Reader: I guess I just don’t quite get it,
but it never occurred to me that any article
written by one of your column writers was
anything but his or her opinion, and not the
opinion of the newspaper. 
I just couldn’t believe when I saw it that
you actually had to put what amounts to a
disclaimer stating that the opinion is not
that of the newspaper, but of the writer.
You are essentially covering yourself
from any liability associated with that arti-
cle, but it is just so disturbing that you
have to go to that degree at all.
Your column writers are so very good
and mostly very humorous. I love them all
and look forward to their next column.
I also would never get the idea that they
were writing from the newspaper’s objec-
tive or stance, whatever that may be.  I
only wish you could cut the disclaimer out
—PLEASE!!  It is such a put down to the
writer’s freedom of expression, which
should be understood by all no matter how
ignorant the reader may be.
—LaVonne Hilario  

Jenner: Thanks for your comments.
The disclaimers have nothing to do with
trying to protect ourselves from liability.
We’re responsible for everything we pub-
lish, disclaimer or not — although the First
Amendment offers broad protections for
comment and criticism.
The disclaimers are simply to keep read-
ers from confusing the columnist’s position
from the newspaper’s editorial positions.
Our columnists at times take strong posi-
tions on local issues that differ from those
taken in our editorials, and we’re simply
trying to remind readers that our colum-
nists’ views are theirs, not the paper’s.
Like you, I wish we didn’t have to do it.
But I don’t see it as a putdown to the
columnist’s freedom of expression. We’ve
always supported their taking strong posi-
tions, and will continue to do so.

Reader: Regarding the photo with the
caption of Shauna and Pamela, saying
Pamela with her new wife, Shauna. “Wife”
in the dictionary is a woman married to a
man. And there hasn’t been one printed yet
that says otherwise.
I just wonder, does the paper know that
or not? If the paper does, it reeks of a sub-
tle indoctrination of accepting same-sex
marriage.
— John Caprarelli

Jenner: Not to burst your bubble, but I
found several dictionary definitions of a
“wife” as “a married woman” that made
absolutely no references to a man.
But that’s really beside the point. We’re
not trying to make a political statement.
And I’m willing to admit that the use of
“husband” and “wife” in such an instance
may not make sense, and we may be better
off simply using “spouse” or some other
term.
As for “accepting” same-sex marriages,
they are now legal here. Voters will have a
chance to change that legality in Novem-
ber’s general election, but as long as they
are legal, we’ll cover them as though they
exist.

Reader: I’m glad that some attention has
been brought to the plight of one of our
national refuges. Columnist Lois Henry
may not have a problem with aesthetics,
but I for one do.
If you drove into Yosemite and saw over-
grazed and manure covered lands, you’d
call it ugly and be very angry with the fed-
eral government for letting it happen. Our
national parks, refuges and other public
lands are just that, belonging to the public.
We expect the federal government to take
care of them, not let one or two private
individuals use them exclusively for their
own financial gain. Do you really think this
is the purpose of our protected lands, to
provide income for the very few?
The point that the Board of Supervisors
and Ms. Henry have missed is that Bitter
Creek National Wildlife Refuge is not a
ranch.
I read the environmental assessment
and the prescribed burns as described in
the document are much different than is
being touted by the board and Ms. Henry.
For those who have not read it and those
who claim to have read it; the purpose of
the document is how to best MANAGE the
refuge for the wildlife (not for those two
ranchers). Don’t be fooled, their problem
isn’t the burning, it’s that they want to use
the refuge like it was their own land not
ours. They don’t want ANY restrictions on
their grazing. The fire is being used to
scare people and it’s despicable.
—Denise Stockton

Jenner: Thanks for your comments.
Henry’s column took issue with the fact
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
reached its decision with no public input.
And Ithink she’s as concerned with aes-
thetics as she is with the way ranchers are
being treated. In this case, as in so many
others, beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.

Reader: On the front page of last Sun-
day’s paper I find my favorite example of
current grammatical ILliteracy in “To Our
Readers:”
“... the Mini Page will move from it’s old
home, ...”
A contraction is a shortened, often one-
word form, of more than one word, in this
case, “it is.”
You know you should have used “its,”
the possessive, sans apostrophe, as in “his”
or “hers” or “theirs.”  And when is the last
time you saw “hers” written as “her’s”?
Use of “it’s” where “its” should be is
endemic. We need to put “its”on the
endangered word list.
Mistakes like this push me ever closer to
the edge. When I go off it and wind up in
3B, I’m instructing KMC to send the bill to
the paper, because YOU will have put me
there.
Your friend,
—Liz Keogh,sergeant in the
Grammar Police Department

Jenner: Believe me, the abuse of the
apostrophe is as troubling to us as it is to
you in the Grammar P.D.
Ihate it when we make such mistakes.
Unfortunately, when we do, we do it in
front of more than a hundred thousand
readers.
We take the criticism to heart. We’ll
redouble our efforts to keep these errors
from creeping into print. Our expenses are
bad enough without taking on your hospital
bill.

