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.

To the editors,
   Apparently, many supporters of the smoking ban have confused clubs and bars with health clubs. They are not, and never have been for those who wish a pure, healthy lifestyle. Traditionally, they have been there to provide a space for adults to indulge in perfectly legal adult vices. Drinking and smoking are at the core of what bars and even clubs are about (entertainment was offered to get people to come smoke and drink at your place rather than the competition). Now, the new puritans come along and in the name of "health" want to close these venues to smokers so they can dominate without the nastiness of smoking. They claim that only smokers are selfish because their smoke affects others. Well, I say those who do not believe adults should have anywhere to indulge in legal vices are the new lifestyle fascists. Either support a compromise whereby everyone has places to go (for example, by offering limited amounts of "smoking licenses") or else, if you healthy types can't abide occasional smoke, then if you want music in a healthy environment go put on a show or have a sock-hop at your health club! By the way, have any of you selfish puritans noticed how much car exhaust we have in town? If you want a cleaner, purer, healthier world, do something about that and you'll go a lot further in sanitizing Austin to meet your lifestyle needs.
   P.S. And by the way, doesn't it occur to the puritans that the reason club owners oppose a ban is because they know that the hardcore supporters who spend heavily are not the one- or two-drink, nonsmoking yuppies and club tourists, but rather are the nasty party animals who are generally smokers?

To Louis Black:
   Please forgive my late response to your editorial ["Page Two"] of Nov. 14.
   Frankly, I think you are overreacting. The only way Austin could cease to exist would be if someone put Zoloft in the water supply, and that wouldn't get the people who drink bottled water. You need to review how the court deals with Christian protesters. Leave an open mic so the kids can pray in public, the Supreme Court slaps them down. Trot out the Ten Commandments, you're thrown off the bench. Protest abortion clinics, face the RICO laws. Planned Parenthood will get their building, and if Danze isn't careful, he'll get it, too. The courts, like any petty dictator, don't put up with people who disobey them. Choice is the law, and it will stay the law. I would be more concerned about your consistently negative outlook. Why be down? Your side is winning! Slowly but surely, each point on the "liberal agenda" is being adopted against the right's will and (sometimes with their) judicial appointments. The truth of the matter is that there aren't "liberals" and "conservatives" in America but early and late adopters. In time, all of the "liberal agenda" will be accepted as law, and everybody will think in their philosophical terms. Many conservatives and many Christians already do. Actually, that may be what's depressing you. Deep down inside you may realize what the results are going to be, but this response is too long as it is.

Editor, Austin Chronicle
   "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." – Theodosius Dobzhansky
   
   "A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence."
   – Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution
   
   On Nov. 7, the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt a series of biology textbooks for the next seven years. One textbook used in public schools is Inquiry Into Life by Sylvia Mader. On p.529 (eighth edition) are diagrams of giraffes that compare Lamarck's theory and Darwin's theory. According to Darwin, "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths. Natural selection due to competition led to survival of the longer-necked giraffes and their offspring. Eventually, only long-necked giraffes survived the competition."
   Shouldn't students be taught to distinguish between fact and speculation? No fossil evidence has ever been unearthed showing giraffes with shorter necks. Even evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould had commented on the "entirely speculative" use of the giraffe to show students how Darwin's theory is better than Lamarck's. "No data from giraffes then existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now," said Gould (Natural History, May 1996).
   Critical thinkers should ask: "Why are these diagrams included in Mader's book, if the empirical evidence doesn't support a Darwinian or Lamarckian view of giraffes? Is this good science?" The following suggested policy, which appears at (www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-282.htm) is a way for boards to achieve a win-win regarding how evolution is taught:
   "As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the (province/state) science curriculum: Whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports – and questions – evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet."
   It would be interesting to take nationwide polls of high school and college students studying evolution, asking two questions:
   In this class, is evolution taught as fact or theory?
   Do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution?

To whom it may concern:
   Where oh where did Red Meat go? It was the first thing I looked for in the Chronicle. It has the biting sarcasm that Austinites know and love. I pray that it is on a short hiatus and will return soon.

