertIt is standard in green stories to include aninterview with an ordinary person; preferablysomeone who is deeply disturbed by the problem being discussed. In Ms . Cooper's story,she used a clip by a young woman who saidshe had developed asthma, and that it wascaused by pollution. However, as MichaelFumento points out in his new book, ScienceUnder Siege , "Being a victim of a disease doesnot make one an expert in how that disease iscontracted ."What purpose did that young woman'sopinion serve? Well, from Ms. Cooper's pointof view it served to further dramatize herstory by presenting a real-life victim. Thejournalistic purpose is to scare viewers out oftheir wits. You never see someone interviewedwho says, "Problem . What problem?"From a scientific point of view, the

young woman's opinion is worthless. Shecan' t possibly know whether pollution"caused" her asthma, nor can anyone else. Ms.Cooper admitted this to me , but in her view itdoesn 't make any difference whether the person she interviews is knowledgeable."I have no idea if pollution caused herasthma, or if pollution made it worse ," thereporter told me . "She feels that it makes itworse; and that's what you put on television iswhat people believe about themselves. Youdon't make them stand up there and say,'Well, no, prove this to me . Show me that thisis statistically accurate. "' Don 't confuse theviewers with facts , give them feelings.There is no proof that pollution of anykind, much less ozone, causes asthma,although it may irritate that and other lungproblems. Dr. Eschenbacher offers that it is"misleading" for journalists to use personalanecdotes-like that of the woman with asthma-to try to prove a scientific point. Worsethan misleading, it is utterly dishonest.Verdict: The reporter colored her storywith unfounded, highly prejudicial commentsby a person who has no expertise on scienceor her own illness. The comments of abystander served to embellish the reportersbiased view.

Even though none of the evidence she

gathered gave her support, Ms. Cooper stillcreated a story which confirmed her prejudices. She found two experts who either disagreed with her views, or were not qualifiedto offer expert opinion. Did that stop herfrom building a story from the twigs whichwere left? No, she came back with exactly thestory she set out for, and the facts didn 't getin the way. She-and, more importantly, hernews director-provided Houston with false ,misleading, and exceedingly biased information.Sadly, this is normal coverage of greenissues, which are saturated with good intentions and bad reporting, and not just on localnews programs.Teya Ryan, senior producer of CNN 'sNetwork Earth series has said, "The 'balanced ' report, in some cases, may no longerbe the most effective, or even the most informative. Indeed it can be debilitating. Can we

afford to wait for our audience to come to itsown conclusions? I think not."Journalists, by and large, know littleabout science. They trust scientists only ifthe scientists confirm their prejudices. AsMs. Ryan demonstrates, they trust viewerseven less . Many news operations-like KHOUin this instance-don' t simply report thefacts and let viewers draw their own conclusions. They manufacture evidence; they paintwith their own biased brushes; they omit theinconvenient. In short, they produce propaganda with a heart. This is most evident onenvironmental stories, in which bias is nagrant, ignorant, and appalling.Thin skinsReporters are relentless in their pursuit ofstories. We often see a microphone stuck inthe face of a mother whose daughter hasbeen gunned down , or a father whose sonhas just drowned. To hell with commondecency.Don't ever get the idea that members ofthe media can take what they dish out Thereis no other occupation whose members aremore reluctant to be scrutinized, less tolerant of being interviewed. It is quite typicalfor reporters to be insulting and sarcastic,and even disconnect callers who phone tochallenge stories. In real life, journalists definitely do not act like they do on C-Span.

When Ms. Cooper learned the nature ofmy questions, she was thoroughly defensive.She demanded to know, ''What is the purposefor this interview?" After the first few minutesshe said, "Let me tell you; let me call back the!KHOU news! desk . I don 't know if I'm supposed to do this, but I will call you back if it isOK with them, alright?" I waited for her tocall back, but she didn't until I phoned hernews director and he said he didn 't object tomy interviewing her. He offered to call heranda few minutes later she called me back.At one point in my interview she blurted"It sounds like you want to know what mySEXUAL HARASSMENTI

Augustbeliefs are." But to anyone who saw hreport her beliefs were no mystery.Even though she was audibly perturbeat my questioning, she continued. Once, nethe end, she stopped to suggest to me , "Youghta go on Jeopardy."You have to wonder why these aggresors of the airwaves have such thin skinMaybe it's the ozone.Nicolas S. Martin is executive director of hConsumer Health Education Council. 1993 , Nicolas S. Martin.

