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,
    With some regret, I note that The Austin Chronicle has endorsed my opponent over my candidacy for House Representative District 46 [“'Chronicle' Endorsements,” News, Oct. 15]. The reason appears to be that no third-party candidate can beat an incumbent ("the political status quo"). I merely state for this record that the love of money remains the root of evil.
    The concept of an honest politician seems as much an oxymoron as an honest used-car salesman. Nonetheless, we do exist. My candidacy is based on the tired old concept of a republican (not Republican) form of government. Some of us not new to civics or democracy might recall that this is the form of government that our various Constitutions espouse, one of representation. The evident government that we now have is an outcome of our pursuit of a "free market" form of government: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules.”
    We lost Victor Morales a few years ago. Let's hope that we don't lose myself and a handful of others, over a simple curse like greed. I invite you to support a candidate (www.electgeorgeemery.com) who says that government should serve the people, not the other way around! Thanks to the Chronicle and others for allowing me this forum.

Dear Chronicle,
    In your endorsements [“'Chronicle' Endorsements, News, Oct. 15], you write that to vote for Libertarians or Greens in this year's elections is "a decision that effectively endorses and sustains the political status quo." If there is any truth to that statement, it is at best shortsighted. In the short term, it may sustain the more popular of the two parties. But taking a longer-term view, the very essence of the status quo is the two-party system, and to move beyond that we must be willing to look past "tactical" factors and make voting decisions strictly on the merits of the candidates and their positions. Americans deserve to have a free marketplace of ideas in our politics; it's the only way we can expect the best ideas to be implemented. We can get rid of the two-party system by insisting that candidates win with a majority of votes – this can be accomplished through instant run-off voting. Both Democratic and Republican voters would benefit – though they may not realize it yet.
    As for endorsing the political status quo, it's impossible to see a third-party vote as such. I think it's safe to say that people who vote for third-party candidates see very little in the political status quo to endorse.
    Isn't it time for the Chronicle to take a stand against the two-party system? It is a big source of the stagnation and lack of accountability in American politics. By limiting your candidate choices to the two parties (making one exception for a race in which the Democrats did not field a candidate), you are the ones endorsing and sustaining the status quo.

Dear Editor,
    I admire Louis Black’s willingness to protect constitutional freedom of speech, allowing me to constantly counter him publicly in the Chronicle. I’m awed. Ironically, and unknown to Louis, objective conservatism reciprocates by protecting him, everyone, and freedom of speech. Conservatism vigorously protects liberty. Foremost, it rids the civilized world of tyranny and exposes its credulous suicidal utopian leftist groupthink enablers.
    I digress, but only slightly. Black sets himself up again in his Oct. 15 “Page Two.” He’s so obsessed with hatred of conservatism, i.e., “Yet these outspoken fear mongers continue to champion racial hatred, religious intolerance, condemning those with different ideologies, and American exceptionalism (with its implicit endorsement by the almighty of this nation over all others),” he’s willfully blinded to objective truth. His quote is untrue, distorted, and hypocritical.
    Moreover, Black's credulity furnishes more self-delusion believing that Islamist theocratic despots striving to construct a symbol of victory over America at Ground Zero is morally and constitutionally sacrosanct. These exist to murder and enslave! Black's naïveté is pure leftist pathology, conflated narcissism and nihilism.
    Though Black is unwilling to identify his targets, he’s obviously aiming at conservatives. Indeed, his tactical diversionary premise that distasteful positions must be defended at all costs as free speech is clearly cover to hide his real agenda of maligning conservatism – sooo transparently played.
    There are existential threats to liberty, America, and civilization. Undeniably, secular and Islamist theocratic megalomaniacs strive to devour us. And all this is in addition to the other culturally lethal box canyon that Barack Obama and his morally and intellectually vapid leftist brethren have led us into – economic dystopia. Democratic Party leftism must go, beginning in the November elections. It’s the most consequential since the Civil War. Leftism must be forever branded as fatally destructive. OK Black, your move!

