Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
Complete Text of the New Equal Rights Amendment

SECTION I:	Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied
		or abridged by the United States or by any state on
		account of sex.

SECTION II:	The Congrress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
		legislation, the provisions of this article.

SECTION III:	This article shall take effect two years after the date
		of ratification.
    

    First of all, let me state outright, that I favor ERA. I don't want
    anything getting confused later on. Now.......
    
    Whenever I hear ERA, one of the first things that goes through my
    mind is RADICALS. There have been a whole lot of good movements
    throughout history that have destroyed themselvs because of a FEW
    members that become RADICAL. The last time ERA was up to be ratified,
    all you heard on the news,  saw on the tv, and read in the papers
    was women that wanted the right to fight in combat. Now come on
    ladies, how many of you REALLY want to go fight in a war????? Yet,
    these so called supporters of equal rights, that apparently DO want
    to go fight are getting all the press, and in my opinion, are putting
    the ERA in a REAL BAD light. Why don't the "sane" members of the of
    the womans movement grab these big mouths by the whatevers and tell
    them to go cause trouble some place else. Seems to me it would do
    a whole lot of good for the ERA.
    
    
    Steve

    <--(.2)
    
    No, Steve, very few women want to kill-or-be-killed, any more than
    many men do (do you?).  What's wanted is the same *opportunity* to take
    the same risks for the same rewards as the men have.  Women have
    traditionally been held from high military rank because of the idea
    that only combat vets should command combat troops.  Even now, no
    woman has (to my knowledge) risen above Brigadier General/Rear Admiral.
    When you also consider the perception that rank comes easily in
    a combat zone even if nowhere else....
    
    						=maggie

    
    Steve,
    
    I don't think ANYONE wants to fight in a war,  however there are
    probably quite a few very good positions in the military that are
    impossible for women to get because they are women.
    
    Wasn't Dr. King a RADICAL?  To many people I'm sure he was!
    
    Paul

    re .2
    Why does this make me think of the southern woman I once met who
    told me that the "darkies" in her county were quite hpapy with
    the way things were until some outside radicals came along to 
    stir them up?

When it was suggested that women be allowed to volunteer for the Swedish
Army -- but only for non-combatitive roles -- the major daily newspaper
editorialized that that was a great idea and, if it worked out, should
be applied to men, too.

By the way, the current editor in chief of this paper is a woman.

Martin.

    Ah, Steve, you innocent.     Who do you think determines the majority
    of the stories we see on the news?    Now, I'm not claiming that
    the news that we see on our boob tubes is biased.   Much.   But,
    certainly, *I* never wanted the ERA to pass because I sincerely
    wanted to be drafted.
    
    All that the statement "Whenever I hear ERA, one of the first things
    that goes through my mind is RADICALS" proves is that the conservatives
    opposed to ERA's passage have done a better pr job than the liberals
    that favor its passage.      Whenever I hear ERA, what goes through
    my mind is 'equal pay.'    Pretty radical, huh?  
    
    Please excuse my bitter tone, but it bothers me that you, who are
    taking part in womannotes, and thus rank above the general masses
    in terms of having an understanding (or at least caring to have
    an understanding) don't see past the somewhat selective coverage
    that woman's issues (or black issues or other under-powered groups
    issues) receive from the media.  
    
    Tamar
    

    I don't think the problem is the radicals.  I think it's the all
    too many "normal women" who are led to believe that they would lose
    "rights" by passage of the ERA.  Just look at Phyllis Schlafly
    and the emotions that she dredges up.
    
    If we want success (and THIS we does), then we've got to convince
    Jane Housewife and her friends that ERA is good for them.
    
    				"Kelvin Throop IV"
    				(Too many Steves in this conference!)

  The military arguments against ERA make up a whole school of red
  herrings.  Women serve in large numbers and in many areas in the
  military -- today.  If, ghod forbid, the Warsaw Pact should attack West
  Germany, do you think we would send women in that theater to "safe"
  areas?  Of course we wouldn't.  In military terms,  it would be a
  phenomenonally stupid thing to do, even for a general.  (Besides, there
  won't be any safe areas.)

  So military women are just as much in combat roles as the vast majority 
  of military men.  Furthermore, they will stay there -- trained people are
  much too valuable to let go once the shooting starts.


  JP

    In Russia they drafted women into combat positions in WWII.  They
    needed every body they could get their hands on in order to defeat
    the Germans!
    
