The Missoulian from Missoula, Montana • 4

EDITORIAL BOARD EDITORIAL DESK 523-5241 FRIDAY David Sharp, Publisher Brad Hurd, Editor Steve Woodruff, Editorial Page Editor Theresa Johnson, Features Editor Missoulian July 9, 1993 A4 ON OTHER VIEWS Tougher gun laws might have helped Los Angeles Times TV warnings wont solve the problem By the time the gun smoke cleared over the grisly scene (in) San Francisco, nine people were dead. Among the fatalities was Gian Luigi Ferri a disturbed and vengeful person police said had carried two semiautomatic weapons and a pistol into the law offices of Pettit and Martin and started blowing away. (The) three firearms and his hundreds of rounds of ammunition all had been purchased legally. There was also a culprit other than Ferri that day, one not so obvious: the nation's woefully weak gun control laws. That hole-filled network is, in part, behind today's epidemic of gun-related violence.

Bt's not that I am without sympathy for Hollywood. At times, the moguls of the entertainment world have, after all, been the innocent victims of false accusations. Consider the man in Wichita, who recently alerted the police after calling a video store and hearing these words in the background: "Everyone down on the floor!" When the cruiser arrived, the sound turned out to be a soundtrack. The scene of -the crime was a scene from "Sister Act." Nevertheless, I watched for years with morbid fascination as the entertainment industry denied any link between violent acts on the screen big or small and violent behavior in real life. Research piled up 3,000 studies high, showing that violence increases aggressiveness, fearfulness, callousness among young viewers.

And so did the excuses. Even the stars of the so-called capital of liberalism the protectors of endangered species, the wearers of red ribbons, and the fund-raisers of humane causes came to sound like the disinformation folk at the Tobacco Industry and the NRA: "There is no absolute proof that violence begets violence." "We live in a violent society; we didn't create it." 4 AIDS coordinator was long overdue Dallas Morning News vUlWi fo WITH, IS NOT A VEl HELPFUL MTUuPE.MR, MlYAZAWA! MISSOULIAN EDITORIAL Yellowstone needs wolves Re-introduction plan will prove stockgrowers have little to fear "Have we reached the point where an unacceptable epidemic becomes acceptable?" The question was posed by Scott Allen, a member of the National Commission on AIDS who lost his wife and a son to the disease. Two years have passed since the commission which ended its work last week issued a broad set of recommendations for fighting the epidemic. Most of the proposals have been ignored. Whether that plea will be heard will depend on Kristine M.

Gebbie, who was named the Clinton's administration's AIDS czar Gebbie brings excellent credentials to the post, having served as a public health official in Washington state and Oregon. Her background suggests that the administration is intent on treating AIDS as a public health matter, as it should be, and not as a political issue, as it sometimes has been. hat will demagoguing politicians and special-interest fund-raisers rant about if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sp.rviY rarrips "Movies don't kill people; people kill people." The same actors, producers and executives who talked at Emmy and Oscar time about the rich possibilities of promoting social change through their media threw up their hands at the very mention of violence. Suddenly, they were only the helpless ELLEN GOODMAN Pesticides require more regulation Christian Science Monitor the Yellowstone area are projected by the FWS at 19 cattle and 68 sheep (10 cattle and 57 sheep in central Idaho).

Stockgrowers who suffer losses through wolf predation would be compensated from a $100,000 fund established by the private, non-profit Defenders of Wildlife organization. Moreover, the "experimental" population designation would give federal, state and tribal land and wildlife managers greater flexibility in managing re-introduced wolves that normally would be the case under the strict provisions of the Endangered Species Act. For instance, individual wolves that preyed on livestock could and probably would be killed. Landowners and grazing-lease holders would be permitted to haze or harass wolves off away from their property, and ranchers even would be allowed to shoot wolves caught preying on livestock. No additional land-use restrictions are included in the wolf-reintroduction proposal.

