Reader: The editorial board lost a great deal of credibility with its backhanded
endorsement of Supervisor Ray Watson.
There (are) a number of reasons for The
Californian not to like Supervisor Ray Watson.
Most notable is the fact that most of
his professional career was devoted to
being a successful and aggressive competitor.
Watson developed KGET-17 into a
powerful force that effectively competed
with The Californian for the role of being
the community’s journalism leader, and
for the community’s advertising dollar.
Politically, Supervisor Watson doesn’t
line up with The Californian. He doesn’t
call news conferences to tout his accomplishments,
and he doesn’t scour the headlines
to second guess other government
officials. His style doesn’t sell newspapers
for your advertisers. He’s too conservative
politically for The Californian, even though
he does share the views and desires of
most of Kern County.
It would make sense for the editorial
board to question Mr. Watson’s conservative
political positions. You showed your
extreme bias, though, when you latched
onto an opponent’s campaign tag line and
questioned his work ethic and commitment.
While Mr. Watson could comfortably
retire, he’s chosen to dedicate his time to
the county that has treated him and his
family so well. He tirelessly travels the
state to work with water and air quality
issues. Locally, he spends countless hours
working on our critical transportation
problems. He has participated in parades,
dedications, town hall meetings and other
events in EVERY part of his district. Your
board wouldn’t want to compare your work
week to his, and if you tried to compare
your record of volunteer service, you’d be
humiliated.
There are a number of reasons for The
Californian to not like Supervisor Watson.
There is no reason, though, for you to give
him advice on how to serve his community.
You’re simply not qualified.
— Ray W. Watson (Jr.)

Dianne Hardisty responds: Give us a
break. It’s commendable for you to defend
your father. But contending The Californian’s
“backhanded” endorsement of Watson
was motivated by some long-harbored
jealousy of a former news competitor is
hilariously lame.
The editorial was written in response to
the disappointing and uninspired performance
of Ray Watson Sr. on the Board of
Supervisors. When we endorsed him in
2004, you didn’t drag out your jealousy theory.
I guess you were satisfied that the newspaper
in 2004 liked a “competitor” enough
to make that endorsement.
As to being qualified to give Supervisor
Watson advice, that’s what’s great about
our representative form of government.
Everyone — even newspapers or attentive
sons — are free to give elected officials
advice. There’s no “qualification” requirement.
We stand by our advice that Watson
should get out of his office more and visit
folks in the outlying communities of his
district. Many people have written The
Californian claiming they have been abandoned.
Reader: The story on the Local section
cover on May 16 again contained inferences
and assumptions for which there is
no proof. You imply again that The
Canyons project, Councilman Ken Weir,
and his attempt to remove Mr. Johnson
from the Planning Commission are all
related, because the content of The Californian
repeatedly attempts to assert that
Mr. Weir is for the Canyons Project. Please
give some facts to support this.
Can you quote something to this effect,
which Mr. Weir has either said or put in
writing? Otherwise the assumption must be
that you are on purpose telling half-truths,
which then are “partial” lies, if there can
be such a thing.
Your credibility is on the line!
— Gerhard H. Schmidt, M.D.