   [Louis Black responds: I'm sure I'm even more guilty than Vance so labels me. But personally, I think there is something sad about being so hysterical as to insist one's opinions are not just accurate but represent objective truth. Certainly in matters of science, math, history, and the like there are plenty of grounds to debate whether there is objective truth, and if so then exactly what it is. But to assert that one's personal ideology and political opinions are objective truth and not simply well-informed, well-thought-through, carefully reasoned opinions that are more often than not borne out by past history and current events (not that I personally believe McDonald's opinions can be even distantly refined in those ways) is impressive, but in all the wrong ways. The very nature of the best-formed personal opinions is that they are reasoned reactions and suppositions based on careful consideration of human history, methodical study, and broad-based general knowledge. There can be hard-to-debate, fully formed and informed opinions whether or not you share the same views. But one enters the land of unimaginable insecurities and almost acknowledged lunacy when arguing that one's opinions represent the truth. The extreme fragility of this baggage is only further emphasized when one claims not to know and speak just the truth but to actually insist that it is the "objective" truth. Is there subjective truth? It is not just the level of self-delusion and personal aggrandizement inherent in claiming one's opinions as being "objective" truth but that such a position is antithetical to a constitutional democracy or republic. The very claim of knowing and owning the truth allows for fascism but contradicts any notion of an equitable society with universal enfranchisement. The opinion may be "right," it might even be a statement of "objective truth," but regardless, it is incompatible with a society where all citizens are equally empowered.]

Dear Editor,
    On October 12, seven days after my birthday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips, ruling in a lawsuit brought by conservative gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans, declared Don't Ask, Don't Tell a defunct discriminatory policy, and ordered all branches of the United States military to immediately desist from discharging servicemen and -women on the basis of their sexual preferences, everywhere in the whole wide world.
    Assuming related legislation passes in the Senate: Two years hence, just in time for the end of the world – not a moment too soon for the worshippers of an angry God – public opinion will have almost universally shifted to welcome and encourage gay marriage.
    Ferocious gay battalions will have, for the first time in history, overwhelmed the entire nation of Afghanistan while simultaneously revolutionizing Afghan fashion and cuisine.
    The Goddess (as it turns out) will thus waive the destruction of Earth.
    A seven-star lesbian general will ultimately usher in a millennium of world without war, in part by organizing international weekly pot-luck dinners, presided over by hosts with charm-school manners, razor-sharp wit, and tame and tasteful debauchery.
    Judge Phillips’ ruling is as inspiring and significant to a small but important segment of society as was the successful rescue of 33 Chilean miners within the same news week to society at large.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “SBOE Candidates Get 'A' for Attendance” [News, Oct. 15]: Lee Nichols' reporting answered one question I've had for a while, namely, why would evangelical Republican ideologues go to such trouble to get elected to, and exercise such control over, the State Board of Education when they could homeschool their kids if they want them misinformed? Answer: the $22 billion Permanent School Fund, management of which should be "jealously guarded" by the SBOE according to Republican candidate Marsha Farney – so much for smaller government. Thankfully Rick "sad excuse for a Democrat" Agosto and Cynthia Dunbar are not running again and Don McLeroy lost his primary, so there may be a chance to return some sanity to the board.

Dear Editor,
    One of the more entertaining sections of The Austin Chronicle is the letters to the editor. I'm always pleased to read the letters from those disgruntled with Austin for whatever reason, who post one final blast as they leave the city.
    The most recent dissatisfied visitor was Juliette Cowdin, who snubbed Austin's art scene in her letter dated Oct. 14 ["Postmarks"]. She said, "no thanks … to this vapid art scene here. Back to NYC next month.” I have no idea if her comments were justified, but I do know artists can thrive in Austin because it's affordable (especially when compared with Manhattan) and boasts a high percentage of creative types – many who you would not expect.
    I can't imagine why one feels the need to condemn a whole city and then write a scathing letter to the editor to justify why they're leaving it. I find that happy people get along well in most places and that malcontents are malcontented in most places. And I guess that, by nature, those malcontents are compelled to express grievances.
    You can count this letter as one of the inevitable replies to the malcontents. You know, the one that rebuts, "Don’t let the door hit you on your way out."

Dear Editor,
    California is voting next month to decide if it should legalize marijuana for personal possession in quantities up to an ounce. People around the country, and indeed around the world, are hoping and praying that America will end the war on the safest and most popular drug known. Americans have been lied to for over a century by their government and the corporations that control it. Our government is forcing other countries to keep marijuana illegal so their lie of “if you are busted over there you are in for the hassle of your life” will seem true. In truth, it's America that that is said about in other countries. This has not stopped marijuana from becoming one of the most popular drugs in every state. Mexico, which is under the iron control of the U.S., is hoping legalization will start here so they can end the American war on marijuana there.
    These laws are turning millions of our citizens into criminals that are otherwise our best and most honest people. Alcohol is a narcotic, not marijuana. As I was told by the police in Amsterdam, alcohol causes problems, not the marijuana!