Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to mail@austinchronicle.com. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    GOP, I don't know what to hope for most. On the one hand, I've been enjoying the spectacle of the long, slow train wreck of your party on the way to irrelevance for at least a generation. On the other hand, I think we might need you around to make sure we don't repeat your mistakes, overplaying our hand. While I love the idea of seeing the GOP switch anchors from Bush to Palin, Rush, et al., I fear that you will only be left with a party of petty contrarians who won't provide us with enough genuine competition to keep us sharp and focused.
    And enough with the socialism claims. It's empty rhetoric, a waste of time. You lost the culture war, so don't start another one. Flags, pornography, guns, gays, prayer, holidays, straight marriage, Hollywood movies, capitalism, liberals, etc., are still everywhere! Essentially, after eight years, you gained no ground, you're now working through a 99-yard penalty, and too many of you haven't figured out why.
    Try our method. Live and let live. We don't desire one party rule from here on out like you guys do. We don't want to end your lifestyle. We don't want to remake America over in our image because we think we are right. That's how you are. That's why you lost. If you choose Rush, you are doomed to repeat this straight into more failure. Any leaders on your side have enough balls to be their own man? I wouldn't bet the 60% of my 401(k) that's left after the Bush recession on it.

Dear Editor,
    If there is no conspiracy, why has Barack Obama flipped on telecom immunity [“Page Two,” Feb. 27]? Iraq pullout timetable? Why is he asking for even more money to continue the American empire? Why did he keep Robert Gates!? (Change?) Why did he tap a tax cheat to run the IRS? Why is he duplicating George Bush's banker bailout? Why is he not shutting down torture centers and rendition flights immediately?
    Because there is a conspiracy, and neither Bush nor Obama are calling the shots.

Dear Editor,
    Your article “Dumping the Water Pump” [News, Feb. 20] reported several arguments from Austin Water Utility about why Austin should build Water Treatment Plant No. 4. I feel that several statements defending this expensive plant were questionable.
    1) Austin needs more redundancy in the system so it can repair plants. There is a 10% safety margin in all forecasts. Also, if redundancy was such a big issue, why did the city retire Green Water Treatment Plant before WTP 4 construction has even started?
    2) WTP 4 cuts greenhouse gas emissions. No proof was cited for this assertion. Also, they should compare emissions savings from water efficiency programs, not just other treatment plants.
    3) WTP 4 creates jobs and could be eligible for federal economic stimulus money. Are these projects necessary and cost effective compared to alternatives? Wouldn’t water efficiency programs also provide jobs? And is WTP 4 eligible for this federal money?
    4) The costs for WTP 4 could go down next year because interest rates and construction costs are down. Yes, but so is the overall economy, and also the rate-payer’s ability to pay for such increases.
    While the story correctly states that eight environmental groups opposed the construction schedule, the only group discussed was the Save Our Springs Alliance.
    Other groups opposed include Austin Regional Group, Sierra Club; Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club; Clean Water Action; Don't Empty Lake Travis Association; Environment Texas; Hill Country Alliance; and National Wildlife Federation. The breadth of opposition to WTP 4’s premature construction would have been clearer if all these organizations had been cited in the text.

Dear Editor,
    Dr. Robert Duncan sent a recent letter attacking the proposed photovoltaic plant at Webberville [“Postmarks” online, Feb. 24]. He ought to get his facts straight or put them in context.
    First, readers should know that Robert Duncan (not to be confused with Roger Duncan, director of Austin Energy) has spoken at several public meetings advocating nuclear power. He may be Austin's most animated (perhaps only) pro-nuclear activist at this moment in the city's history.
    Duncan stated the photovoltaic plant will only produce 6 to 6.9 average megawatts of its 30 megawatt peak rating (20% to 23% capacity). You can make the same argument about a natural gas peaking plant, which has an even lower capacity factor. Since this PV plant uses single-axis tracking collectors, the plant will provide about 60% of its rated power to defer peak capacity. This is based on Austin Energy's "Value of Solar" study, completed in 2006.
    His statement that the PV will cause a rate increase should be put in context. People's bills will go up marginally. But people's bills will also go up because of the new gas plants Austin Energy plans to build in 2009 and 2013. These plants will cost an estimated $225 million upfront and about $76 million a year to own and operate.
    I did an analysis comparing a range of costs for fuel and operating hours. The lifetime average cost of the solar plant is in line with the cost of a new gas peaking plant. And solar is only slightly higher when you combine peak with intermediate power from these new plants. These costs do not consider environmental effects.
    Duncan is upset that the PVs are made in China, which does not add to U.S. employment. But the majority of the jobs created from the solar plant will be domestic. A 2008 analysis by Barclays Capital Research concluded 75% of jobs related to PVs were from installation; only 14% were from manufacturing.
    And he is correct that the PV plant will only cause a minor reduction in greenhouse emissions. But no one claimed otherwise. The city has been making incremental progress in clean energy for 27 years. About 16% of its electricity has been deferred with energy efficiency or is provided by renewables. I wish it were much more. But we need more increments, not less.

