Public Comment

THE BERKELEY BRAWL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The rudeness of Berkeley Bowl “aisle hogs,” mentioned by Saul Crypps in his letter, is caused in part by the overly wide carts. The options for Bowl shoppers are either these dangerously huge Hummers or wee hand-held baskets that quickly become overloaded. Either can cause strain or injuries. 

Before the new Bowl opens in West Berkeley on May 15, the owners should invest in medium-sized, narrower carts for use in both stores by “goldilocks shoppers” who buy not too much and not too little at one time. Trader Joe’s carts are the right size and easy to steer. If you agree, please tell the Bowl. 

As for the congestion outside, local customers should be encouraged to “bike to shop” by having bike maps made available at check-out counters of all groceries and holding parking-lot events when bike stores can sell shopping baskets, racks, and panniers and install them on the spot. 

Ninth Street bike lanes lead directly to the new Berkeley Bowl. All my old clunker needs is a back wheel rack to turn it into a shopper bike. Please join me by biking to the new Bowl. Parents at the Ecole Bilingue and Potter Creek residents will be grateful for less car traffic through their neighborhood. 

The “bike to shop” initiative could be a profitable joint enterprise for local groceries, bike stores, and cyclists to undertake. 

Toni Mester 

• 

POLICE LOG 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

So, where is the information on the police log about what happened on Santa Barbara on Feb 24, why is it that it is only appearing in the Planet? What good is a police log if they hide the truth? How are we to know what goes on? 

Karen Bianchini 

• 

DOWNTOWN PLAN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The draft environmental impact report for our Downtown Area Plan had comments due March 13! But the community copy of this plan has not been available in the Public Library where it is supposed to be, since the Planning Commission delivered it weeks ago! “Someone must have taken it,” I was told. 

These documents are supposed to be kept at the Main Library reserve desk. To see them you need to give your ID to the librarian, and read the draft in the library. 

The weekend before comments were due, the library still had no copy available for the public. So I called the city to insist one be placed in the Main Library reserve, and that the comment deadline be extended. 

I was told they would not likely extend the deadline because many people had received the information already—the city had mailed copies to many organizations. Sure, they mailed free copies to UCB and developer organizations, but skipped community organizations like Berkeleyans for a Livable University Environment (BLUE) which is on their list, and neighborhood organizations like Council of Neighborhood Organizations (CNA). 

I understand that a copy is now available at the Main Library for the citizens of Berkeley, but you would have had only a day to read and comment on the two-inch thick document because the deadline was March 13. 

So Planning Commission needs to extend the deadline for community comments on this draft EIR for the Downtown Area Plan. 

Merrilie Mitchell 

• 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

First, the City of Berkeley prepared and adopted the 1990 Downtown Area Plan. 

Second, there is a University of California/City of Berkeley Settlement Agreement to the 2020 Long Range Development Plan litigation (May 25, 2005) that grants a veto to the University of California over the City of Berkeley’s Planning authority, which comes under the City of Berkeley’s police powers.  

Third, the university emphasizes their veto power in three different places in the Settlement Agreement: 

1. Section I, subsection A, paragraph 5, “The DAP EIR will not supersede the 2020 LRDP EIR, but rather augment it.” 

2. Section I, subsection B, paragraph 6, “Joint review of DAP and EIR: Because the DAP is a joint Plan, there shall be no release of draft or final DAP or EIR without the concurrence of both parties.” 

3. Section I, subsection B, paragraph 7, “UC Berkeley reserves the right to determine if the DAP or EIR meets the Regent’s needs.” 

Therefore, by approving the Settlement Agreement, the city impermissibly restricted its future land use regulatory discretion and compromised its independent environmental review. The university expansion allowed by LRDP would impose a significant and inadequately mitigated environmental burden on both the City of Berkeley and Berkeley taxpayers. 

Carl Friberg 

• 

OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

One thing that’s clear about the economic meltdown is that people were taking unacceptable risks with their own money and with other people’s money. People and companies took gambles based on “irrational exuberance” because the rewards—a bigger house or a whopping profit to be made—influenced them so much that they forgot to look at the risk. 

