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.

Bob,
   You baby. You're a joke. You're pathetic. Who cares if you are the next Jaco Pastorius – which I'm sure you're not. News flash! Larry is a crappy, hippy jam band. Never heard of the Goliath Organization – probably not many have ["Postmarks," Dec. 19].
   Let your actions speak for themselves. Yoggie is a known personality. You are not. Yeah yeah yeah. I'm sure you can play the bass reallllllllllllll good, but so can my junior high orchestra instructor. Instead of trying to persuade publications to toot your little horn, you should try to grow a soul, which you lack, reflected by your obvious petty attempts at self-promotion. Oh yes, your precious symphony. You and every ACC music-theory student has to write one. I guess the only difference is that you're going to have one of your friends there with a digital camcorder.
   Only a self-righteous chump would proclaim himself the "best" player in town. Maybe you can throw a "Battle of the Bass Players" so you can show every little bass player in town how superior you are. I will be there laughing while Yoggie stomps your ass.
   Shut up and go listen to a Mingus record.

Dear Chronicle folks,
    Are we supposed to be keepin' all of Austin weird, or is it only South Austin?
    I'm confused about this y'all.

Dear Editor,
   Obviously, critics of the Chronicle's editorial policy have never heard of A.J. Liebling's dictum: "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."

Dear Editor,
   I am an actor here in Austin, and for years now I have read some of Marc Savlov's reviews. Until now, I thought it best to just keep my mouth shut about some of the horrible and just plain wrong reviews. However, with Mr. Savlov's 3 1/2 stars for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, I felt compelled to write. It seems apparent to me that Mr. Savlov has little sense of true cinematic achievement when he can give Kill Bill four stars and The Return of the King only 3 1/2. Not since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon have I been simply awed by the beauty of a film, as I was with The Return of the King. For the entire three hours I sat in amazement!
   Please excuse my naiveté, but has Mr. Savlov ever produced, directed, or acted in a film? With this review and his fumble at the 48 Hour Film Project (which I think should be renamed the 48 Hour Comedy Film Project), I am convinced he has absolutely no idea what he is writing about.

Dear Editor,
   I could notice two blows in your position on the APD: The mushy one you gave to Mr. Knee and Mr. Sheffield together, and the crushing one you gave to the Chronicle.

Dear Editor,
   The shooting of Jessie Owens by Officer Glasgow was one of many such incidents of excessive use of force by Austin police officers directed at blacks and Latinos. This behavior will only exacerbate existing tensions between law enforcement and people of color.
   The City Council and the mayor must do more to hold APD accountable. To allow this type of behavior to continue sends a clear message to Austin police officers that this type of activity is condoned at the highest levels. Perhaps more significantly, it sends a message to the people of Austin that when it comes to choosing between white police officers and black or Latino citizens, the city stands with police officers – whether or not they obey the laws they are sworn to uphold.
   Police officers have a difficult and important job, one that will only become more difficult when people believe that police do not serve the interests of the community.

Dear Austin Chronicle folks,
   It's hard enough trying to keep up with what is going on in Austin just by reading the Chronicle, and that other paper, online. But it is made even more difficult when it takes as much as eight minutes for a Web page to open! Such is the world in places like Kyrgyzstan, which is long on mountainous beauty, but narrow on bandwidth. So my two quick questions are: What congressional district will all those "big boxes" be in? And, is Alejandro OK?

   [Editor's response: The big boxes mostly under discussion at City Council would likely be in Lamar Smith's district after redistricting.]

Dear Editor,
   Thank you Chronicle for your coverage of the assault on women's rights ["Women Dig In," News, Dec. 5]. I notice as usual it's primarily men-initiated (including the critical letters last issue) ["Postmarks," Dec. 19]. As a mother of two wanted children I have little time to be an activist. I daresay if women historically weren't swamped with the privilege of bearing and nurturing children we would have equal voice, equal rights, and equal visibility in history books. I appreciate the notice of the march on Washington, D.C., in April. I will be there. As far as I am concerned anyone who dares to dick tate to me the destiny of my womb and my future had better already have an adopted child. Where are these pro-lifers when children are starved and tortured, or killed? Killings by mothers (always wives of fundamentalists who gave them no reproductive choice I notice) are the most tragic of all. It's the 20th-century fascists, wake up and drop the oppression already.