The vast majority of the land in the affected area is public, much of it designated as national park or wilderness. The worst possible outcome of the re-introduction plan would be that, for one reason or another, it simply doesn't work. If that's the case, wolves and the public that wants them would be the losers not livestock producers. A more likely outcome would be to re-establish wolves where they are needed to maintain a natural balance among elk, deer, bison and other wildlife while demonstrating in an easily controlled fashion that the threat the predators pose to ranchers and other interests is minuscule. If that's the case, only the demagogues would be worse off.

out its practical proposal for re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone National Park? Undoubtedly, they'll come up with something. But at least the rest of us will have a chance to move beyond an emotional, divisive issue that has benefited few but has commanded public attention for years. The FWS last week published an environmental impact statement that includes its proposal for re-introducing an "experimental" population of wolves to Yellowstone and a wild region of central Idaho, a region where wolves were common before settlers wiped them out. The proposal is practical and constructive, offering a low-risk opportunity to restore a much-needed predator to Yellowstone and perhaps hasten the day wolves could be removed from the endangered species list. The plan more than adequately addresses the major objection to wolf re-introduction fears from the livestock industry that wolves will prey on sheep and cattle.

Those fears have always been exaggerated, usually for the benefit of those running for office or drumming up dues-paying members for various organizations. Of course, anyone who knows anything about wolves knows wolves will occasionally prey on livestock. But even if the maximum wolf-recovery goals are one day achieved (100 wolves), the annual livestock losses in products or their society. Indeed, anybody who suggested that they should temper their product would be instantly Gored Tipper Gore-d as an enemy of liberty and free speech. But finally, grudgingly and belatedly, a klatch of powerful entertainment figures is openly admitting that an overdose of violent viewing is harmful for children and other living creatures.

It's almost as if the tobacco companies had finally confessed that smoking caused lung cancer. In a breakthrough or at least a slow, grinding turnaround, four television networks agreed last week under congressional pressure to put a warning label on violent programs. Maybe these much-heralded warnings "Eat your vegetables." That age-old parental demand remains good advice. But now there's a bit of irony mixed in with the benefits that are supposed to come from eating vegetables and fruits. New studies show that these beneficial foods can also contain not-so-beneficial pesticides.

People are particularly concerned about the effects of pesticides on children (who), a report by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group notes (can) receive more than one-third of their lifetime exposure to certain pesticides by the age of five. It has been 30 years since Rachel Carson eloquently warned about the dire consequences of pesticides The new studies serve as reminders Americans should continue to urge lawmakers to strengthen pesticide regulations. merit a laugh track more than applause. Arter an, in tnis two-year trial the labels will only go on programs that the networks' own standards departments decide are violent. They will appear on exactly one program in me iau: in iru uiue.

Moreover, the ltty-bittv warning will merelv flash nn the srrppn GLOBAL AGRICULTURE before the program and during the break. And it will read Wimp Alert! "Due to some violent content, parental discretion advised." The GATT 'reforms' threaten farmers and freedom But, in a Dhrase that will send chills down the mOErul Snine. this is a hpoinninw A beginning for the average American child By WENDELL BERRY and ERIK NESS for the Los Angeles Times wno sun sees s.uuu murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television hefore hp. nr she is out of grammar school. One "next steD" that's been suepesred for television is the so-called "V-chin" which would allow the technolnpieallv nnn- armers, citizens, beware.

As the leaders of the world's richest nations reach agreement in Tokyo on lowering the world's industrial tariff phobic parent you know who you are, both of you to program violent shows off their set. Another step would follow the Europeans and relegate these shows for the late night hours. The problem of violent entprtainmpnt is not only a problem of what appears on the networks, bv no means thp. wnrst rnlnrifc or even on television. Today's movie is on -auic ncxi year.

ioaay network show will be in reruns on indenendent stations until the year 2034. "Ambush in Waco" may have the half-life of nuclear waste. It's a problem of content, creativity and commitment that runs all across the concerns them: ecological, economic, agricultural and cultural. The issue here really is not whether international trade shall be free, but whether it makes sense for a country to destroy its own capacity to produce its own food. How can a government, entrusted with the safety and health of its people, conscientiously barter away the nation's ability to feed itself? And if people lose their ability to feed themselves, how can they be said to be free? Trade bureaucrats speak euphemistically about "international harmonization" the process by which trade standards of different nations are brought into chorus, often lowering standards tougher than those set by the GATT bureaucracy.

