Reconciliation Commission releasedrnthe three men convicted for the murder.rnAccording to the judges who granted thernmen amnesty, “at that moment, to [thernkillers]. Amy Biehl was a representativernof the white community.”rnThe release of a child’s murderersrnmust be a bitter pill for any parent tornswallow. Yet Mr. and Mrs. Biehl havernmade quite a show of their willingness tornaccept the Commission’s decision. Inrnnewspaper interviews and public appearances,rnthe Biehls exhibit a steadfastrnrefusal to be mugged by reality. On thernday of the decision, the Los AngelesrnTimes reported: “The Biehls say theyrnunderstand the social forces that drovernthe young men to kill their daughter. . .rnthey never harbored anger against herrnkillers—only sadness at the apartheid systemrnthat drove them to murder.” SaidrnMr. Biehl, “Hate is also extremely selfish.rnAnd self-serving.” To which Mrs. Biehlrnadded, “and self-defeating.” At amnestyrnhearings in 1997, the Biehls hugged thernattackers’ family members, and shookrnhands with their daughter’s murderers.rnAny normal parent would be temptedrnto kill his daughter’s attackers with hisrnbare hands. Most would merely pick uprnthe pieces of their shattered lives, consolingrnthemselves with the hope that theirrndaughter’s tormentors are suffering inrnjail. The Biehls, who no doubt lovedrntheir daughter, have taken a differentrnroute to effectuate the “healing process,”rnas it’s called these days. They have spokenrnto the press, and gone on NationalrnPublic Radio to express their support forrnthe killers’ release. With the help of arn$500,000 grant from the U.S. Agency forrnInternational Development, they nowrnrun an anti-violence project in CapernTown.rn”We’re not angry, just empty,” saysrnMr. Biehl. Sadly, that’s so —in morernways than he realizes.rn— Gene HealyrnT H E TOBACCO BILL went up inrnsmoke in June, and as I write there’s norntelling whether it will resolidify, like Aladdin’srngenie, if Congress rubs the lamp.rnBut before we consign the fight to the ancientrnhistory file, it’s worth noting a fewrndetails.rnWith the McCain bill died an attemptrnto kill the tobacco price-support programrnthat has been so important to farmers inrnstates like Kentucky and North Carolina.rnIt was no surprise that the internationally-rnminded Senator Richard Lugar of Indianarnhad sponsored language thatrnwould have phased out the price-supportrnprogram in three years, with a buyout.rnMr. Lugar hates cigarettes, hates anyrnkind of farm price-support program, andrnbelieves that we should give away our taxrnmoney only to people who really need itrn(i.e., the Pakistanis).rnIt was astonishing, however, that at thern11th hour Lugar was joined as co-sponsorrnby his fellow Republican, KentuckyrnSenator Mitch McConnell. McConnellrnabandoned his previous support for fellowrnKentuckian Wendell Ford’s LEAFrnAct, which would have kept the programrnbut offered a 10-year buyout to thosernfarmers wanting it. At a vital point in therndebate, McConnell split the Kentuckyrndelegation on this issue for the first timernin memory. (Ford learned of Mc-rnConnell’s change of heart only at a jointrnLugar/McConnell press conference.)rnThe tobacco program should be palatablernfor everyone but the most entrenchedrnbig-business apologists or libertarians.rnIn its 68 years, it has used veryrnlittle federal money—all except some administrativerncosts are paid for by growers.rnIn Kentucky especially, it benefits mostlyrnsmall family farmers, bringing them anrnaverage of $6,000 in income a year. Thatrnmay not sound like much, but any ruralrnbanker will tell you it’s vital money tornKentucky’s small towns.rnThe program regulates how much arnfarmer can grow, but in return offers arnguaranteed market and sets a minimumrnprice per pound —averaging $1.65 torn$1.75 last year. This price has remainedrnfairly low for many years, but it’s considerablyrnhigher than the world marketrnprice, given the pennies farmers earn inrncompeting tobacco countries like Brazil.rnThe price is also high enough to makerntobacco the most profitable crop per acrernin this state. It has been vital to Kentuckyrnfarmers. Without it, or without a reasonablerntime of transition to find alternaterncrops, Kentucky will lose its family farmsrnand small towns at an even faster raternthan is happening already.rnThanks to the efforts of the LexingtonbasedrnBurley Co-op (the state growers association),rntobacco farmers have linedrnup support from unlikely allies. ThernAmerican Heart Association, the AmericanrnCancer Society, even tobacco abolitionistrnC. Everett Koop are on record asrnsupporting the program. They understandrnthat killing price supports will notrnstop the producfion of one cigarette, orrnkeep one smoker from lighting up. Itrnwill just give the tobacco companies arnwindfall in the millions (given cheaperrntobacco prices), and put an unguessablernnumber of farmers out of business.rnProven wrong—at least temporarily—rnby June’s vote, McConnell has spent partrnof his summer living down his predictionrnthat the program was dead. Never lackingrnin energy, he has not moderated hisrnrhetoric. He held several meetings withrntobacco growers around the state in midsummer,rnemphasizing the fact that whilernhe supported Lugar’s act, he votedrnagainst the McCain bill.rnBut certain breaches aren’t healing.rnCalled on the carpet (courteously, I wasrntold) at his Shelbyville meeting by JohnrnBerry, Jr., who was for a long time presidentrnof the Burley Co-op, McConnellrnlost his temper and threatened to havernthe Co-op investigated. Perhaps thatrnthreat will go up in smoke, too. Butrnfarmers ought to know it bodes ill forrnthem that McConnell has no wish tornmend fences with Kentucky’s growers association.rnWhat McConnell is banking on—besidesrnshort memories, since he is not uprnfor re-election till 2002 —is farmers’ fatigue.rnWith tobacco under assault for thernpast several years, with costs rising and laborrnharder and harder to find, withrnenough questions about the tobacco programrnto enable even a Kentucky senatorrnto support killing it, farmers are longingrnfor resolution even more than fairness.rnOne neighbor of mine divides his profitsrnin return for borrowing equipment,rnrather than buy his own, because herndoesn’t know if the program will continue.rnThat is probably typical. Plenty ofrnothers are at stages of their lives where arnbuyout (eight dollars a pound in bothrnFord’s and Lugar’s plans) would be welcome.rnBetter to be bought out than tornbottom out.rnThe problem is, what happens afterward?rnOlder farmers can retire, butrnyounger farmers, even if they use thernbuyout to pay off the farm mortgage, stillrnhave to find another cash crop. Andrnthere’s the next generation to thinkrnof Brothers Wendell and John Berry,rnJr., had reason to argue in a May 31rnLouisville Courier-journal piece thatrnwithout a good alternative crop, a buyoutrnonly means we are paying farmers to stoprnfarming.rnIf you think all the average Americanrnneeds to be happy is a service economyrnjob, maybe that doesn’t sound too bad.rn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn