Letters To The Editors

From: [email protected]
Subject: WHAT DO WE KNOW AND WHEN DO WE KNOW IT

To the Editor:

         Neil argues in regard to the Oklahoma bombing trial that we (the public) can never have any idea whether defendant Timothy McVeigh is guilty, or just the sacrificial lamb of a governmental conspiracy.
         It is true we don't know, right now, whether McVeigh is innocent or guilty. But this is true in the same sense it is in any other case in which we citizens have no great familiarity with the evidence. I think McVeigh is guilty, and I think the Unabomber is guilty, but I wouldn't vote to convict either of them on the basis of my impression from news reports. I'd want to consider the evidence.
         But Neil seems to suggest that the prosecutors and the Federal Government have so strong an interest in politicizing the trial (Exhibit A, Clinton's exploitative fatuity after the bombing took place, blaming it on the climate created by supporters of the Declaration of Independence) that the substantive evidence for specific perpetrator or perpetrators can no longer be considered as untainted, by us or presumably a jury.
         I haven't been following the story closely enough to assess whether there might be any purposeful deck-shuffling going on. If there is, of course it is horrible. But I would like to see more discussion of the details which would lead one to believe this is so. I don't accept such solely because the admittedly lousy federal government is the object of the suspicion and/or Clinton was babbling as usual when the story broke. I don't believe that "we'll never know anything for sure. If McVeigh's convicted, we'll always wonder if he was set up. If he's acquitted, we'll always wonder if the feds bungled because they were focused elsewhere."
         Since major cover-ups are not typically executed with the clockwork precision of a Ludlum novel, they tend to leave trails of their own. Neil cites the parallel of JFK's assassination as an event ever shrouded in doubt and layers of governmental obfuscation. But at least one respected reporter, Gerald Posner in Case Closed, argues that there is no substance to the claims of conspiracy about that event. In the cases of Waco and Ruby Ridge, we have a few good books (and the documentary Neil mentioned) available from journalists still free enough to investigate and report, to list the lacunae of official stories, distinguish between dishonesty and incompetence, and point out which principals are being gagged and which relevant documents hidden from view.
         General skepticism about the State is certainly warranted, but not every specific suspicion of governmental conspiracy or malfeasance is warranted. For example, I'm damn sure O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder (and based solely on what I get out of the newspapers and TV), notwithstanding the web of claims of police conspiracy spun by his slimy defense team.

Sincerely,
         David M. Brown

From: David Walker
Subject: Tennessee hillbilly's comments about new standards from EPA

April 16, 1997

Dear Sirs,

         The forward to The [1990] Clean Air Act Compliance Handbook states the intentions of the Environmental Protection Agency very clearly; to have significant impact on the lifestyles of all Americans. If the EPA's newly proposed standards for particulate matter and ozone are approved, much of the country will exceed the new permissible ozone levels, and all of us will be affected by unfunded, unpopular, unproven and incredibly expensive, federally mandated programs. The only thing these programs have solidly proven is that they cost a lot of money. There have been very few instances showing real health benefits, but the programs have produced immense financial wealth for contractors, bureaucratic empires for state and federal officials, and intense stress for consumers.
         Primary support for new standards and restrictions comes from a burgeoning environmental industrial complex, which involves monopoly-contracted auto emission tests, nasty and unhealthy reformulated gasoline, remote sensing, car scrappage, and fraudulent emission credit trading. With new standards approved, these backwards programs will take control of our lives. There are many billions of dollars at stake, with special interest banking on our ignorance, gullibility and willingness to participate.
         Concerning similar programs, President Andrew Jackson angrily stated, "Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal privilege, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress." Unfortunately, we're dealing with the EPA, and the standards are a "shoo-in". Only hearings and an act of Congress can halt the regulatory blitz, but fillibusters or a veto may give way for the special interest gravy train. Meanwhile, legislative supporters have been given millions of dollars from those who will gain financial wealth from the programs. The public will pay the bounty through emission-credit fixing, fines, taxes, and poor quality of life. Many will lose priviledges we've taken for granted, like owning and driving affordable, private automotive transportation.
         No one wants dirty air or dirty water. Many of us would like to participate in new and reasonable pollution prevention initiatives. But little, if any objective information has been disseminated by the EPA, showing what I may do to reduce harmful pollution from my car, home, or business. Furthermore, the federal government has conspired to financially "lock out" small business and private citizens from participating in emission credit trading. Conversely, they have publicly accused the free market as corrupt and taxpayers as incompetent, while also claiming that the public is demanding new standards and greater enforcement. They don't care about our real opportunities to have an impact, otherwise we would see huge, objective public relations campaigns preceding any proposed punitive effort.
         Jackson went on to say, "I believe that just laws can make no distinction of privilege between rich and poor, and that when men of high standing attempt to trample upon the rights of the weak, they are the fittest objects for example and punishment. In general, the great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of the law." The shame of it is, the EPA claims to have our best interests in mind. Though they've done little, lately, to objectively inform or educate the public, they want us to believe that America should throw many billions of dollars towards new mandates and ineffective programs, for our own betterment and providence.
         When we're sitting on our hands, stuck at home with no job and no car, or having to support our children's children because there are few menial or blue collar jobs in town, I want everyone to remember this frank and profound truth from David Crockett; "Any government that's big enough to give you anything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." Don't think that it can't happen. It is my hope that Americans wake up to the awful truth of these new standards, but as EPA Administrator Carol Browner has admitted, it may be, politically, too late.

David Walker

Next to advance to the next article, or Previous to return to the previous article, or Index to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 28, May 15, 1997.