    And what about Joan of Arc as a great military figure?
    
    	-Ellen

    re .2:
    
    "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
    on account of sex".
    
    	-Ellen

    The combat issue is a red herring, I agree.
    
    What surprises me is that it is not blatantly obvious to most people
    that those who oppose the ERA will resort to any measures
    to defeat it (equality of rights would completely undermine family 
    and society, right??).  That method usually involves getting extensive
    media coverage for a number of red herrings like the combat issue.
    
    Many people who support the ERA have made various proposals
    about the combat issue for women, the best one (I think) being that
    women could enter the military in a clear non-combatant "track"
    or combatant "track", as they wished.  (The military claims to need both
    types, and those who have leadership skills should be rewarded for such).  
    How much media coverage did these alternative proposals ever get? 
    

    I am ashamed to admit but I was not aware of the fact that the
    constitution does not inlcude ERA until it was pointed out just now. 
    
    I have to admit that I did not go out of my way to find out about it
    but in last six years or so I do not remember either seeing or reading
    any substantial coverage about ERA.  I sort of took it granted as I was
    taking secularism granted in all the major democracies. 
    
- Vikas

    
    Donning my asbestos suit and Faraday cage...
    
    I submit that until the problem pointed out by Mr. Lionel is resolved,
    the Equal Rights Amendment is going to do everything for the women's
    movement that Prohibition did for the temperance movement.  If the
    women are convinced, the men will fall into line.
    
    DFW
                                                                      

        .0: You neglected to mention two points about the NOW mailing...
        
        First, the trivial but interesting point that Phyllis Schlafly
        is on the committee for the celebration (as the letter comments,
        the official celebration is unlikely to include much emphasis
        on the constitutional inequities).
        
        Secondly, the point of the letter (aside from asking for
        money) was to encourage letters to congress.  It included
        postcards to mail to the House Speaker and Senate majority
        leader.  I meant to save mine and enter the addresses and
        such, but unfortunately forgot until after they were in the
        mail.  The more letters and calls they (or local senators
        or reps) get, the more likely this is to happen.
        
        There's a lot of public ignorance and misperceptions about
        ERA, from the "radical" reputation to all the garbage about
        forcing women into the miltary, into the workplace... or
        even mandating co-ed restrooms.  If you run into people who
        are against ERA, the first step should be to show them the
        actual text of the amendment.  It's so amazingly simple,
        it's difficult to object to.
        
        I think I already threw away the rest of the letter... too
        bad; might have been a good idea to clip the page with the
        amendment text and post it on my office wall (although that
        would probably be a no-no since someone is bound to be offended
        by it... :-))
        
        	/dave

re .3

�   When you also consider the perception that rank comes easily in
�   a combat zone even if nowhere else....
 
    That  is  the sort of thoughtless remark that indicates clearly that 
    you have never been near combat!
    
    NOTHING COMES EASILY IN A COMBAT ZONE, EXCEPT PERHAPS DEATH.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    aka "the Colonel"

    To all of you that replied to my RADICALS note (.2), your points
    are well taken and understood. However, I have to stick by my original
    point. If for example, the press is taking (for whoever's cause)
    only the RED HERRING'S to air, the fact still remains that some
    one, somewhere, infront of television cameras and microphones made
    those statements. As long as red herring's exist, someone will take
    advantage of them. It just seems to me that the more you stray from
    the hard core needs/rights of todays woman, the more debatable the
    issue becomes. Hense, the more it gets debated instead of passed.
    It's real easy to debate the issue of women in combat. It's real
    difficult (unless one doesn't mind looking like an ass) debating
    equal pay for equal work. There are a whole lot of hard core issues
    that can be demanded. The rest, I believe, will naturally fall into
    place.
    
    Steve

    
     Well here goes.
    
     Why is the "red herring" of military service for women, still being
    used-because, it is effect. People react to the simpicity of RH's.
    When one uses facts to educate, "red-herring" arguments, are able
    to muddy the waters, it becomes a well spring of emotion. The list
    of these devices is quite long...Unisex-military service,bathrooms,
    the breakup the family...Social perception,is education/experience.
    I am a radical,feminist and as such I carry the torch of freedom
    for all women,even Phillis... I may never experience this freedom
    in my life time..I'll continue to educate,laugh and learn and try
    to fight againist these Rh's.
    