When your local city government puts together the annual budget, the council chambers are filled with people advocating for the rewards of funding services. Whether it’s smoother streets or more police, faster counter service or spiffier parks, people feel strongly about the importance of programs. In times of budget cuts, resident enthusiasts for each specific program plead with the city council “don’t cut my service—cut something else.” Council and management respond by trying to “share the pain” with across the board cuts, or early retirements and employee furloughs. 

So far, I’ve never seen a local resident step up at a council meeting and ask “please, please don’t cut the support departments; don’t cut the oversight.” All too often, oversight functions such as quality assurance, inspections, performance evaluation, and training are seen as “fat” rather than an essential part of service delivery. And even though the work doesn’t stop for the folks who send out the bills, write the paychecks and safeguard the assets, the resources to do the work are reduced.  

Our California cities and counties are going through tough times, and Bay Area cities are no exception. Local lawmakers and residents fully expect that the city budget documents will disclose how planned budget cuts will impact direct services. What they don’t see is how it impacts our long term operations and, especially, our fiscal health. 

I think it’s time to raise the bar about budget disclosures. When budget cuts are proposed, we need to start examining the risk of each one. If fewer resources are needed because someone has found a way to build a better mousetrap more efficiently, that’s great. But let’s make sure we’re not creating new inefficiencies or putting our assets at risk with our budget decisions. Let’s make sure we consider the long term impact of each decision. And let’s start making that analysis public. 

Questions? Comments? Ideas audit plan? Please contact me at www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/auditor , by phone, or via e-mail at Auditor@CityofBerkeley.info. The website now has a link for making requests for audits. You can also weigh in on establishing an employee whistleblower hotline. The city’s home page has links to videos of previous presentations to Council about budgets and oversight under “Council meetings.” 

Ann-Marie Hogan 

City Auditor 

• 

ISRAEL AND THE U.S. 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Much has been written and said about the enormous influence of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC. This issue surfaced again because of the substantial bipartisan opposition to the appointment of Charles Freeman, Jr. as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. But to attribute his forced withdrawal to the strength of the Israeli lobby is not any more valid than attributing America’s foreign policy toward Cuba to the influence of Miami’s Cuban population. The federal government and its branches are not simply neutral entities that are completely captive of lobbyists. On issues for which there is widespread agreement among elected officials, they are reflecting political perspectives that favor American ruling class interests. 

For decades, Israel and the United States have enjoyed a very close symbiotic relationship. Israel has often been the proxy for American foreign policy interests. Take for example, Israel’s secret violation of the worldwide embargo of arm shipments to the apartheid South African government. It saved the United States considerable embarrassment. Also, the United States and Israel were complicit in supplying military supplies to Columbia’s ruling circles in its war against insurgents. In fact, when as a result of political pressures that compelled the United States to suspend military shipments to Columbia, Israel took its place as the major exporter of military equipment to that country. 

Although it is well known that Israel is among the major importers of military equipment from the United States, Israel supplies the United States. Among the 55 countries that export military aircraft and parts to the U.S. Israel ranks fourth. Israel’s military industry several years ago gave the U.S. military a big hand in its war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Because bullet manufacturers in the U.S. were not producing bullets fast enough, the U.S. military turned to Israel and got all the bullets it wanted. According to a high ranking army officer, the Israeli firm that supplied the bullets was one of only two worldwide that could meet U.S. technical specifications and delivery needs.  

The point is not that AIPAC doesn’t wield influence. Of course it does. But nevertheless, the decidedly pro-Israel bent of our government is rooted mainly in its foreign policy objectives, which Israel has been most willing to serve. 

Harry Brill 

• 

EXAMPLE OF THE  

POSSIBLE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Has anyone speculated on the real reason that Arab and Muslim countries are obsessed with the destruction of Israel? 

Israel is a potential threat to the status of the Middle East. The only democracy, raising the standard of living for its citizens, including Muslim and Christian Israeli citizens. A leading contributor to world technology developments, higher education standards, science, music and art. It would be just a matter of time when the people of other middle eastern states begin to move toward bettering their lives and ousting their rulers, seeing Israel as an example of the possible. 

Harry Gans 

• 

JOURNALISTIC  

RESPONSIBILITY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Last week’s op-ed from Mary Lou van Deventer about my letter to Daily Planet advertisers contains a major inaccuracy (among many lesser ones), but avoids the main point of my message entirely. Since she attacks me personally, I trust you’ll allow me a few words of rebuttal. 