Are we really at risk of terrorist attacks or is this just an excuse to pillage our civil rights, environmental laws, and make rich oil men even richer? If there really is a threat of evil "bad guys" to destroy our nation, then why aren't the five "fishing" cops ["Knee Won't Let Fishing Cops Off the Hook," Nov. 14] being brought up on charges of treason?
   What punishment is a one- to 30-day suspension? After a year's worth of dereliction of duty? Those officers were paid by my tax dollars to protect my friends and family from sinister agents of terror – for which millions of dollars have been diverted to fighting – and these guys make a complete farce of it – they're thumbing their noses at the president of the United States! And furthermore, if there is indeed a threat, they placed the life of every person in Austin at jeopardy.
   What if some al Qaeda operative had managed to sneak in the power plant while these cops were filleting their flounders? What if an Iraqi truck armed with nuclear explosives drove in while these officers were flogging their fish poles? If half of Austin had died, would they still be suspended for a fortnight and retire with full pensions?
   For if our otherwise hawkeyed police force sincerely believe we are at risk by agents of mass destruction, then why is this being played out like a joke? And if there is no threat – which we must surely question by the APD's response to the egregious acts by their officers – might the police chief tell us we have nothing to fear? And need we also doubt he would have the integrity to let us divert then the extra money being used to buy high tech toys to spy on us for important things like education and taking care of the poor, homeless, and elderly?

Matt Dentler's review of Snakes in My Veins ["Texas Platters," Nov. 14] is pitiful. He opts for the safe route – neither a rave nor a slam – strictly middle of the road. Along with the helpful revelation that the Crack Pipes have a classic album in them – maybe it's Pet Sounds – please let it out!
   I wish the writer could have mentioned Billy Steve Korpi's stellar playing – another great guitarist coming out from his brother Mark's long shadow. Or Nick Moulos' bass playing – he's in a number of talented groups around town.
   The album makes me want to be in a band; go experience the chaotic, run-right-at-the-edge attack that is the Crack Pipes. It doesn't always work, but I like it more than risk-free, boring "tight" bands. Hopefully Matt Dentler can move up the food chain, leaving behind the ghetto that is reviewing local bands and review important records, like the OutKast or the Elliott Smith box set which will come out any day now.

George Bush goes to England. Oops! What was he thinking? Like fine French wines, he does not travel well. After the George Michael video depicting Blair as submissive to Bush in an S&M parody became so popular, and after transforming that parody into fact with sexed-up dossiers, distorted intelligence, and the deaths of both British and American soldiers as the two marched in political lockstep, one might think that the puppeteers at the White House might have suspected it would be a bad idea to send Bush to Britain to rub the public's nose in it. No! The political masters at the White House saw right through the obvious and undeniable negatives to the obscure and indiscernible pluses the excursion would produce.
   First there was ... no, no, actually that turned out rather badly.
   Second was the glorious ... no, uh, that was actually embarrassing.
   Well you can't deny the great TV we got from his visit to ... oh, all right! So he didn't look good – at least he didn't puke on his host like Daddy.
   Overall, you have to admit the trip was a huge success ... er, benefit ... er, uh, useful ... OK, a @%#@#% disaster.
   Don't worry, George. Your base won't notice. They're too stupid to see the obvious and undeniable. That you're an idiot. A dangerously powerful idiot.

Mike Clark-Madison writes that the City Council's effort to protect local businesses and local identity at the city-owned airport is "merely symbolic" and "smacks of downright dishonesty" ["Austin@Large," Nov. 14].
   Local businesses know this policy isn't symbolic. They are beating down our doors for the opportunity to do business at the airport. There is a simple reason why: Local companies are making good money inside the airport, even when they simply license their name and products.
   Airport concession leases in Austin are held by a mixture of local owners and national operators. The national operators pay a license fee to and share profits with the businesses whose products they sell and names they use. The question, then, is who gets those license dollars and exposure – national chains or local businesses?
   Without a local business policy, the airport's national operators will choose national chains. Why? Because opening a national chain like McDonald's is guaranteed money, while running a local business like Waterloo (which the national operator has probably never heard of in its corporate board rooms) is a gamble.
   Austinites also hold numerous concession leases. One of these leases is the site of the proposed Starbucks.
   Under the proposal before council, the Austin residents who hold the current lease will sell this lease to Houston concession broker Charles Bush. Bush's company would not operate the Starbucks – Starbucks would operate the site and pay Bush a cut. One hundred percent of the money under this arrangement would flow out of Austin to the national operator in Houston and the national chain from Seattle. That would be a significant departure from existing airport policy.
   In the last week, a canard has emerged that the local-only policy hurts minority-owned businesses. Austin's airport currently has approximately 40% minority business participation in the concession leases, a significant achievement that exceeds even the airport's ambitious goals. The current policy, therefore, works. It promotes opportunity not only for local businesses, but for minority-owned businesses as well.
   Concessions at Austin Bergstrom Airport are valuable and profitable. Without the local policy, local businesses would never have a chance to get in the airport. The City Council's oft-repeated policy of going local ensures that when lucrative license rights are awarded, these lucrative license rights go to local businesses rather than wealthy national chains. That isn't dishonest or symbolic. It's what makes Austin different (and better) than other cities.