      I am/was a Vietnam Era Vet. I served, a society that to this day
    devalues me as a human being. Why, I don't know. It seem the right
    thing to do at the time. I was very young. At the tender age of
    18, the men I served with died and I struggled to help them medically,
    those that lived. No one wants war, perhaps someday the military
    will be something that no longer exists. I fight for this idea as
    well as feminism. Let' not forget the economic necessity of having
    ERA pass. Women would not have to use class action suits to get
    equal pay for equal work, parenting rights for all people, Social
    Security equity. I believe that the economic issues, are the reality
    not the associated emotionalism. I mean that fear that men see
    equality =$$$=power. This issue is the one that no one talks about.
    That legally women would have more recourse, to seek economic equality
    and thus power  feels threateding men, the men who hold the poser
    in this society.
     
    
      Just some random,rambling, thoughts-at the end of a long.
    
    
    mt

    <--(.17)
    
    "perception", Colonel, "perception".
    
    (And I assure you that the statement was made thoughtfully)
    
    						=maggie

    	It is a cruel joke that in this country (U.S.) we have to pass
    a special ammendment to give women the rights our constitution decrees
    all people in our country are entitled to.  There is an element
    to our leaders' definitions of laws that is very sad.  All people
    in the U.S. who believe in the U.S. should work to pass the E.R.A.
    and be saddened by the fact it has to be passed at all.
    
    Douglas

    re 21:
    
    Laws that are passed (equal pay, equal rights, etc.) are very easy
    to rescind if a certain legislature gets in control.  A constitutional
    amendment has to be ratified by two-thirds (?) of the states and
    in order to rescind a constitutional amendment, it goes through
    a similar ordeal.  So even if ERA doesn't get you anything right
    now, it will guarantee what you've already got. (I think, anyone
    else know more?)
    
    	-Ellen

        But the constitution didn't really decree equal rights for
        "everyone".  Slaves, for example, weren't even considered at the
        time... they were *known* not to be people. The constitution was
        of course talking about "free men", and they weren't using "men"
        in the supposed generic sense of "human beings", either,
        regardless of how many people nowadays may attempt to fudge that
        point. 
        
        We now have constitutional amendments extending the rights to
        *all* men, regardless of race, etc. (I wish I had a copy of the
        documents for exact wording).  There are a number of laws
        protecting individual rights of women.  But the constitution
        itself, the ultimate philosophical (and legal) document of our
        country, does not recognize women as being among the "people"
        protected by it. 
        
        As such, in some sense the ERA is more of a symbol than anything
        else... a statement that, finally, the United States officially
        recognizes that women really *are* people.  It is hoped, and
        likely, that improved legislation (and general behavior) will
        eventually be encouraged (and supported) by the existance of the
        ERA... but it won't change much itself. 
        
        	/dave

one of the benefits of working at home on a snowy day is that I have a
couple of marked-up copies of the Constitution in front of me.  If you
haven't read it, do so; it really is wonderful.


I've been skimming through it to find references which explicitly leave out
women or racial minorities, and have found some. (There's also this
curious phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" that shows up in a number of
places, including Ammendment 14). 

Words like "person", "people" and "citizen" appear in most places. The 14th
ammendment discusses representatives being "apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers", and then goes on to discuss
what happens to that apportionment when sufferage is incorrectly denied to
"any of the male inhabitants of such State[s]".  Apparently, women were
counted for representation and taxation (see also article 1), but couldn't
vote.

Sufferage was granted irrespective of "race, color or previous condition of
servitude" in 1870 (15th ammendment). Strange that blacks (actually black
men), who were only counted as 3/5 of a person, could vote before women,
black or white

The Prohibition ammendment (1919) contained a clause that it had to be
"ratified...within seven years from the date of the submission". The
original ERA was given some kind of extension, and lots of people screamed
about it, but there's nothing wrong with doing that. Article 5 provides for
no time limit for passing ammendments. Only 3 others of the 26 (including
the original 10 in the Bill of Rights) had the 7-year limit: repealing
prohibition (#21), and changing some of the terms of federal office (20,
22).

It wasn't until Ammendment 19 (1933) that "the right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any State on account of sex".

