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,
    We were disheartened and outraged to learn of the recent acts of vandalism at three Austin-area mosques: Nueces Mosque, the Islamic Ahlul Bayt Association, and the Turkish Diyanet Center. As pastors serving West Campus faith communities, we condemn these acts of hatred and intimidation and call upon all people to be peacemakers and contribute to the common good of the Austin community.
    Our faith traditions call us to love our neighbors, protect the vulnerable, and honor the dignity of every person. When a house of worship is vandalized, it wounds the whole community. No one should fear for their safety while gathering in prayer. No family should have to explain to their children why their sacred space was defaced. An injury to one is an injury to all.
    Austin is a city where those of all and no faith are respected, where diversity is celebrated, and where people of goodwill stand with one another – not just when it’s convenient, but when it’s necessary.
    We renew our commitment to fostering relationships rooted in mutual respect and compassion, and we will not remain silent in the face of hate. May we all work together – with courage and care – to nurture a community where every person and every place of worship is honored and protected.

Dear Editor,
    Thank you, Brant Bingamon, for your well-researched and highly informative article on testing in Texas schools ["Educators Hate It, So Why Is Texas Keeping the STAAR Test Alive?" News, May 23]. It should be required reading for every voting taxpayer, not just in AISD, but the entire state. Kudos also to the artist who did the excellent graphics. This is one Chronicle that will not end up in the recycle bin.

Dear Editor,
    This article is heartbreaking ["Solitary at 11, Dead at 16: One Kid’s Path to Adult Prison," News, May 23]. I used to work in adult corrections in California. Five years working in female and male prisons as a psychologist and 11 years as a service chief (clinic supervisor) for an in-jail mental health clinic.
    When I worked for the prison system, there was very little funding for mental health, and we either had not enough psychiatrists or none. During the 11 years that I was in charge of the mental health clinic, we were well-staffed, and there were no suicides. We did in-service training for the correctional staff on suicide prevention.
    The tragedy and reality for government institutions is that staff are supposed to do a good job, no matter how understaffed they are. Currently, governments across the U.S. are operating over budget, which doesn't bode well for improvement.
    The article is about transferring youth into an adult facility. I visited a juvenile facility in California many years ago. I was struck by the fact that many of the youth looked like men. They were tall and muscular. Later, I found out that they were a danger to the staff at the facility.
    If the adult facility gets enough of the youth, they can segregate them from the adult population.
    The article didn't mention anything about school. In California correctional facilities, teachers come to teach the kids.
    You can't put people on a shelf for several years and expect good outcomes.

Dear Editor,
    I should start by disclosing that, as a rideshare driver, my opinion is biased. For the last few years we have endured the onslaught of autonomous rideshare (ARSe) vehicles around the city and especially Downtown. Almost all my riders tell me stories about them making stupid and often dangerous mistakes, and driving all day I see it too. In the past few years I have given over 15,000 rides in the Austin area; believe me, I’ve seen it! Cars stopping suddenly in the lane for apparently no reason, making improper turns, not recognizing construction zones (good thing we don’t have many of those!).
    One of my passengers told me that when she got out, the car took off with her suitcase! When she called Uber support, she was told they couldn’t turn the car around and that she would have to wait for the car to come in for a charging. It took her three days to get her bag back. And I think everyone has at least heard about the viral video of the man stuck in an ARSe in L.A. while it made circles in the parking lot for 30 minutes. If you haven’t, you should… it’s hilarious in the most dystopian way.
    There’s no way you’re actually paying the true cost of the ride. WAYMO uses $80K Jaguar SUVs with about a half-million dollars of LIDAR, cameras, computers, along with all the engineering, manufacturing and software design and maintenance; there’s no way that’s cheaper than a human. Right now there are over 8 million Americans who either make their living driving rideshare full-time or supplement their income driving part-time. When the ARSes take over, all that money will go to billionaire oligarchs so they can be even richer and the rest of us…?
    I get the attraction: It’s the “new thing”; the future is here! But consider how bad traffic is already Downtown and now add 200-300 cars with no one in them, going in circles trying to figure out Austin’s roads. ARSes benefit only the investor looking to get rich putting people out of work and when they do, it won’t be a $80K Jag that picks you up, it will be the modern equivalent of a Yugo with a 42” screen blaring commercials in your face. Ah, it’s a Brave New World!

Dear Editor,
    I'm writing in response to Richard Whittaker's story “'Economic Censorship': The Devastation of the NEA Grants Cut Grows," [Daily Arts, May 7].
    It's a simple question: Is The Austin Chronicle intentionally reporting only one side of the story, or was it an oversight? I'm sincerely curious to know the answer.
    There's been a long-held critique of government arts funding that it's a largely top-down affair, funded by ordinary taxpayers to benefit elites and those artists whose works aren't popular enough to pay their own freight.
    There's also the minor fact that the national debt is now about $35 trillion, doubling in nominal terms in the last 10 years. This amid an economic backdrop that even this morning, CNBC is citing the national deficit as a factor driving up bond rates.
    Yet this piece about government arts funding reads as if all agree on a simplistic, linear model that says more government arts funding is always better – and less is always worse – regardless of whatever the levels are at any point in time. It treats government arts funding the way a child would think about more ice cream. You don't even ask the fundamental questions of who are the people picking which arts have gotten the most free cash? What are their criteria? Did they do a good job last year of picking worthy projects, or did they fund projects no one bothered to see? Did they fund their friends' work? What level of funding would be too much?
    In other words, even if someone thoroughly agreed with the government arts funding paradigm, are there effective accountability mechanisms to monitor if or when the money is wasted? Wouldn't that be important? But does anyone even ever ask that question? Has this publication?
    To be clear, I'm not even suggesting a tone purely critical of arts funding (although that could be justified at this point as balance), but simply that you include that these criticisms exist alongside the unmitigated, gushing praise of arts funding or hand-wringing about its proposed decrease. Offering both sides on a topic respects your readers to decide for themselves.
    Whereas not doing so is exactly what's eroding trust in mainstream journalists, and it furthers their reputation as purveyors of propagandistic group think narrative spinning, with little interest in the good-faith telling of both sides.