Page 2


THE TEXAS OBSERVER “The always impious Texas Observer . . . We recommend it.” I. F. Stone’s Bi -Weekly, May 31, 1971 “… the Progressive and the Texas Observer, both of them knowledgeable, superbly written, and leavened by a wit of which conservatives seem incapable.” George Frazier, The Boston Globe, Dec. 15, 1973 “Oddly, the impact of some of its biggest stories comes on the rebound: They are picked up and commented on nationally before the state’s daily press recognizes them.” Lew Powell, Chicago Journalism Review, April, 1974 “One of the best publications in the country remains the Texas Observer.” Pete Hamill, The New York Post, Dec. 18, ‘1969 “The Observer is the conscience of the political community in Texas.” Andrew Kopkind, The New Republic, Nov. 20, 1965 “I think the Observer ranks with The Progressive as one of the two most useful papers in the United States.” John Kenneth Galbraith, Sept. 16, 1970 “The Observer keeps coming out with serious and thorough news of this critically important state which people inside and out can’t get elsewhere.” Nicholas von Hoffman, The Washington Post, Sept. 10, 1971 [ One Year [ Two Years [ Three Years \(Non-Texas ‘addresses 5% sales tax included $10.00 $18.00 $25.00 exempt from in rates listed Name Street City & State Zip [ Check encl. [ Bill me 600 WEST 7 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 low you have published. \(I was amazed that it took two Crude is not as cute as you think it is. Where were their convictions on issuesthey were more wishy-washy on Carter than he could ever be on an issue. It is a compliment to Carter that these two, with some of their distorted views and values, are unable to believe that Carter could be real. This was the lowest of low quality. Mrs. Jean Murph, 6214 St. Charles Ave.,. New Orleans, La. 70118. Poff defended Your characterization of Judge Poff s comment upon his order to agent Self to testify as a “wonderland development” \(see Obs., unfair. A careful and precise reading of the transcript indicates that Judge Poff ordered agent Self to respond to a question, the answer to which the district attorney maintained would ultimately lead to the identity of the “informant whose identity is not revealed for security reasons.” Whether or not the answer which Judge Poff ordered Self to give would ultimately have led by various stages to the revelation of the identity of the confidential informant was completely open to question. The district attorney never offered any evidence in support of his bare allegation that the answer to this intermediary question would eventually result in the disclosure of the name of his confidential informant. As a matter of fact, and as you should have pointed out to your readers, district attorneys throughout Texas customarily use printed forms which always allege that the confidential informant’s identity is not revealed for security reasons. Finally, it is completely unjust for you to characterize as a liar or a fool one who ought to be recognized by the press for his willingness to follow the law and make an unpopular decision subject to profound misrepresentation by media unable or unwilling to provide the public with the indepth reporting and analysis it ought to be able to expect from the fourth estate. Larry Warner, 616 North Polk St., Amarillo, Tex. 79107. A cheap shot The articles on energy are interesting and timely, but Deck Yoes did take a cheap shot at ERDA. Dr. George Rhodes \(director, didn’t hesitate to give the figures for U235 enrichment by various techniques. Separation of U235 by gaseous diffusion requires 3 200 MeV per fission reaction. The energy expended in gaseous diffusion is simply due to the need to pump huge volumes of gas through selectively permeable membranes. Unfortunately, the development of laser isotope separation techniques might provide much more efficient enrichment. While this technology could also be used to reprocess radioactive waste, I fear its primary application will be the enrichment of fissionable materials. Steve Kush, 3303 N. Euclid, Tucson, Ariz. 85719. Feminist paper? For years I looked forward to each copy of the Observer. I would be most interested in renewing my subscription if such a magazine still existed; however, my wife never reads the publication and there is no interest on my part in a feminist publication. Should it be decided to bring back the Observer, I would like to be informed. At the same time, it will take real convincing on the part of the publication before I will again be foolish enough to enter my usual three-year subscription. J. D. Norvel, 46 Cedar Lawn Circle, Galveston, Tex. 77550. Gun owners’ rights Soon our subscription to the Observer will expire. It will not be renewed. We refuse to continue to support your efforts to deprive gun owners of their personal rights under the second, fourth, and fifth amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Mike and Paula Cumpston, 3925 Maple, Waco, Tex. 76707. So long I know that my subscription is expiring. I also know that I am being transferred by my boss to Tucson, Ariz., from the foibles and worse of Texas politics. So, however reluctantly, I say goodbye. Your presence in my house and your lively incisive journalism have been a joy to have and to read. T.E. A. Van Hylckama, 201 Country Club Dr., Lubbock, Tex. 79403. Postmaster: If undeliverable, send Form 3579 to The Texas Observer, 600 West 7, Austin, TX 78701.