Chronicle,
   I am flat-on-my-back shocked at the raging immaturities flourishing in the halls of federal government, with rapidly decreasing concern for the common man. The constant wrangling for party dominance is eroding our political system to the point where it is quickly becoming unrecognizable when squared to the Constitution.
   Honest thinking, for those precious few who have this capacity, is the only exit off the road traveled by many a fallen empire. It seems that all we learn from history is how to repeat it; fueled by the insistent promotion of empty ideologies which find little to no expression in everyday living.
   I pray that we as a country and as individuals are able to change our ways or else we will end up where we're headed.

Editor,
   While I appreciate the Chronicle's coverage of the efforts of ordinary citizens to bring midwives back into Austin hospitals ["Will Women Have a Voice at the New Women's Hospital?" Nov. 14], I would like to clarify two points.
   1) The majority of the City Council Healthcare Subcommittee has voiced a strong desire to bring nurse midwives into the new Austin Women's Hospital, and has urged city staff to make it a priority in its negotiations with UTMB. Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman and council members Raul Alvarez and Danny Thomas have been outspoken in their commitment to giving women this choice.
   2) The city staff claims that "a hospital cannot direct doctor to have a relationship with a midwife." I disagree. UTMB is no ordinary hospital, since it employs physicians. UTMB "could provide faculty to supervise midwives," according to a Sept. 27 Statesman article, quoting UTMB's chairman of obstetrics and gynecology. Furthermore, nurse midwives do not need supervision. The American College of Nurse Midwives and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend collaboration between midwives and OBs – not supervision.
   Nurse midwives attend the majority of births in countries that have better birth outcomes than the U.S., which ranks 27th in infant mortality and 15th in maternal mortality. With such a poor showing, it is hard to believe that the U.S. spends more money on health care (per capita) than any other country in the world – with maternity care as the fourth-largest expenditure. Midwives are key to affordable and effective maternity care in universal health care systems in England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Chile, and Thailand.
   The American Public Health Association supports "increased access to midwifery services" and so does Texans for Midwifery-Austin. We want the right to choose the care that we believe is best for us and our babies.

Editor:
   If the same task force appointed for the big-box retail social and economic effects study ["Another Win for Wal-Mart," Nov. 14] consists of the same members of the smoking ordinance task force, we can soon expect to see a floating Super Wal-Mart on Town Lake, a Lowe's and Home Depot sandwiching the State Capitol building, and a Costco where Barton Springs Pool used to be. But small-business owners need not worry. They will still be allowed to open their doors the first Monday of each month!

There is a serious federal budget deficit, our military is stretched thin, the public is wary about its security; so what does UT ask for and the FAA and Air Force approve – four F-16 jet fighters flying at extremely low altitude, at night, over a football stadium located in the middle of a densely populated community. I would be grateful if the Chronicle would let us know who came up with and signed off on this witless stunt. The final irony: I read the university claims the flyover was a tribute to Veterans Day. This, from an outfit which changed the name of the stadium from Memorial Stadium to Royal-Memorial Stadium. They don't give a damn about veterans; the whole thing was nothing but a whiz-bang crowd-pleaser at the expense of the government, the pilots' safety, and, of course, lastly – members of the community outside the stadium, who were scared senseless.

I am hopeful that Ronnie Earle looks at the incredibly illegal activities of the misguided moron Danze ["Planned Parenthood Says Its Future Is Set in Stone," Nov. 14] and immediately prosecutes him under the RICO laws. I do not protest Mr. Danze's right to free speech, I encourage it ... but systematically running roughshod over everyone else's rights is quite wrong and illegal. I am hopeful that Mr. Danze produces a list of his fellow terrorists so that they, too, are prosecuted. I am for free speech, equal rights, and the preservation of life, too. Perhaps Mr. Danze, if he wants to save babies, would be better directed – by God, of course, and Christ, the Prince of Peace – to bellow and wail and gnash his teeth over the indiscriminate slaughter of babies in war zones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other real-world hotspots ... or do those people not matter to Mr. Danze because they have a different shade of skin and are lesser human beings, as they are infidels? Talk about misplaced priorities ... you, Mr. Danze, are no man of God. You are a terrorist, along the lines of Paul Hill and Eric Rudolf, quite deserving of a jail cell and worse.