KHOU responds to Agenda reportAfter completing my analysis of Ms. Cooper'sreport I read it to her on the phone so thatshe might correct any errors or respond tomy criticisms. This is a courtesy which israrely extended by the media to people wbomthey have interviewed. Given the observations in my articleabout the sensitivity of reporters, I was hardly surprised that Ms. Cooper was miffed bywhat she heard. I was a bit taken aback,though, by the vehemence of her response.She went ballistic.Rather than giving me the line-by-linedefense of her news story that I was expecting, she ferociously reprimanded me for having wasted 40 minutes of her time interviewing her. She basically said that my story wasincorrect in every detail. "You don't knowwhat you're talking about," she insisted.At least twice during our talk , I invitedher to specify any part of my article that wasinaccurate. She refused to do so , except tosay that I was wrong in calling her a "novice "reporter. (I inferred that she was, based onher limited tenure at KHOU and her workquality.) I removed that description of herfrom the article . She provided no information to counter any other aspect of my article. For my money, the most amusing andrevealing part of the contretemps came aftershe accused me of misquoting her in oneinstance. As I remember it, I replied, "I haveit on tape, dear." To which she shot back,approximately, "Don't you sexually harassme."Could I have invented a more damningillustration of Ms. Cooper's fixation on "political correctness"? She not only knows allthere is to know about the environment, shealso bares her feminist fangs at the slightestprovocation. l don 't rule out the possibilitythat it will someday happen, but I think itwill be several years before it is illegal to callsomeone "dear." When that day comes I'msure Ms. Cooper will be happy to denounceme. Maybe during the hearings for mySupreme Court nomination.Tit-for-tat, she charged me with being"biased ," to which I immediately pied guilty.Unlike her TV segment, which was opinionmasquerading as news, my article is franklyloaded with opinions. I assumed that wouldbe obvious to anyone reading i tBiased against television?I also faxed a copy of my article to KHOU 'snews director, David Goldberg. Mr. Goldbergfaxed back the following response, which has

not been edited or changed:"My only respon se is instead or asking about thoriginal intent or the story which was gleaned ansupported by the Associated Press, mr nicholmartin displayed his own bias against televisioBy making the assumption that every word in mcooper's story was wrong, he proves that his minwas made up before he began working on his arcle. Certainly, science is not exact, but about hstory the Texas Air Control board was holdinhearings in houston over houston's poor air quaty that was and is created by humans. "

Why is there no t a whisper in MGoldberg's response about the factual erroin Ms. Cooper's report?He ignores my specific criticismprefering to float a red herring about m"bias against television." But television is nthe problem. The problem is shoddy, biasereporting under Mr. Goldberg 's authority.Candidly, I would not have been terribput off by Ms . Cooper's obvious opinionatinin her reporting if she could have gotteeven one fact right in the process!Mr. Goldberg refers lo the AssociatePress (AP) . AP is a news service composed reporters , not scientists . When the newdirector says that the "intent of the story wgleaned and supported by the AssociatePress," I have no idea what he means . I sumise he might mean that the AP sent outstory about ozone and, since his staff didnhave any ideas of their own , they decidedape the AP.ln what way does the AP "support" stries by KHOU? If Mr. Goldberg means that htrusts the AP as an expert source on scienche is a brave fool. The same is true if he simply accepts at face value the word of peopwho represent government agencies. His stashould show the same level of skepticistoward information supplied by the Texas AControl Board or the EPA as by the polidepartment. Repeating the contents of prereleases is not the same as reporting.To further augment my "bias" that MCooper 's story was baloney, I contacted thCity of Houston Bureau of Air QualiControl. They collect the data on pollutanincluding ozone , and issue ozone "warningsWhile there had , indeed, been an ozowarning issued by the bureau two dabefore, there was no ozone warning issuthe Sunday of Vicky Cooper's report.What does an ozone warning indicate?says that, at one of the six monitoring sitoperated by the City of Houston, the ozolevel in the air exceeded 0.12 parts per msee KHOU. pg.


11/12

AugustRon PaulAmericans who challenge government areincreasingly targeted and eliminatedWant some good news? Some degree ofjustice was done in Idaho. The trial ofRandy Weaver, whose wife and son weremurdered by federal agents, ended withWeaver and friend Kevin Harris beingacquitted in the killing of a U.S.Marshall. The Marshall had shotWeaver's dog , and then his 12 -year-oldson in the back, during an assault on theWeaver home in

northern Idaho.Harris had returnedfire and killed theMarshall.The BATF andFBI had pressuredWeaver to serve asan informer on his''white separatist" church friends, and herefused. So they entrapped him by having federal spies buy a shotgun from himthat was I/16th of an inch too short byfederal standards. Weaver has now beenfound guilty for failing to appear for trial,even though the feds had given him thewrong date, and for the two trumped-upgun violations. He could still get 15 yearsand a half-mi llion dollar fine.The prosecutors built their casearound allegations that Weaver 'sChristian Identity faith was fanatical, andthat he was anxious to confront the federal government. In fact, all Weaverwanted was to be left alone-a federal

HoustonAgendaKEVIN M. SOUTHWICKEditorLEVELLERS PRESS, INC.PublisherA. MALLOY MAxwELLPresident

P.O. Box 7926Houston, Texas 77270-7926(713) 864-6930 (713) 864-3056 FaxSubscription rates: Registered voters$17.76/year; Unregistered voters $19.84/yea r.C Levellers Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Contents: 10096 Truth, 5396 Humor. Not printed on recycled paper. WARNING: Do not readwhile under the innuence of city, state, or federal government.