First, I do not manage the website in question, nor do I have any connection with it. This website was established by Berkeley citizens who also believe the Daily Planet is anti-Semitic and guilty of a range of journalistic malfeasance, and the site offers copious documentation of this. 

Second, I accuse the Daily Planet of obsessively publishing anti-Israel messages, many of which frequently cross the line into anti-Semitism. I never maintained that the messages were written by Daily Planet staff (though the paid contributions of Conn Hallinan and other correspondents often fall into this category). The fact is, if a publication prints hate speech, it’s a purveyor of hate. If a publication prints anti-Semitism, it’s anti-Semitic. That’s why you won’t find this kind of writing in the Chronicle, and you won’t find it in the New York Times. They exercise moral discretion. 

Ms. van Deventer characterizes me as “Captain of the Thought Police.” But this is not an issue of free speech. It’s a matter of journalistic integrity and moral judgment. 

Ms. van Deventer characterizes the sentiment of many of the quotations I cite from the Daily Planet as “unfortunate.” That’s being kind to their writers and to the publishers. If a reader submits a letter to the Daily Planet that asserts, “Shame on all black people who refuse to protest the barbarism of the looters in New Orleans,” that’s blatantly racist. It lumps all black people together and holds them collectively responsible for the actions of people they have no control over, just because of the color of their skin. Yet just a few weeks ago, the Planet printed a letter that asserts, “Shame on all Jews who refuse to protest the butchery against the Palestinians.” That’s anti-Semitic by the very same logic. Yet East Bay citizens are subjected to this kind of hate speech in virtually every issue of the Planet. 

No, this is not a First Amendment issue. The Daily Planet publishers have every right to print anything they want—from sloppy journalism and outrageously one-sided coverage to anti-Semitism. It’s their money—let them waste it as they wish. But does it make good business sense for local merchants to support such reprehensible publishing? Do advertisers really think customers will be attracted to them when they see their ad adrift in a sea of one-sided polemics and hate? I don’t think so. 

Jim Sinkinson 

East Bay Citizens for  

Journalistic Responsibility 

Oakland 

EDITOR’S NOTE: The commentary in question should have said that Mr. Sinkinson “mentioned” the website. It was corrected in our online edition. The website is managed by Berkeley businessman John Gertz, a long-time critic of the Daily Planet who has often been given space in these pages to accuse the paper and some of its readers and contributors of anti-Semitism.  

• 

POPULATION GROWTH 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In her March 11 letter, Jane Powell suggests that God should have added “within reason” to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Can anyone explain why there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments that directs us to be fruitful and multiply—either without or within reason? 

Lacking any clear commandment to be fruitful and multiply it’s difficult to understand why we need scientists to tell us how to deal with global warming and all the other alleged horrors that await the human race. Predicting the future is difficult, but many still insist on gambling and putting future generations at risk. Doesn’t it seem ill-mannered to gamble on the life of another person without first getting that person’s permission? 

Art Weber 

El Cerrito 

• 

SAVING THE BHA AGAIN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) was neglected by the Berkeley City Council for 20 years—it had become the dumping ground for troublesome city employees. BHA meetings were allocated a few minutes before City Council meetings. 

Two years ago, the City Council reconstituted the BHA as a mostly-separate agency, and it has been successful in resolving some of its chronic problems. But it was set it up to fail economically because its employees must be paid expensive City of Berkeley salaries. The BHA’s financial situation has been further compromised by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s cutting funding for Public Housing (in Berkeley administered by the BHA) to 82 percent of its operating costs. 

If the City Council does not provide an ongoing financial subsidy to the BHA and the BHA goes out of existence, the BHA’s Section 8 rental vouchers will be turned over to the Alameda County Housing Authority, whose payment standards (the maximum rent paid to landlords) are substantially less than those of the BHA. The result will be that low-income, elderly and disabled tenants will no longer be able to afford to live in Berkeley and the vouchers will be dispersed into other communities and unincorporated areas of the county. Section 8 individuals and families who choose to remain living in Berkeley will be paying well over 40 percent of their income toward rent. 

By the time the Ed Roberts Campus independent living center (which does not provide housing per se) opens next year, disabled tenants will no longer be able to afford to live in Berkeley if the BHA does not receive a subsidy. The BHA brings in $25,000 of revenue annually to the City of Berkeley through its housing programs. Keeping the reconstituted housing authority in Berkeley makes economic sense and helps preserve the fabric of the community. 