Los Editoriales,
   Por favor: Bring back "Flapjack Canyon"!

It's so routine to see the government media complex clogging the airwaves with meaningless distractions, or they zero in on one story and harp. A recent example was the California forest fires, where for at least a week all the public got to see on the tube was the fires. Probably just a coincidence of course, was the fact that during this time the Bush regime was being served with subpoenas for information regarding the 9-11 incident. The predominant media complex lapdogs such as Faux News, Communist News Network, etc. are doing their dirty deeds as usual. Then, in the alleged newspaper department, we have the unAmerican-Statesman, staffed with a few subversives and lots of liberals, such as the character who penned the story last week about ranch rescue, how evil they are for actually trying to control private property, uphold the law for a regime that won't, or assist others in that endeavor. It's truly amazing that the public continues to buy off on these propaganda rag newspapers. Can't we get a news channel that's not a corporate whore or a local paper that covers real news and not just party-line propaganda and other agendas? Surely Texans deserve better, or at least those who can see what is shoveled at them.

Mr. Savlov's comparison of the battle scenes in Master and Commander to those in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is interesting [Film Reviews, Nov. 14]. I realized when Star Trek II first came out that the director had set up the space battles to resemble those of the sailing era. Whereas logic seems to indicate that space battles when they inevitable occur should be slow, long-distance, and probably remote-controlled, in Star Trek II they involved maneuver, deception, and getting in really close before firing all weapons.

After September 11, I had a momentary lapse of judgment as I actually thought and believed that President Bush would take the initiative to do something productive and put aside his partisanship and bridge the gaps domestically and internationally. Unfortunately, he achieved neither and has divided this nation with his arrogance and puerile approach to diplomacy. He continues to astound me with his failure to grasp the complexity of cultural and international issues. Not only has the United States become the laughingstock, but it has lost complete credibility worldwide. It is obvious that he has a limited comprehension of complex global issues. He has insulted and dismissed nations without just cause or rational explanation. He continues to blame his failed foreign policies on third parties, and his arrogance is nothing more than a reflection of his insecurities and lack of competence. His administration is shrouded in secrecy, and yet he has the audacity to advise sovereign nations about democracy. Anyone with the slightest intelligence could have envisioned and/or anticipated the results of his actions. His advisers failed him on all fronts and should not be forgiven. We still cannot account for or explain where the weapons of mass destruction are, yet it was the very impetus for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If only he had the strength of character to admit failure. Unfortunately, so many young Americans are dying in the name of democracy (code word "oil"). Perhaps it's time to confront the fiscal crises back home and historical unemployment rates. It is evident that he is incapable of handling intricate and sensitive issues because he has undermined global goodwill and damaged international relationships. It is one thing to stand behind our president during a time of crisis but another to be complacent and ignore the reality of his actions. Terrorism will continue to exist as long as those in charge don't consider their options. Unfortunately, it appears that he has taken a direct quote from Islam, "an eye for an eye," which has become representative of this administration.
   Extremism in any form is dangerous.

Here is a link to Planned Parenthood's mission statement, in case you wonder what kinds of services they provide to the community: www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/mission.html
   As you can see, the emotionally loaded, vulgar accusation by critics that Planned Parenthood is an "abortion chamber" ["Planned Parenthood Says Its Future Is Set in Stone," Nov. 14] couldn't be further from the truth. They provide knowledge, choice, and many positive services to the community.
   Those of us who respect reason and the rule of law rather than blather from religious zealots must respond to this in a clear, unified, unambiguous way. Contractors need to see that the threats of boycotts are coming from a shrill minority, and that most of the community supports them working on the facility.
   Please read the following online petition (www.PetitionOnline.com/ppcentx/petition.html) and consider signing it. It takes no time and is free. Results will be delivered to Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region, and perhaps even some contractor associations, to show that the vast majority of citizens reject religious bigotry and will not bow to intimidation from religious fanatics.