Of course, "he" is used throughout, but I didn't find anything explicitly
stating that women couldn't run for office. In fact, I didn't find anything
that said that women couldn't vote (just that business in the 14th about
males being unfairly denied sufferage). I think that herein lies the answer
to Marge Davis' question: There seems to have been no constitutional basis
for the denial of sufferage to women, that's just what was "right" for so
many years.  It took an ammendment to change that.  Another ammendment, like
ERA, will serve to secure all rights not explicitly granted, but still
denied. It may also serve as a basis for recognition of other needs, like
equal pay for equal work.

I think that if it's going to truly be an "equal rights ammendment", it
should state that equal rights are to be granted to all, so that each
oppressed group doesn't have to have its own ERA (e.g., homosexual-rights
bills which come up at the city and state level, and the 15th ammendment
effectively making blacks citizens).  That's another discussion.


					-- hal

PS: I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, so I may have missed points
in skimming though it today. I don't think I've misrepresented anything,
though.

    I just looked up the word "amend" in the American Heritage Dictionary.
    I was surprised and pleased to find this:
    
    amend:  1. to correct; rectify.  2. to alter (a law) formally by
    adding, deleting, or rephrasing.  3. to improve.
    
    Let's "correct" the constitution to include women :-)
    
    	-Ellen

    .2  Everyone got hung up on women in combat - nasty, nasty.  The
    Navy now has a problem because they have such a high proportion
    of females in the service that because of the rule that women cannot
    go to sea (unless it is on something like a tanker - refiller, etc.)
    that the morale of the male sailors is a low tide.  Weinberger refuses
    to cut back on recruitment of women for the Navy.
    
    My daughter, (Sandy Duncan type - only for size description!) decided
    to join R.O.T.C. in college - and is now stationed in Germany as
    an officer.  Tell me - why would the military teach her to take
    apart an M16 - use it - etc., if she is supposed to stand there
    if her group were attacked and not fire!  Bullets and bombs (god
    forbid!) do not descriminate on account of sex.  Why the uproar?
    
    Phyliss Schlafly and her morale majority caused more verbal abuse
    of a very simple request - we should no longer be classified as
    second-class citizens.
    
    This does not mean that I am a flaming bra burner - That act was
    necessary to shake up a few complacent people...and I've never met
    one bra burner I didn't like - to steal a line from Will Rogers.
    
      

    Opps! .27 First paragraph error.  The wording should have been the
    male sailor's morale is suffering - not because women do not go
    to sea - but that these women for the most part have been assigned
    to shore jobs that the men could rotate to between tours.  Sorry
    about that!

    The fact that women in the Armed Forces are not assigned to combat roles
    does not mean they may never have to fight.
    
    Current NATO analysis of Soviet strategic planning indicates that in
    the event of warthey will probably infiltrate substantial numbers of
    Spetznatz troops who, helped by fifth columnists will attack rear echelon
    positions.
    
    In the case of such an attack the basic rule is "sauve qui peut" - which
    translates to "grab the nearest weapon and fight back". *All* members
    of the armed forces need to know how to use small arms and carry out
    basic unarmed combat. It may save their lives.
    
    However women are, rightly or wrongly, not assigned to combat roles
    for much the same reason as the Sullivan Act was passed: the morale of
    the men and of the families back home are believed to be impacted by
    the women being in a position of danger. It may not be true (it may
    be pure fable) but I doubt any politician is going to risk their career
    to make this change.
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    Irene (my SO) was in the National Guard for 6 years. They told her
    that in the event of war she would be placed in some bunker in
    Concord NH to help coordinate communications. According to the
    scuttlebut in the NG, Concord, along with Pease AFB & assorted
    other tactical sites (like most of southern NH) were high on the
    list of nuke targets. So much for not being in combat...
    
    BTW -- To train for nuclear blast attacks the NG had the troops
    practice "duck & cover" using a photoflash to simulate the
    nuclear flash itself. Irene sez it was all she could do to keep
    from laughing, knowing as she did they'd be krispy kritters by
    the time they recognized the flash...
    
    

    Is it my imagination, or am I always right behind Ian in noting? ;-)
                                                                    
    While in the A.F., I was in a mobile combat squadron and about half
    of the troops were women.  We all went on deployments together,
    practicing combat tactics, defense, guard duty, etc.  We all learned
    to use weapons.  This question was brought up once, if we had to
    deploy to a combat zone, what would happen to the women.  It was
    brought up shortly after 'the hostages' were taken in Iran.  The
    answer that we got was that the women would be sent stateside and
    the men would go to combat.  That would leave us with a force that
    was half of our normal strength.  We wouldn't be able to do anything.
    