Jenner: The story you cite — about a
Planning Commission vote on The Canyons
project being delayed — did not assert that
Ken Weir supports the project.
But yes, Weir’s attempt to replace Russell
Johnson on the Planning Commission
is indeed related to the Hillside Ordinance
and The Canyons project — according to
Ken Weir.
In the last council meeting, Weir specifically
criticized Johnson for being “proud
to have voted to take two-thirds of a man’s
land without compensating him for his
loss.” He also, earlier, criticized the Hillside
Ordinance, and Johnson’s vote, for
“unfairly and possibly unlawfully taking
an individual’s land.”
This is the only specific vote that Weir
has cited in his criticism of Johnson. The
reference to the taking of “two-thirds of a
man’s land” can only refer to Gordon
Downs’ land, part of The Canyons project.
We asked Weir directly in an e-mail to
specify if he was referring to a different
vote. He did not reply.
As for our credibility, it is on the line
every day, with every story, every word.
Reader: I opened the newspaper on May
7 and saw a story about the man that killed
Dorothy Anne Walter. I read the story in
disbelief as it had little to do with the victim,
Dorothy Anne Walter, but focused on
Danny Espinoza, the man that injured himself
the night he killed her.
I knew Dorothy Anne Walter for 46
years and she was an incredible person.
Boots, as she was lovingly called by her
family and friends, was very giving and
kind. She was an accomplished athlete,
writer, musician, and a well-rounded person.
Boots always found time for others.
She taught her children compassion and
love, and to accept others, regardless of
their faults. She also taught her children
the difference between right and wrong,
and that there are consequences for your
actions.
Boots reared five successful children.
Her children have become her voice since
it was silenced on March 5, 2006. The night
is fresh in the memory of those who loved
her. The night is a memory that will never
leave them. Those who loved her have suffered
greatly. They cope with her loss on a
daily basis. People say that time will heal;
perhaps, but they did not know Boots.
Boots was a terrific person, not yet ready to
leave this earth. Her death has shattered a
family; her family. Boots was the matriarch
of the family. She was the thread that
held their worlds together. Her loss is
something that is difficult to put into
words. How do you measure a life in just a
few words?
I read the one-sided, biased story in The
Californian and I was numb. The victim is
and has always been Dorothy Anne Walter
(Boots). She was killed while driving home
with her two beloved dogs by Danny
Espinoza, who was speeding at over 94
miles per hour. The man who killed Boots
injured himself that night. Now, his family
is seeking input from the court of public
opinion on how cruel her family has been
in pursuing justice. The family did not
charge Danny Espinoza. The state of California
charged him in the death of Dorothy
Anne Walter. We live in a country with
laws. When laws are broken, there are consequences.
With consequences comes
accountability, and Danny Espinoza should
be held accountable for the death of
Dorothy Anne Walter.
There are no winners from the night of
March 5, 2006. Dorothy Anne Walter was
killed, her family has been shattered, and a
man must now face the consequences for
his actions. I knew Dorothy Anne Walter
for 46 years because she was my mom.
— Nancy Walter-Frazier

Jenner: I’m sorry for your family’s loss,
and I’m sorry this case continues to drag
on without resolution. I know that makes
the tragic loss of your mother even more
painful.
We felt this case deserved coverage. You
and your family members certainly can
speak to this great loss better yourselves,
but because you wouldn’t talk to us, we had
to rely on court documents to present your
side.

Reader: One of my favorite things in the
morning is to see what pictures are going
to be on your photo page. I enjoy about 98
percent of them. But in the last year or so a
picture keeps coming up that makes me
physically ill. That is the picture of the
“brave and daring” matador killing the
“ferocious” bull! What a load of bull!
Before I get into this I do want to thank
you for the great articles on animal control,
animal abuse, death shelters that kill these
great animals day after day. Reporter
James Burger has been great in bringing
this to light.
And then you show this picture, (more
than one time), this killing of the bull, and
call it sport! This is cruelty and animal
abuse, and it is not a sport.
For one thing, the picadors half kill the
bull before the “brave matador” gets into
the ring. I see no sport in killing a halfdead
bull that is bleeding and weak from
blood loss.
I hate the picture of blood coming to my
breakfast table in glorious color, not once,
but a few times.
I have been taking the paper for more
than 30 years and I love the paper most of
the time (I said 98 percent of the time
already). Keep coming up with these great
articles on dogs, cats and horses being
killed or abused. We need to educate those
who think a dog or cat should be au natural.
But please, no more bullfighting pictures.
Thank you.
— Mrs. Terry Hogan

Jenner: I shared your comment with
Director of Photography Alex Horvath.
Here are his thoughts:
“The killing of an animal for sport can be
gruesome. In the past two years of the Day
in Pictures we’ve used maybe a half-dozen
bullfighting pictures. We’ve even run a picture
of a bull goring a bullfighter.
“I chose the photo you’re referring to for
the emotion and feeling in the man’s face
as he slayed the bull and to share with
readers that bullfighting (right or wrong)
does exist. We didn’t run it to glorify the
sport.
“If I offended you, I’m sorry, but if I
stirred any emotions or feelings and made
people think about this, I have done my
job.”