Low-income individuals and families are going to have to fight to keep Berkeley’s Payment Standard competitive with rents in a college town. Contact your City Council member and urge her/him to vote for an ongoing BHA subsidy. Section 8 tenants and interested community members need to show their support by providing public comment at the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) and at City Council meetings. The next HAC meeting is at 7 p.m., Thursday, April 2, at the South Berkeley Senior Center, 2939 Ellis St. at Ashby Avenue. Questions? Q7287425@yahoo.com or (510) 842-4266 

Patrick Kehoe 

Member, BHA Resident Advisory Board 

• 

CORRECTION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Due to a copyediting error, the meaning of my March 12 “Pedestrian Routes” letter was turned on its head. My original letter pointed out the rationale behind the superior route for children from Emerson school to Clark Kerr Campus. This route walks along Piedmont instead of Warring, “...crossing Derby northward a block down from the tragedy. Barricades there mean very little traffic passes through that intersection.” 

It was mistakenly published as “Barricades there mean very little. Traffic passes right through that intersection.” If this were true, it would not be a superior route. 

Kathy Horn 

• 

TRANSIT PLANS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Russ Tilleman suggests elevated pedestrian bridges and auto underpasses along Telegraph to “allow cars, trucks, and buses to drive from Dwight Way in Berkeley to Downtown Oakland, Highway 24, or the San Leandro BART station without stopping...” We have such a route already—its called “the freeway.” The effort to improve transit, and in the bargain reduce smog along Telegraph is an alternative to blighting a mixed residential/commercial community with huge structures to divide pedestrians from the streetscape. Lest anyone misunderstand, I do not support AC Transit’s current Bus Rapid Transit plans, which need serious rethinking, but I absolutely do not want to turn Telegraph into an urban expressway like the various San Jose examples. I agree that AC Transit should not get exclusive use of two lanes out of four, but I also want to seriously decrease auto usage by single drivers. A strictly enforced rush hour exclusion of single drivers in the two center lanes would both move the buses and allow the lighter traffic in off hours to flow. The Temescal District renaissance has finally restored a neighborhood destroyed by 1950s freeway thinking; we don’t need to wreck another neighborhood to relearn this lesson. 

David Vartanoff 

North Oakland 

• 

EXPRESS LANES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Sorry, but Russ Tilleman’s idea for “express lanes” on Telegraph is a terrible idea. First, creating underpasses for all the major streets that currently have traffic lights would be much more than just “a little more expensive” than Bus Rapid Transit. Second, even if it wasn’t more expensive, it is totally contrary to the purpose of the project, which is to encourage people to use public transit rather than driving. It will actually encourage people to keep driving and thus potentially put more cars on the streets of Berkeley (and Oakland, although obviously Mr. Tilleman and his neighbors have not thought about the impact of his proposal on their neighbors to the south). The traffic flow benefits would soon be outweighed by more cars on the streets. In addition, buses would either have to be consigned to the slower outside lanes (thus defeating the object of making transit faster) or else passengers would be let off at islands on these now faster flowing and more dangerous express lanes, thus endangering pedestrians way more than the BRT proposal. Not to mention the environmental purpose of reducing individual vehicle emissions, which Mr. Tilleman is ignoring entirely. 

I have to say, for a city that so frequently spouts concern for the environment, Berkeleyites don’t seem to like to step up much if they think it might affect their own personal convenience! I lived in Berkeley for about 10 years, and am so glad I no longer do. 

Steve Revell 

Oakland 

• 

BETTER CHOICE? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I’m surprised to read the suggestion that the Bus Rapid Transit lane to allow other vehicles in the median lane. The purpose of giving a dedicated lane to BRT buses is to provide an uninterrupted reserved lane for BRT buses to move faster than other vehicles and correct to some extent the imbalance that exists between substantial facilities made for personal vehicles in contrast to buses, because buses can carry many more commuters than personal vehicles. This purpose is defeated by allowing other vehicles to use the priority lane. Experience from around the globe has shown that no amount of road space given to cars can reduce congestion. On the other hand providing a reserved lane for BRT buses can, if other provisions are put in place, reduce road congestion and requirement for parking areas (which are needed for cars but not for BRT buses). A small video on You Tube shows this very effectively: www.youtube.com/watch?v=guodaBkDPP0. 

