<b>Follow the money</b>
EDITOR: I was disappointed to read the editorial in which you slammed Proposition 37 ("No on 37: Label this one over-regulation," Oct. 2). As someone who has studied and worked in agriculture, I would like to shed some light on the issue at hand.
The most striking fact is the cast of characters who are funding the more than $32 million campaign against Proposition 37. The top five donors are also five of the world's largest pesticide producers: Monsanto, Dupont, DOW AgroScience, Bayer Cropscience and BASF. The donors that follow are a who's who of the soda and junk-food isles: Pepsicola, ConAgra foods, Nestle, etc.
So why is all the money being thrown around by these corporations? All of the "farming" that produces the "food" sold by the very generous opponents of this initiative is done on a large-scale, high input system that requires intensive use of these companies' products (if you don't already know about "RoundUp ready" crops, please educate yourself).
This is not the kind of agriculture you see here in Sonoma County and not what Luther Burbank was striving for. Vote yes on Proposition 37 and support local agriculture, our land and your children's health.
EDITOR: Columnist David Brooks outlined a nice plan for politicians to go from running for office to being in office ("Shifting from partisanship to craftsmanship," Wednesday). Brooks suggests a man must be flexible. Brooks shared his view that President Barack Obama was not flexible enough. I wonder if Brooks thinks that changing positions on most of the important issues during a campaign in order to get your party's nomination gives one the practice necessary to make that great transition. If so, I am sure he will vote for Mitt Romney.
EDITOR: John Sawyer is a gentleman. He has shown great integrity and is dedicated to the future success of our community. I met him last August as he was starting his campaign and was struck by his genuine interest in local issues. He listens, asks good questions and walks his talk.
I am fortunate to live, work and serve in the community where I grew up. My top concerns are my children's education, local job opportunities and stewardship of our economy to support the quality of life we enjoy in this beautiful valley. I wonder if my teenage children will be able to afford college and eventually return home as they begin their careers.
With Sawyer's balanced approach, I know the future of our economy and environment is in good hands. He will be there for us as we address many complex issues surrounding our water infrastructure, road maintenance and repair and protecting our agricultural and open space lands, in addition to his excellent understanding of our economic and jobs-related issues.
I urge you to join me and working families across our community by voting for John Sawyer for supervisor.
EDITOR: I find myself in an odd position in the election for county supervisor in the 1st District. I am friends with Susan Gorin, Mark Bramfitt and John Sawyer. In fact, I managed Bramfitt's campaign.
However, because of the huge campaign piece that Sawyer sent out portraying himself as the "green candidate," I need to speak up. First, green candidates don't expend natural resources on campaign pieces that stuff your mailboxes the way that he does. I'm glad Sawyer voted yes on those greenhouse-gas reduction plans with the rest of his colleagues. But when you look at his other votes, you will not find an environmental ethic.