Mr. Black,
   What does it mean to be progressive? From all of the Web sites and other information I have come across, it appears to me that it is nothing more than a loose confederation of anti-Bush folks who are still disgruntled about the 2000 elections. I have no political leanings (at least none that I am aware of), but I would like to be better informed as to what being progressive is. Does the Chronicle follow a progressive agenda? If so, why doesn't it attack Democrats and Libertarians with the same amount of fervor it displays against Republicans? Are progressives just Democrats gone a little more left? Any clarification of what progressive means (and not some lame Sixties mantra) would be appreciated greatly.

   [Ed. response: Most political terms from "liberal"/"left" to "conservative"/"right" have lost a lot of their more specific meanings. It's hard to imagine a traditional "conservative" supporting the Bush administration's economic policies, but many do. Progressive usually indicates a commitment to social responsibility including government funding for areas such as the social safety net, health, and education. Progressives are adamant free speech supporters, usually pro-choice, in favor of voting rights and social/political inclusion regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual preference. Again, the meaning of terms has changed so much that stands on issues aren't the signposts they once were. However, progressives may be anti-Bush, but that is a consequence of their beliefs, not a determiner. The Chronicle is an equal opportunity "attacker" taking on Democrats, Greens, and Libertarians among many others. Why we don't attack some groups with the fervor we attack Republicans currently is because not only are the Republicans in power in the federal and state government, but they've reverted to a vicious partisanship, aggressively pushing their legislative agenda with little compromise or cooperation with the minority party. No one has ever accused us of being soft on Libertarians or Greens, and we've done a consistent job of beating on the Democrats while they were in power. In general, however, we are much more sympathetic to the Democrats' social, cultural, and political goals.]

Carl Swanson ["Postmarks," Nov. 14] has taken up way too much precious real estate in this paper. By now, we all know that he exists and what he thinks. Why not make space for someone with ideas and not just insults?

Regarding Eric Beck's letter about fact checkers and JFK ["Postmarks," Nov. 14]: In his second paragraph he states that JFK inherited Vietnam, and in the third paragraph he refers to the war in Indochina as the "war he started there."
   Which is it, Eric?

I am amazed that this whole issue of smoking in nightclubs is bringing so many fools out of the woodwork. Though I personally dislike the smell of cigarette smoke, I do not poke fingers in the faces of others over it. This whole damn issue should hinge on common sense. If you want to smoke, that's fine, just don't do it in an environment that requires everyone else there to smoke your smoke. That is just plain rude. It seems to me everyone should be a hell of a lot more angry about the government telling citizens what they can or cannot smoke in their own homes!

Dear editor,
   Thank you for noting how odd it was for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards to have acknowledged smoking marijuana while saying it would be "irresponsible" for the federal government not to arrest cancer and AIDS patients who find that marijuana relieves their pain or nausea. ["Weed Watch: Dems on Drugs," Nov. 14]
   Edwards' "irresponsible" statement, by the way, was made in response to a question from a member of our New Hampshire affiliate, Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana. GSMM has put together a voter guide to the candidates' positions on medical marijuana, which is regularly updated at www.granitestaters.com.

Just went to see Once Upon a Time in Mexico after the generous four-star write up that your "critic" Maritt Ingman blathered all over this ... thing.
   Wow, it is rare that I'm moved by a film to ask for my money back, but this is one of them. Actually it is less a film than a kind of a video docudrama about a film, the kind you get as an extra when you buy a DVD. Pesky details like lighting, editing, continuity, script, plot, storyline can be overlooked if not downright ignored. This has the feel and look of an on-the-spot creation. Kind of a shoot-as-you-go, "Hey, this would be cool," "Now let's do this!" etc., etc. exercise in video-riffing. The ultracheesy fake explosions, silencers on revolvers, complete lack of marksmanship by the bad guys at point blank range, etc. pale in comparison to the "story" or what passes for it. The first 10 minutes were fun and full of promise, but it soon deteriorated into an incomprehensible jumble of "characters" and "plot twists." The editing and continuity were bewildering, to be kind. It is great to shoot on location in a cool place, but this is little more than a low-budget video jam with some very cool stars (that I'll bet are dismally disappointed with this product). To give this overly contrasty, jumbled piece of eye fluff four stars is utter fraud and does a great disservice to real four-star films. It reeks of local politics, but then, your critic wouldn't know a good film if she sat through one.

Marrit Ingman's review of Intolerable Cruelty is almost as bad as the movie. Both are pitiful.