Sujit Patwardhan, 

Pune, India 

• 

SQUANDERING OUR TRANSIT MONEY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

AC Transit has been emboldened by its victories at the polls in November 2008. With a megabucks contribution from the ABC Company (the U.S. distributor of the hated and treacherous VanHool buses), Measure VV was passed, giving AC Transit an additional $14 million per year. People voted for VV because they were promised that its passage would prevent fares from being raised. 

At the first AC Transit Board meeting following the election, the board voted to spend $11 million on ... more VanHool buses. At its most recent meeting, the board broke its Measure VV promise and voted to raise fares, with more increases planned for the future.  

A portion of the tainted campaign contribution from the ABC Company was also used to defeat Measure KK, which would have allowed Berkeley citizens to stop the giveaway of our streets to AC Transit for its boondoggle called Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). 

On March 12, a conference was held for contractors applying to design “branding” for BRT—an advertising campaign to snooker people into thinking it would be a good idea. The selected contractor will “develop a strong, distinct and marketable brand identity for the BRT service,” at a cost of up to $250,000. 

It is difficult to imagine a more ridiculous way to squander money than advertising for BRT. To convince anyone that it’s a good idea would necessitate a campaign of lies—exactly the method used to pass Measure VV and to defeat Measure KK. 

Gale Garcia  

• 

NEGLECTED  

GUARD DOGS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I have been trying for the past several months to improve the life of a loving old dog in my neighborhood who has been living in his owner’s stairwell for more than a decade—but little has changed. He is not abused but obviously neglected and almost never gets to go out on walks. He is a guard dog for the family and therefore does receives little attention or care from his owners.  

I don’t want to bring negative attention to this particularly family but I want to use this case as a plea for people to take care of their dogs, even if their primary role is just to guard the home. All animals deserve adequate food, water, exercise, shelter and healthcare, if injured or sick. Every time I see this dog, my heart breaks for him and all of the neglected dogs in this town. If you cannot provide this minimal amount of care for your animal, please be open to anyone who offers to help. 

Ky Ngo 

• 

MAY ELECTION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

My grumpy reaction to the May election is that we need to put a cap on Republicans in the Legislature, not on spending. Either that, or get rid of the two-thirds requirement. 

Seriously, we do need some responsible fiscal constraint. I suggest that for any earmark, have a requirement to cap the expenditure to a fixed percent of a specific revenue source. This way, if the revenue source falls short, the earmarked expenditure takes a cut. To keep the earmark, the source tax or fee would have to be increased. 

Steve Geller 

• 

QUEER VALUES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The push to redact Prop. 8 is a push to solidify queer family values. However, there cannot be strong queer families without strong queer communities. Prop. 8 is not a lone barricade; there is a series of obstacles that the queer community must jump. Too many people in our community think that they doing enough simply by taping a jumbo sized Stop Prop. 8 sign to their window.  

Poverty is a queer issue. Only 5 percent of adults aged 18-29 who are in college or are employed identify as being on the LGBTQ spectrum. However, 20 percent of adults aged 18-29 who are not in college nor are employed are LGBTQ; these individuals also do not have stable housing. For the older generations, debt and the potential for poverty are burdens. Studies show that compared to their straight peers, LGBTQ seniors have less savings and have more problems with debt.  

Mental health is a queer issue. According to a Johnson & Johnson study, depression and other mental health issues are the second greatest health concern for the queer community (HIV/AIDS being the greatest concern). A third of queer youth (teens and 20-somethings) attempt suicide; queer youth are four times more likely than their straight peers to attempt suicide. Older LGBTQ generations also face increased rates of depression, anxiety, and other emotional health problems, compared to their straight peers.  

While Berkeley has the Pacific Center and gay city councilmembers, these resources are not being put to strong use. The Pacific Center closes it doors to the poor. It has become an elite fortress, even holding community events in affluent settings—such as the regular meet-and-great at Le Bateau Ivre, so poor people cannot join in. The center also turns it back on the disabled; anyone they know to have a mental health clinical diagnosis is not allowed to enter the Pacific Center. Queers with developmental disorders are not allowed inside the Pacific Center. Kriss Worthington, who is vocal on progressive issues at city meetings, is silent on queer issues (except of course Prop. 8).  

