<b>When we'll applaud</b>

EDITOR: The grand opening of the Green Music Center was an unbelievable experience. We attended the symphony performance on Sunday. The symphony was as wonderful as usual, the facility is magnificent, staff courteous and knowledgeable. Audience members emotionally embraced the three present and past conductors on stage, and everyone gave a lengthy standing ovation to Don and Maureen Greens for their time, effort and donations.

In stark contrast, there was only sparse applause when the robber baron's name was announced as a major donor. Some may feel that they can reinvent themselves by moving to a new community and then throwing big money at a project; socially, they probably have gained some acceptance in this county. But you can't buy people clapping for you. Simply put, many of us will always find unacceptable their significant contribution to this country's financial woes. Let them fix what they helped break, and then we'll clap.



<b>Untruths and half-truths</b>

EDITOR: Your Tuesday editorial ("No on 37: Label this one over-regulation") begins, "Californians deserve clear information . . . " and then proceeds with two columns of untruths and half-truths regarding Proposition 37.

You say, "the science simply doesn't warrant it." What science has influenced your opinion? The tests conducted by Monsanto? If so, please read "the world according to Monsanto" by Marie Monique — Robin, or "Stolen Harvest" by Vandana Shiva.

Why do you think most European and developed Asian countries require labeling of GE foods? Could it be because their scientists are not paid by mega-corporations to find results that will enhance their profits and control of the world's food supply?

Please consider the cost of contaminating our planet's soil and water with toxic chemicals used in growing GE foods. Encourage voters to lead the country in giving consumers a clear choice.

Yes, Sonoma County voters understand the complexities and do not think Luther Burbank would approve of "Round-up Ready corn" but would join us in voting for a clear choice.

Please consider re-writing this editorial soon to show your usual common sense.



<b>Levine for Assembly</b>

EDITOR: Because of his strong support of women's issues, the Women's Political Caucus-Sonoma has endorsed Marc Levine in the 10th Assembly District, representing Marin and Sonoma counties.

After serving on the Hillary Clinton for president campaign staff in the 2008 primary and then the campaign staff for Barack Obama in the 2008 general election, Levine has demonstrated to us his support of women candidates and democratic values. Beyond that, he has impressed us with his ethics and broad appeal to independent voters and those registered with other parties as well.

We believe that Levine will be a strong advocate for women's issues on a statewide level. We urge voters in Sonoma and Marin counties to reject machine politics with anointed candidates, the political bullies in Sacramento-funded hit pieces and the paid online bloggers. Instead support the candidate in the race with a clean record and the ability to listen to and represent the broad range of people who live in this district. We urge you to vote Marc Levine for Assembly.


Women's Political Caucus

<b>CVS and the law</b>

EDITOR: Some members of the Sebastopol City Council said they voted to approve the CVS/Chase project because they had to "follow the law." The Planning Commission and the Design Review Board concluded they were following the law — the Sebastopol general plan — when they rejected the proposal. Yet the council majority of three — Kathleen Shaffer, Patrick Slayter and Guy Wilson — concluded they were compelled to "follow the law" and approve the project.

The same city staff advised these governing bodies. The general plan is open to interpretation, but purportedly Shaffer made up her mind early in the process. She continually worked to get the project approved.

The City Council members had a right to interpret the general plan as they saw fit, but to say they were compelled to come to one conclusion — approval — makes a mockery of governmental process. Why bother with a general plan if council members are going to cherry-pick certain provisions so they can say they were compelled to follow the law?

The council's action leaves the city and its citizens powerless in the face of formidable corporate interests.