Reader: Please put the Mini Page back
in the same format that it has always been
until last Sunday and back in the Comic
Pages. This is for children, it does NOT
belong inside the Sunday newspaper.
You have changed the fonts and the font
sizes are small and you really expect chil-
dren to be able to read it? Or adults either?
Thank you.
Regards,
—Alice Manalo

Reader: I don’t expect you are going to
go back and fix it, but it’s really too bad you
decided to change The Mini Page. It wasn’t
broken. It was good as it was.
For many years teachers have collected
the Mini pages, laminated them and saved
them for their classroom libraries. They
were used year after year. Experienced
teachers always told new teachers about
The Mini Page as a resource. I've been sav-
ing them over the summer for a new
teacher.
You might as well just delete it from the
newspaper now. The format of a child’s
own folded little paper is spoiled. The full-
sized page is too large for little hands to
handle.
The print is too small for children to eas-
ily read. The games are printed too small
to be used. 
I suppose the idea was to save space or
paper, but instead you ruined the whole
thing, what a shame.
— Leslie Gail Oblinger, retired teacher

Jenner: The costs of printing our comics
section had become prohibitive.
Moving the Mini Page out of the comics
and into the Sunday Eye Street section
made it possible for us to continue to pro-
vide this content, although we had to
change the shape and size.
Another alternative was to eliminate it
altogether.
I believe it still is of value to the children
who use it.

Reader: I attended the Founders’ Day
Celebration at Allensworth State Historic
Park on Saturday, August 2. It was one of a
series of events honoring the centennial of
that community’s beginning.
I became aware of the celebration upon
reading your article about it. I met a num-
ber of people from Taft and Bakersfield
who said they were there, also, because of
the fine piece which appeared July 30 on
The Californian’s front page.
I thank you for the excellent coverage,
complete with fine photography. It afford-
ed those who read it and attended a great
experience in learning about and support-
ing the efforts toward restoration of that
historic place.
There will be a final big celebration of
the Centennial in October, and I would
hope to see more coverage given prior that
occasion. Thanks for your good work.
Sincerely,   
—Dolly Hei

Jenner: Thanks for your kind note.
Reader: The Californianis to be congrat-
ulated on your “Tails of Bakersfield” fea-
ture. Because of your featuring pictures of
the adorable animals that have been res-
cued, I am sure adoptions have increased.
Keep up the good work!   
—Sandee Morris

Jenner: I’m glad you like the feature —
more adorable pets appear in today’s Eye
Street section.
For those unfamiliar with this feature,
we’re publishing pictures of pets submit-
ted by readers, along with a donation of
$10. Every penny goes to a local animal
shelter or rescue operation.
We’ve now raised more than $6,400 in
just a few weeks for this worthy cause, and
we plan to continue until we surpass the
$10,000 mark.
Turn to Page D4to see today’s photos
and learn more.

Reader: As I sit here reading Dianne
Hardisty’scolumn on the Fairfax detour, I
have only a couple questions: 1) How
would you master-plan the building of this
bridge? 2) Where would you designate
detours to your convenience? 3) What
about Rosedale Highway and the incon-
venience of daily traffic for the past 15 or
more years to people who also work down-
town? 
I have lived in East Bakersfield my
entire life. It’s about time that we have a
little inconvenience (18 months) to have
our roads restructured for decades. Too
bad you see this temporary inconvenience
as a burden.
Here’s an idea: leave for work a little
earlier and enjoy what you usually don’t
see, or plan for the next road improve-
ment.
Dianne, how about commending Jeff
Payne, Security Paving, Caltrans and those
who are inconveniencing you and work so
hard to do that with a “thank you” for the
many years ahead of better driving condi-
tions?
—Denise Woodin Earhart,
east Bakersfield resident (44 years)

Dianne Hardisty responds: Hey, I’m
with you. In fact, I said that in my column.
I was not complaining of an “inconven-
ience.” What I was noting in the column
was the need to knock down the dirt berms
that block the view in all directions, warn
traffic on Morning Drive that an intersec-
tion is ahead and slow the traffic on Morn-
ing Drive.
As someone who has endured the Fair-
fax and 178 signal light for as long as it has
been there (and no signal light before that)
I am anxiously awaiting the interchange.
The column was written only to draw
attention to a problem that needs fixing
now — while work is under way. And the
fixes I suggested have minimal costs.
Thanks for reading, neighbor.