    I hope there aren't any Russians reading this. ;-)
    
    Spence

    My brother in law in a commander in the coast guard. He told me
    that coast guard policy on women in combat went contrary to the
    rest of the services. The commandant of the coast guard has said
    that if he had a ship in a war zone when a war broke out he was
    not going to send in helicopters to bring out all the women -
    especially since some of those women would be the officers or
    the C.O. of the ship.
    
    I remember in WWI and WWII there was a reluctance to accept Black
    men as soldiers and officers and pilots. But as individual Blacks
    and Black units proved themselves, as the war went on, they were
    eventually integrated equally into the army (at least by the end
    of WWII). If it should ever come to pass that we go to war again
    (GOD/GODESS FORBID) I suspect that women will of necessity and
    very rapidly become accepted as combat soldiers.
    
    Bonnie

    My good friend and iconoclast, Tony Lewis, has a pungent reason
    why women are not made combat troops:
    
    "No society ever voluntarily arms its slave class."
    
    							Ann B.

[Some years ago William F. Buckley wrote a column about "Women in the foxholes"
in which he expressed the opinion that it was a bad idea.  He made various
statements about the idealization of women.  Later he received the following
letter.  You can figure out from context what Buckley had said.] 


Dear Mr. Buckley:

This letter is in reference to your not-so-recent column about women in the
foxholes.  I would have sent it sooner but this is the first chance I've had to
use a typewriter and my penmanship has never won any medals. 

1.  To state that women are the possessors of more innate charm, gentleness,
etc. than men *is* sexist.  Do you also feel that blacks have more rhythm, Jews
are all wealthy?  I know some economically independant women who are about as
charming as a cornered rattlesnake.  I also know gentle, sensitive, empathetic
women who got that way beacause their food and shelter depended on adapting
their behavior to the whims of a man. You're probably big on survival of the
fittest.  If your survival and that of your children depended on interpreting
and accommodating the moods of another person, you'd be pretty damn intuitive
too in very short order. It's just another of those wonderful conditioned
traits we share with gigolos.  You could call it an occupational hazard. 

2.  "Woman is quite properly idealized"?  In your strata of society possibly. 
Up to and including the $40,000 per year bracket, ha!  Check it out some time
when your busy schedule permits.  Find out how many women that includes.  They
are not at home tatting any more, you know.  This is not because they are
greedy for luxuries or are yearning to fulfill themselves.  It is because
hamburger is $1 per pound and the price of a new home is out of sight.  I've
been idealized like this for years: 

  6:00	Get up, get children up, cook breakfast, pack lunches, get children
	dressed.
  6:30	Get dressed while others eat breakfast.
  7:00	Leave for work.
  8:00	Work hard for men with half your IQ whose mothers never told them 
	not to study anything except elementary education or home economics,
	since someday someone else would support them anyway.  (I wouldn't 
	want you to assume from this that my mother was a housewife either.
	She did what I did and without a washing machine.  It's just that
	she was desperately hoping I would marry a wealthy Prince Charming
	and escape the agony.  My husband's mother was really idealized.
	She lived in a railroad car and cooked for the crew.)
  4:30	Boss says you have to work overtime.  You say you can't because
	your daughter is in the school play tonight.  He shakes his head in
	disgust.  "It's no wonder women never get anywhere in business."  
	If you *had* worked, your husband, your children, and half the PTA 
	would have shaken their heads in disgust.  This is a game at which
	it is impossible to win.
  5:00	Janitor comes in to clean up.  You type, use a calculator, and do a
	lot of intricate reports.  He cleans.  He makes as much as you do
	with no skills whatsoever.  He has a family to support.  The 
	popular assumption is that you don't.
  5:30	Pick up kids at babysitter's.
  6:00	Listen to long stories about what happened at school today while
	remembering whether youv'e got any lettuce left and how long the
	potatoes should cook.  (One of the saddest things I ever read was
	a list made by a respected female doctor and administrator.  "Put
	Mrs. Smith on salt-free diet.  Pick up pork chops for dinner.  
	Attend 10:00 staff meeting.  Fix zipper on skirt."  She's 
	`idealized' too and she makes over $40,000 per year.  I wonder if
	the first female Secretary of State will have similar lists.  Will
	she also serve coffee and take notes at Cabinet meetings?
  6:30	Everyone hurry up.  School play starts at 7:00.
  8:00	Try to stay awake and look interested.  Do not think about whether
	family has enough clean laundry for tomorrow or make shopping list 
	in head.
  9:15	Put children to bed.
  9:30	Dishes, laundry, personal grooming, etc, etc.
 11:00	Take a shower.
 11:15	Husband wants sex.  At the very least try not to fall asleep in
	the middle of it.
 12:00	Son has upset stomach.  Change sheets.  Take his temperature.  Pray.
	"Oh Lord, please don't make me have to ask for more time off work!"

What is this business of being `idealized' like?  Permanent KP duty with no
time off for good behavior.  Undergoing full-dress inspection under battle
conditions.  When your kids get older you get a card on Mother's Day and a lily
at Easter.  No preference on civil service exams, no money to attend college. 
(And what would be the point anyway, since by now you're worn out and
unemployable in an executive capacity.  They're afraid you might get hot
flashes during a major conference.)  No medals of honor.  No admiration from
grandchildren as you recite your daring exploits.  No conventions out-of-state
where you can drink too much, carry on with strange men, and throw toilet paper
out the hotel window.  No retirement.  If you live to be 85 you'll still be
doing dishes and cleaning toilets, assuming you're not in a rest home. 

3. Your paragraph to the effect that no sane society should cultivate
war-making skills in its womenfolk contains specious reasoning.  You above all
are aware of the fact that that the ability to defend oneself and one's country
is not a vice and that a society so effete that it is ripe for takeover will
not long endure.  It *is* still called the *defense* Department, is it not? 
Should we dismantle the machinery of war because in training men to become
soldiers "something si done" to those men who have become "gladiators" "and, a
fortiori, to all men"?  I don't even know what "a fortiori" means, but I still
recognize hogwash when I see it.  All your twisted reasoning proves is that
emotionally you are a stronger chauvinist than your are a hawk.  Faced with the
image of 10,000 blonde, blue-eyed maidens in lace underwear and skirts losing
their lives and limbs in the jungles of Vietnam, you might have been out ten
years ago handing out flowers on the streets of San Francisco.  Did you ever
stop to think that this "idealization" you feel for women is also felt by women
for their husbands and sons?  We have protective feelings also and a great many
of us would have an easier time looking at a woman with stumps where her legs
used to be than looking at a man in the same situation.  Come to think of it,
perhaps these noble sentiments in the male breast could be put to good use by
filling the foxholes with women.  Then those men in power would be more
inclined to weigh carefully the costs of war before venturing forth. 

4. Any discussion about women's place in the foxholes, atop power poles, in
police patrol cars, etc., must hinge first and foremost on a discussion of what
concessions should be made in order to employ women in that capacity. You may
have assumed from the foregoing that I am in the ranks of those who advocate
lowering height, weight, and strength requirements on the basis that they
discriminate against females.  Wrong.  I firmly believe that these
qualifications discriminate only against those who are short, slim, and weak in
the same way that an SAT test discriminates against those who are stupid. 
Reasonable discriminations are a necessary part of life. Without the ability to
discriminate logically, the human race could become extinct.  What I am saying
is that a woman who stands 5'9" tall, weighs 145 pounds, and can do the
required number of push-ups should not be rejected because of a lack of
separate toilet facilities.  That rejection is based soley on sex.  The others
are not.  The insane notion that women would be undone by having to squat
behind a bush or tree can only be held by those who believe that no women made
it across the plains in covered wagons years ago. 

It is ironic that I should write to you only when ticked off.  I have loved
your column and Firing Line for years, and almost always have agreed with your
point of view.  Don't get discouraged when the postman dumps a pile of hate
mail on your desk every day.  Most of the writers are probably like me.  They
only feel compelled to write when they think you're off base. I'll have to
remember to send you postcards for some of the good stuff. 

		Sincerely,
		Ms. Patricia Bailey
		Fair Oaks, CA


[Buckley's response to this letter was:]

	Wow!
	   - WFB

    Lee

Yes, what a wonderful letter. Thank you very much Paul [Paul? That is
you right? Hi Paul!]

I'll go look you up in elf, and delete this if I'm wrong...
	:-) Mez