Dear Editor,
    In her recent letter to the editor (“Postmarks,” Feb. 27), Andreá Smith rightly points out that artists are undervalued by our communities and governmental entities and that more collaboration is needed within our local theatre scene. Yet she also insinuates that artists should be willing, for the sake of art, to make do without remuneration for their efforts.
    Certainly, no one goes into drama to make a ton of cash, and the vast majority of theatre artists have surrendered their dreams of turning stagecraft into a full-time profession. However, I would argue that actors, directors, and designers devalue their own work whenever they choose to forgo any semblance of payment. Why should the government give any money to the theatre when theatre artists have consistently shown that they are willing to work for less and less and less? We typically expect film crewmen and musicians to receive compensation – however slight – for their labor, so why are theatre artists treated differently? And if we completely remove payment from the equation, should we not refrain from calling work in the theatre a craft and henceforth refer to it as a hobby?
    In its recent cover story on the Austin theatre scene [“Rocketing Through Hard Times,” Arts, Feb. 20], the Chronicle documented three success stories. One has steadily produced solid theatre over a number of years, another crafts productions unlike anything else in town, and the last found success with two recognized works featuring small casts. The road to success has many avenues, and innovation is often the spark that lights the way. We should continue to celebrate theatre in its many forms. But we should also consider recompense to designers, cast, and crew as a segment of the cost of doing business – even when that business is art.

Dear Editor,
    The Lower Colorado River Authority has been selling Lake Travis water to the rice farmers downstream for a while. I think we should be more worried about the wet end of the cycle. Lake Buchanan is supposed to last a thousand years, but I don't believe the LCRA is buying the insurance to cover that eventuality – which would adversely effect Lake Travis, Downtown Austin, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, and the South Texas Project. The STP will be upwind and radioactive for more than 100,000 years.

Dear Editor,
    Now that President Obama's stimulus plan has been signed, the complaints are pouring in. On CNN this morning, I see that there were "tea parties" in many cities. The anchor reports that there were "dozens" of protesters in attendance. I joke about the number of people who attended these events, but I do realize that many are concerned about possible wasteful spending from the stimulus. What you have to realize is that the government is going to be in charge of this spending … so, yes, there will be wastes. However, you have to consider the difference between this stimulus package and what our government usually spends money on. $700 billion for Wall Street; we got nothing for that money.
    $600 billion for the war in Iraq (i.e., Halliburton, KBR); we got nothing for that money, either.
    So, if the government spends even half of the stimulus money on roads, schools, hospitals, and alternative power, then we will at least have something to show for our money.
    The one thing I am really concerned about is the money getting into the hands of the American workers. Obviously, the stimulus plan is twofold. One, we will update our infrastructure, and two, we will employ Americans with good jobs. So, we need to make sure that we don't end up with contractors preying on the masses of unemployed who would take a job making less than they should. In other words, if you have 200 people apply for a job running a road grader, then contractors may be tempted to say, "Hey, I can hire one of these people for $9 an hour.” I realize that the "socialism" scare folks will scream about it, but I'd like to see the government put a clause in that says, "Jobs funded by this stimulus money will pay workers the standard wages for that geographic area." So, if a master electrician makes $35 an hour in Fresno, Calif., then that is the pay for an electrician doing the stimulus work.

Dear Editor,
    Re: Conspiracy theories [“Page Two,” Feb. 27]. Here are just three of many reasons to believe the corporate/state is out to destroy the common people’s freedom and make us slaves. 1) Increasing presence of surveillance cameras and monitoring of communication. 2) Radio-frequency identification tags and other types of monitoring chips increasingly being used and encouraged in our money, pets, farm animals, and even in a subset of elderly people (so far). 3) The Blackwater corporation’s training and infiltration of police and military – with harsh measures against their “enemies,” whether protesters, “troublemakers,” or harmless citizens at the wrong place at the wrong time (like the Republican and Democratic conventions last year). The corporate media, when it deigns to mention such things, explains that these innovations are for benign and benevolent reasons – nothing for us to worry about. While admittedly some theories are far-fetched, these and other signs show that a dangerous power grab by somebody is being attempted in this country. I guess they are willing to let people talk about it while they are tightening the noose. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, “Something is going on, and you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Black?”

Dear Editor,
    That Pat Forgione interview was Chronicle style [“Bringing the Group to the Vision,” News, Feb. 27]: It never sought input from those who pay his salary, was pretty congratulatory, and ignored every statistic for Austin Independent School District schools. So, I see all Austinites qualify for the Pendejo Excelsus Award for allowing outsiders to manipulate arts and science away from Hispanics and African-Americans in favor of Caucasians, break up Johnston High with the same purpose, increase drug proliferation inside LBJ High School, obliterate our children's minds – and their eventual extermination by policy – as they get pushed toward criminality for survival. (Check out the upcoming 2010 census, please.) The Chronicle needs to send Richard Whittaker for a take on actual taxpayers living around East Austin schools to write on the misery he's left behind.