Berkeley must have a LGBTQ suitcase clinic, providing food resources, in-depth counseling services for LGBTQ individuals, and shelter from rain. There is no state proposition stopping such a program. Too often, what holds the LGBTQ community back from helping its members in need, is the LGBTQ community’s own apathy and complacency.  

Nathan Pitts 

Both Gay and Autistic 

• 

LINCOLN’S RECORD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Strolling past curbside coffee drinkers in the Gourmet Ghetto, a patron was overheard badmouthing Abraham Lincoln for being an agent of capitalism and a man who didn’t really like blacks.  

Sure, Abe had faults, but if you look into why he is admired around the world, one finds in his words an integrity and vision of a nation that would take care of those who suffer. For instance, on the movement for immigrant restriction in the 1850s he wrote, “I have some little notoriety for commiserating with the oppressed Negro; and I should be strangely inconsistent if I could favor any project for curtailing the existing rights of white men, even though born in different lands, and speaking different languages from myself.” 

On phobias about “other people” loudly circulating just before the Civil War, he wrote, “Our progress toward degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “all men are created equal except Negros.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except Negros and foreigners and Catholics.” 

On slavery: while Lincoln could be said to care less about the issue than in saving the union, when he spoke on slavery his wit was biting: “Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a slave himself.” 

On labor, Lincoln declared, “I am glad to see that a system of labor exists in New England under which laborers can strike when they want to, where they are not obliged to work under all circumstances... I like the system and wish it might prevail everywhere. One of the reasons I am opposed to slavery is just here.” 

(Quotes extracted from a 1944 booklet of Lincoln sayings distributed to inspire a spirit of democracy for the fight against Hitler and company.) 

Ted Vincent 

• 

DAYLIGHT SAVINGS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The final Saturday night in April used to mark the beginning of Daylight Savings Time. Then it got moved to the first Saturday night in April. Then a Republican Congressman from Texas introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which called for moving the start of daylight savings to the second Sunday in March. This bill gained two co-sponsors—Richard Pombo and William Thomas, both Republicans from California—and it passed. 

The decision to begin daylight savings in the first half of March did not come about as a result of public dialogue. No polls were taken, and for good reason—most people would have opposed it. And yet here we are going along with this decision made without our knowledge, handed down in authoritarian style without any public dialogue. The establishment press simply announced the early time-change, as though reporting the change was all that was wanting—not whether we ought to begin daylight savings so early, but simply that we are. It was more of an order than an announcement. 

This year, after having had a whopping four months of regular time—for the third year in a row—we obligingly set our clocks ahead one hour, starting March 8. For the life of me, I can’t remember any citizens’ groups gathering on the steps of Capitol Hill, clamoring for daylight savings to begin while it is yet winter. But we got it anyway. 

Energy savings? Burning the candle in the morning cancels out any savings of fuel in the evening. Besides, a Congress that voted against raising the mileage standards on America’s automotive fleet is not sincere about saving energy. 

The least we can do is personally boycott the pre-mature time-change by setting our clocks back an hour until April 25, and urge our representatives in Congress to restore the final Saturday night in April as the start of daylight savings. 

Michael Lang 

• 

PROP. 2 FOLLOW THROUGH 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Last November, Californians enacted Proposition 2 requiring that animals raised for food be provided sufficient space to turn around and stretch their limbs. 

Unfortunately, the new law does not prevent deprivation, mutilation, suffocation, and other atrocities perpetrated in factory farms and slaughterhouses. 

This is why I have joined Operation Prop. 2 Follow-Through, which advocates a vegan (animal-free) diet (www.LiveVegan.org). The campaign has placed billboards and bus cards and coordinated massive leafleting and tabling in California’s metropolitan areas. Its slogan is “You favored Prop. 2—Now Go Vegan Too!” 

This week, the campaign is getting a boost from the global observance of the Great American Meatout (www.meatout.org). Now in its 25th year, Meatout has grown into the world’s largest annual grassroots diet education campaign. Thousands of grassroots participants ask their friends and neighbors to welcome spring by kicking the meat habit and exploring a wholesome, nonviolent diet of vegetables, fruits, and grains. 

Harold Kunitz 

Walnut Creek