Page 4


expense of assembling such a combination would probably preclude any one else from doing so. Sorry kiddies, but the way I see it, that’s the way it is. From the figures I see on the Observer’s pages, it would appear that EE1’s “drop in the bucket” \(drop in the bucket compared to what? Their R&D budget? Their capital keeping the wheels of Tokamak research greased I for one would be willing to give supporters of this research informational advantages in return for their largesse. I am in favor of doing so partly because I think that the utilities industry is the best qualified bidder for the job and partly because I feel that the public never has and never will be willing to give adequate support to this kind of research until the energy wolf has quite literally started blowing down the houses of each and every individual in the land. By that time; it will be too late. Finally, I would suppose that the proponents of public ownership possess the legal capacity to bargain for their position in exchange for utilities companies’ rights to build distribution systems on public property much as they do now with privately financed tollways which revert to public ownership when a reasonable return on the investment has been earned by the investor. And I resent what appears to me to be an example of .out-and-out journalistic hubris appearing in the pages of a journal supposedly devoted “to human 24 The Texas Observer values above all interests.” I think that we are now engaged in the beginnings of a global and quite real struggle for survival. Fusion, should we succeed in containing it, may well be a powerful ally in the years head. We need this energy source and we need the research that is going into making it a reality. If private interests have made unacceptable gains in these research institutions, we have no one to blame but ourselves the research institutions have only taken money wherever they could get it and under whatever terms they could get it, invidious as those terms may seem to some. But at least they have seen our larger needs when we were blind to them. I don’t think they deserved the treatment they got in the Observer. Gary Nored, 701A Oakland, Austin, Tex. 78703. Morris wrong I was quite surprised and somewhat taken aback to read the letter from David Morris in the March 1 Observer. His first statement, “in a place like Fort Worth, Tex.,” fired my anger. What does he expect? If he is truly a liberal, how can he dare generalize about an entire city with his narrow views? . . . His statement, “I think if it were possible to make an accurate count it would be found that for a majority of gay people the only contacts with other homosexuals are furtive and anonymous and are for the explicit purpose of sex . . . ” is beyond reason. I challenge him to visit AURA and the gay community it has created and tell us that! Fort Worth is developing a very active and strong gay community partly because AURA helped create it. We care about one another, not just sexually, but because we suffer the same oppression. A gay community does exist. Was it individual homosexuals and individual gay groups who brought about the APA nomenclature change, spurred the hiring of a gay consultant at NBC, changed the sex laws in 11 states, made possible the public appearance of gays, and fought the Stonewall riots Mr. Morris mentions and defames? Was it not a community that arose and through united action fought against Stonewall and the near tragedy of Snakepit? Is it not a community which is fighting the police harassment in Los Angeles, and is it not a community that now makes it possible for gays to march proudly in the streets of major cities, including Dallas? If it is not, it is truly amazing what individuals can do! Mr. Morris can believe what he likes about gay bars. But he mentions himself that he knows “next to nothing about Fort Worth or Dallas.” He should study us before he assumes that we fit his conclusions. All I can say about Mr. Morris’ last paragraph is that I was completely dumbfounded! Gay oppression and persecution is a serious problem whether it is taken seriously or not! Too many of my brothers and sisters have suffered and even died because gayness is not taken seriously! Did Stonewall occur in vain? Mr. Morris, I pity your ignorance of our gay martyrs, our gay culture, our gay history and the gay future. But gay or non-gay, we are still fellow beings and we should share our knowledge and learn from one another. I will not tolerate the mental and physical genocide of my people any longer! And neither will my brothers and sisters. A national gay community is slowly evolving, with national leaders such as Morris Knight, Troy Perry, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyons, Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny. Texas will not be able to ignore us much longer. There is a new breed of gays who are showing their faces. Get ready, Texas! You’re about to get a limp-wristed slap in the face! Ken Cyr, Director, AURA, P.O. Box 7318, Fort Worth, Tex. 76111. Illiberal Scholz’ The comment on Austin’s Scholz Beer Garten in the April 26 Observer that “Scholz may be the last thing in town that all liberals agree on” provokes me to inquire whether all liberals also agree on the way Scholz’ employees are paid and treated or if they have ever bothered to think about it? Scholz’ waitresses are paid $1.00 per hour plus tips. But as one waitress said, “Liberals and intellectuals are poor tippers.” A waitress who has served one table of beer drinkers all evening may get a gratuity’ of only a dime or twenty-seven cents. And liberals rank high on the list of liberal beer drinkers who are often un-liberal tippers. It is Scholz’ policy that rather than serving an assigned area, the waitresses must compete with each other for tables. Since the more tables you serve the more you make, this competition can cause hard feelings. More important, the waitresses work unnecessarily hard to cover their tables, located as they may be close-by, in the middle-distance, and at the farthermost edges of the spacious “garten.” Scholz Garten is venerable for its tradition of hospitality and notable patrons especially now as “the last place in town all liberals can agree on.” But perhaps liberal patrons have been too concerned with talk about the grape and lettuce boycotts to pay attention to a problem right at home. Granted, Scholz’ is not unique in paying wages that keep workers at the poverty level in Austin. But I am surprised to hear that such inequities go unnoticed or are ignored by Texas liberals. Barbara Duke, 1907 David St., Austin, Tex. 78705.