Dear Mr. Black,
    Thinking about what you have said and implied recently about citizenship and firearms ownership [“Page Two”], I find your comments lacking in depth and insight.
    It is certainly no less true now than it has ever been that an armed and free population is the only ultimate guarantor of its own freedom. By the same token, you and I are the only ones with final responsibility for our own safety and happiness (as in the pursuit thereof). I don't see how humankind's inclinations to commit violence and oppression have changed nor, unfortunately, that human institutions have become either more apt at reducing or less apt to reflect these propensities.
    But things are not absolutely grim. We are free people, and we can take responsibility. In fact, we are citizens of the only country in the world – the only one that has ever existed, so far as I know – valuing that responsibility so highly that it has vested its national sovereignty in its people (as opposed to its king or its parliament or what have you). That means that our government has no power that the people have not granted to it, and it has been granted no power that cannot be taken back. But one power, among others, that it can never have is the power to limit or infringe my responsibility for my own freedom, safety, and happiness and that of the people whom I love.
    When it comes to these fundamental rights and their relationship to firearms ownership and the constitutional protection thereof, I suspect that the Second Amendment might not even be the most powerful guarantee. I would look as well to due process, equal protection of the law, and other constitutional embodiments of those things without which "freedom" means nothing.
    This forum that you provide and your contributions to it are of great value.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “City Counseling: Best Laid Plans” [News, Feb. 27]: I thought this process was pretty public. I attended the show-and-tell and waited hours to hear the applicants make presentations exhibiting their approaches, strengths, and weaknesses. No group said it already knew what Austin wanted. And ACP Visioning+Planning seemed to have the best grasp on how to hold a very open, very public process to learn what Austin wanted before beginning the planning. ACP was my favorite firm of the evening, and I don't see a reason to stall the decision. It just sounds like a political ploy to me (from both sides), and I, for one, would like to see us get past all the campaign stalling and stop delaying some of these important decisions till "after the election." Our council has been notorious for unnecessarily shirking responsibility for making actual decisions. Will this be another failed process?

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Defense Appeal Targets Attorney Minton in WilCo Homicide” [News, Feb. 27]: The autopsy report on Terence McArdle does not show any sign of being kicked in the head as the state claimed, and the video does not show it. The neurosurgeon who treated McArdle had two tests done that both showed he died of an aneurysm or blood vessel malformation, but not blunt-force trauma to the head. The neurosurgeon even told that to the family, but they refused to accept it. Lastly, John Bradley was not running for re-election, he was running for his first term.

   [Editor's note: David Fisher is free to interpret the autopsy as he wishes, but as we reported previously ("Justice or Vengeance?" News, Nov. 4, 2005), at trial the neurosurgeon who had treated McArdle testified that he didn't die of aneurysm. As the story ("Defense Appeal Targets Attorney Minton in WilCo Homicide") pointed out, Threet's attorney argues that Minton should have called his own neurosurgeon and challenged the prosecution's assertions. Finally, Bradley was appointed D.A. by Gov. Perry in Dec. 2001; at the time of the Threet trial (July, 2002), Bradley was facing his first contested election to formally win the job that November (which he did).]

Dear Editor,
    In your Feb. 6 article “Nurses Workload Fight Just Begun” [News], Rep. Donna Howard hits the nail on the head when she calls on the National Nurses Organizing Committee union and its labor lobbyist to back up their claim that ratios work. The truth is, the claim is as misleading and untruthful as its supporting argument that California’s ratios drew 80,000 nurses back to work.
    Consider real facts. 1) Eighty thousand nurses represents the increase in total number of actively licensed registered nurses in California (including new graduates) – not those drawn back to nursing due to ratios. 2) From June 30, 1999, to Jan. 1, 2008, California had a 34.9% increase in actively licensed RNs; Texas had 36.3% – a greater increase without mandated ratios (Texas Health Professions Resource Center). 3) Work force of RNs not employed in nursing (U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration data) was lower in Texas than the national average: 13.7% in Texas, 16.8% nationally, and 17.3% in California. 4) Fifty-four is the average age of nurses not currently employed in nursing – 59% of the not employed are older than 55 or out of nursing more than 10 years. It’s unlikely ratios will lure them back. 5) The Texas Center for Nursing Workforce Studies data shows that 17,000 to 18,000 nurses younger than 60 are not employed in nursing and that Texas lacks 22,000 RNs and will lack 70,000 by 2020. If every RN younger than 60 not employed in nursing returned immediately to nursing, Texas would still lack 5,000 nurses and 50,000 in 2020.
    It’s a shame the NNOC labor union repeats misleading claims in order to promote its organizing agenda. Those unsubstantiated claims disrespect overworked Texas nurses and their patients who deserve assurance that a nurse will be available to provide care when it’s needed.