Levellers Press is a publishing house dedicatedto broadening public understanding of civil andeconomic liberties based upon traditionally heldAmerican principles of self-determination, indi vidual resPonsibility and toleration of others asthe key to community peace and prosperity.Toward that goal, Levellers Press strives toidentify where these ideals are diminished and toencourage greater involvement of concerned,intelligent citizens in determining the appropriate role of government

felony these days.Instead of serving an arrest warrantin the normal way- although Weaverhad committed no real crime, ofcourse-200 armed feds in ski masks andcamouflage clothes attacked his smallhome. Weaver never even fired his rifle,yet after killing his son, another agentdeliberately flew his wife's head off as shestood in the door of their home holdingtheir infant son . The FBI agent in chargesaid he had changed the "rules ofengagement" to permit this federal mur der. The feds had a giant "fuel bladder"full of gasoline ready to drop by helicopter on the Weaver home, burning itand everyone in it to the ground in whatis now familiar D.C. fashion. Thanks toLt. Col. Beau Critz, however, this wasaverted. Disobeying federal orders, hewalked up to the Weaver home, prayedwith the two men, and then escortedthem and the baby out safely. Only thepresence of media, in my view, preventedthem all from being shot, so furious wasthe federal Gestapo at Critz's "interference."The agents responsible for thekillings should be tried for murder.Instead, they are praised by the "Justice"Department. And the same was true, ofcourse for the perpetrators of the Wacoholocaust.David Koresh 's entire community ofmen, women, and children was deliberately butchered, yet the feds got off scotfree, while the few survivors are beingprosecuted and persecuted.The feds made each of these cases aset piece in the continuing D.C. war onprivately held firearms. But the real issuewas authority. When Americans exposereligious beliefs that challenge government power-especially to engage inracial redistribution-they are targeted.In fact, as government gets biggerand therefore more vicious, challengingits authority become ever more dangerous, whether the issue is welfare, taxes,money, or foreign adventurism. And ifthe challengers couch their opposition interms of their religious beliefs, they willbe denounced as radical fundamentalistsand legitimate targets of the U.S. KCBeven if they have never committed anaggressive act.

Dr. Paul, a practicing obstetrician,is a former U. S. Congressman fromLake Jackson, Texas. He authors anewsletter, The Ron Paul SurvivalReport, available at 1-800-RON-PAUL.

HoustonAgenda 11

Dog days and zoningWhat's hotter than the weather? The zoning debate. And the heat is driving some to extremes.In an attempt to discredit arguments against zoning, State Rep. GarnettColeman went before City Council a few weeks ago to try to discredit thecampaign against zoning. He said that the 1962 campaign against zoningwas an intentionally divisive campaign aimed at minorities and he hoped thathis didn 't happen this time.But Mr. Coleman , who is too young to have been around in 1962, isinc rrect. The 1962 zoning vote was 60 percent against zoning. Even if theBlack vote is not included , zoning lo t. Seventy-eight percent of all Houstonprecincts voted against it. If the affluent white areas of southwest Houstonare not included, zoning lost by 92 percent! In short, the zoning decision in1962 was made along economic lines. This outcome reflects what is true inso many zoned cities; that upper income property owners believe that zoningwill exclude low income people from their neighborhoods.Mr. Coleman's inaccuracy and accusation are part of what is now a tradition among dreamy pro-zoners. They spew rhetoric, eschew the reality ofzoning in other cities, and accuse anti-zoners of anything they think themasses will believe under the rubric "scare tactics."Jim Greenwood , for example, likes to give the impression that he favorsthe coming referendum on zoning. However, he fought doggedly against threferendum until 25,000 petition signatures were collected to force the issueNow he says he was for the referendum all along. He 's revising history theway he 'll be revising the zoning ordinance-if it passes .Planning head Donna Kristaponis , once upon a time, showed off a list of73 Houston properties which she claimed were conversions of residentialproperties to commercial uses , and implied that these were detrimental toneighborhoods and therefore real life arguments in favor of zoning. Whatthis newcomer to Houston didn 't know or wouldn't say was that 80 percentthe properties listed were not conversions. Only 13 are located in residentialneighborhoods. One property is on the corner of Main Street and Alabamaand has been in commercial use as long as any Houston native can remember. Another listed property is on San Jacinto, a street with only five or sixsingle family residences. Some neighorhood. If Ms. Kristaponis were usingthese exhibits in a court of law she'd be eaten alive by the opposing councilif the judge allowed her to admit them at all. More deception.But we need not be surprised. These are the kind of scare tactics the prozoners have exhibited since they exhumed zoning three years ago. This timethey label it "Houston-style zoning" so we won't confuse it with the mon strous bureaucracies of other cities.Pro-zoners are full of rhetoric, but where are their statistics? They arefull of promises, but where are the academic authorities who substantiatetheir claims? They constantly crow about "an open process" on this issuewhile they engage in secret meetings, keep documents secret. They havemeetings where rooms full of people are allowed only fifteen minutes forquestions after an hour of tedious zoning details.Meanwhile , those fighting against zoning are always ready with facts, figures and named sources to support their arguements. Let's hope the publiccatches on before Houston is strapped with this expensive, permanent, highpolitical and corrupting bureaucracy.

-Kevin M. Southwic


12/12

12 HoustonAgendaKHOUfrom page JOlion for at least one hour during a 24-hourperiod. That amount- 0.12 ppm- is thelimit the Environmental Protection Agencyhas set for acceptable ozone exposure.

Is exposure to that threshold amounl-or an amount slighlly higher- a cause ofchronic lung disease? I refer KHOU, and myreaders, to Dr. William Eschenbacher, one ofMs. Cooper's misused experts. He told methat "some experts al the EPA would like to

make a connection between pollution andchronic lung diseases, but we don 't have thedata (to prove such a connection(. Can il bestaled any clearer; or clear enough for Ms.Cooper and Mr. Goldberg to understand?Mr. Goldberg scolded me in his fax foroverlooking "houslon's poor air quality thatwas and is created by humans." But how"poor" is Houston's air? Poor compared lowhat?Here is what Ms. Cooper would havefound if she had been interested. She'd havediscovered that the number of days whenozone, at one or more of the City's monitoring sites, exceeds 0.12 ppm has droppedenormously. In 1980, there were 58 ozone

exceedence days (days over the limit) . In1992, there were just 18 ozone exceedencedays. By my calculation then, the number ofexceedence days dropped almost 70 percentbetween 1980 and 19921 Is this fantasticnews? Is this the "poor air quality" to whichMr. Goldberg referred? (Notice how heassumes without checking his facts.)Better yet, in 1993, Houston has so farhad only four days when we have exceededthe ozone limit for at least one hour.Between January and May we did not have asingle day over the limit. Then we had one inMay and three in July.IEven referring to exceedence "days"overstates the problem. Remember, an ozonewarning is issued if the limit is reached al asingle monitoring site for a single hour. Sofar this year, the Lota! number of hours thatthe ozone level exceeded the EPA limit isseven. You read right: there have only beenseven hours during the first seven months of1993 when Houston air exceeded the ozonelimit. And don 't forget that the exceedencemay have occurred in only one place for onehour. IL would be more explanatory to talkabout exceedence "minutes" per year thanexceedence "days."Houston's seven exceedence hoursamounted lo 0.001 percent of the total hours

Augustfrom January through July.Furthermore , even during an exceedence, most people are not exposed lo anything like 0.12 ppm of ozone, especiallythey are indoors or in an air-conditioned caThere the levels are markedly lower.Seven hours certainly isn 't a great deof lime for ozone levels lo exceed the EPlimit. Why, then do so many people think ware getLing lost in the ozone?

The first reason is that there is a vestebureaucratic interest in generating panicThal is how some EPA officials keep thejobs. As an air quality official confided lo mrecenlly, the way in which pollution data archaracterized by the government is "cookeup lo alarm the public."The second reason is that news editoand reporters simply can 't bring themselvlo believe that there is good news about thenvironment. They have been feeding us hyterical reports for so long that they canbreak the habit. Dare I use the word coveup?I. The May exceedence was for three hours on onday. In July, there were two days with one excedence hour each, and one day with 2 hours ovthe limit. The otal is seven hours. 1993, Nicolas S. Martinon't be a*.N.A.N.A.

HELP US TO [email protected] Properly

Rights AssociationJoin us at our regularFriday luncheon

Holiday Inn3131 W. oop S.(a t Richmond)Just $7.50

RSVR to Nancy Ba berVallone & Associates524-9131

If your no-zoning letter Is publishedIn a local newspaper you get In Freel

*Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody

houston agenda, august 1993

Documents