The bureaucrats, and the companies whose interests they represent, would like to assume that the world is everywhere uniform and conformable to their desires. The world, in fact, is made up of an immense diversity of countries, climates, ecosystems, soils and human cultures. Anybody interested in real harmony, in economic and ecological justice, will see immediately that justice requires not international uniformity but an international generosity toward local diversity. And anybody interested in solving, rather than profiting from, the problems of food production and distribution will see that in the long run the safest food supply is local, not dependent on the global economy. Nations should be left free and should be encouraged to develop local food economies that best suit local needs and conditions.

It is foolish to jeopardize this most necessary freedom and diversity for the sake of an economic idea. industry. The most dour, if not dnwnrinhf riismal. comment that accompanied the networks announcement was CBS's HnwarH Stringer's barriers, they remain intent on pushing new agricultural trade policies that would jeopardize farmers and democratic freedom worldwide. The Clinton administration is backing changes in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that would eliminate agricultural price supports and production controls.

These changes would throw every farmer in the member nations into competition in the so-called free market. American farmers, who must continue to buy expensive labor-saving machines, fuels and chemicals, will be forced to compete against the cheap labor of poor countries. And poor countries will see much-needed food vacuumed off their plates by lucrative export markets. No farmer will win this contest. It is easy to see who will have the freedom in the international free market.

The GATT revisions were drafted mostly by Daniel Amstutz, a former senior vice president of Cargill, the agribusiness giant. The revisions, as one advocate has said, are "exactly what exporters need" the assumption being that what is good for exporters is good for everybody. But what is good for Cargill and other exporters is by no means always good for farmers. In the United States, we have seen how unrestrained competition among farmers increasing surpluses and depressing prices has benefited warning about the warnings: "We don't want to turn the vast wasteland into the dull wasteland." Are these our options: mayhem or boredom? Violence is thp. p.icv uv in nA t.mj 111 Bliu UUI JL a story.

It finesses plot and character development. It "travels well" to foreign markets. Is that all Hollywood offers now GATT revisions would permit them to practice the same exploitation without restraint in the world at large, sliding at will to wherever products can be bought cheapest and sold highest. What's more, international bureaucrats would set health and safety standards for us all. Member nations and their local governments could not impose stricter regulations without risking severe economic penalties.

The 111 GATT member nations would be limited in their ability to protect their land, their farmers, their food supply and their health. Worse, those who drafted and would implement the proposals are bureaucrats, not elected by anybody. In short, these proposals would centralize control of all prices and standards in the international food economy and place it in the hands of the few powerful corporations able to profit from it. The amended GATT would be a license issued to a privileged few for an all-out economic assault on the land and people of the world. The GATT "reforms" offend democracy and freedom; they offend any intelligent concern for bodily or ecological health; they offend every wish for a sustainable food supply.

They make no sense, for they ignore or reduce to fantasy every reality that viiv.up minis vi no wirillSf On AUP. 2. thcrp will Kip m.tlnn the whole television industry to discuss this. And Jack Vnlcnti nf thp M.i!nn r.v.... mvuull A ICIUIS Association of America will be meeting with what he calls the "creative community" about dcglamorizing violence in film.

This IS the timp nn it'c nt -I pu.ii lllllb, 1U1 the star-studded names of Hollywood, the talent behind distant political causes and far-flune action committpps in tu. Wendell Deny writes and farms in Port Royal, Ky. His book, "Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community" will be published this fall by Pantheon. Erik Ness coordinates the Progressive Media Project in Madison, Wis. world a bit closer to home.

There is work to be done behind the scenes and against the acts of violence. agribusiness. These companies have remained hugely and consistently profitable through an era of severe economic hardship in rural America. The proposed Copytlghl Bmion Globe up ij.i iii mfci iW i li i).