Dear Editor,
   May this lawyer of 33 years who served as Sen. Carlos Truan's redistricting counsel during the 77th Legislature and who first saw battle at age 16 in Ralph Yarborough's 1952 race for governor point out the poor reasoning contained in both Louis Black's column of Dec. 19 ["Page Two"] and also in the letters from Tommy Jacks, Rich Gray, and others ["Postmarks," Dec. 19].
   Folks, real Democrats do not become partners in law firms which represent Republican interests! The only way one can attempt to rationalize earning a six-figure income as a partner at a major establishment law firm and still claim to be some kind of a Democrat is to maintain that she is simply a value-neutral technocrat. There are a few I've known who offer another explanation, one that resembles the well-known story of the piano player in the bawdy house who claimed to have no knowledge of the kind of business conducted elsewhere on the premises.
   Check out the list of leading law firms which gave large sums of money to the Bush campaign at www.tpj.org. There you will see Locke Liddell and all the other big firms listed for hundreds of thousands of dollars given to numerous Republican campaigns (and a few sell-out Democrats who vote with Republicans on critical issues).
   Since the 13th Amendment abolished both slavery and involuntary servitude, it is no longer possible for a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination to say, "I was forced to earn a six-figure income at Locke Liddell; they made me sign the pleadings filed on behalf of Rick Perry in court in the redistricting lawsuits of 2001."
   Chronicle readers should be sophisticated enough to comprehend that being pro-choice but also representing Rick Perry in court on redistricting at a law firm like Locke Liddell does not make one a liberal or a Democrat.
   The straw man which Tommy Jacks and Rick Gray attempt to set up when they analogize volunteer ACLU lawyers with the highly paid partners in establishment law firms will not stand even a cursory examination. Likewise, criminal defense lawyers do not earn their living representing political players and economic interests which rank among the top contributors to the Bush campaign and which day-in and day-out consistently oppose the interests of consumers, workers, environmentalists, and just plain folks.
   Beware of establishment lawyers who billed the state of Texas for big bucks while representing Rick Perry and who now tell you what good Democrats they are.

Editor:
   In reference to the "Naked City" News item (Dec. 19) about the online petition asking KUT (90.5FM) to broadcast Democracy Now! (an award-winning nationally syndicated news program on the Pacifica network), I have this to say. We do understand, as KUT general manager Stewart Vanderwilt has stated, that KUT has "no plans to add any programs that would displace what we already have on the air." But the whole point of the online petition is to demonstrate that there is sufficient interest among KUT listeners for station management to change their plans. I think we've started to show that, and KUT ought to at least acknowledge it and not immediately dismiss the proposal. KUT's broadcast schedule can change. It's changed in the not too distant past. And there's nothing standing in the way for it to change in the future. We're asking for a change now.
   By suggesting that KUT introduce Democracy Now! – a one-hour-long weekday program produced for radio and television – we are not suggesting that it displace locally produced programs like John Aielli's Eklektikos. Rather, we think that KUT, and its listeners, can afford, for example, to drop one hour of NPR programming each day and put one hour of Democracy Now! in its place. KUT could reduce NPR's Morning Edition from four hours a day to three, or KUT could reduce NPR's All Things Considered from 2½ hours a day to 1½. By introducing Democracy Now! there will be a net gain. KUT listeners will gain due to a greater diversity in news programming. KUT itself will gain because of a very likely increase in membership contributions. For more information, and to sign the online petition, go to www.iconmedia.org/democracynow.

Howdy y'all,
    This is the time of year to show compassion for mankind and strive to change for the better. It has been said that people who compare America's right-wing politics and our global military actions to fascism or Hitler's efforts are not using a valid form of debate. They even say it is sloppy or lazy thinking.
    So, back in the days when Hitler was running around killing off people willy-nilly, what historical figure was he compared to?
    Today, using historical hindsight that person would have to be Gen. George A. Custer. Look at the similarities.
    Adolph and George had troops who were well equipped. Both men understood what they were about to do to achieve their supporters' goals. Both men used those troops to contain or remove cultures that were considered inferior. They both had many military victories.
    Both men were arrogantly unable to look into the future and realize just how many unhappy people in the world (who did not agree with their tactics) were going to show up to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Both men bit off more than they could chew.
    Am I saying that our leaders in this country do not understand just how many people in the world are clearly unhappy with the superior goals that America is seeking to apply to their societies? Perhaps I am trying to compare events leading to defeats of the past to current American strong-arm tactics across the globe?
    I would never do that, because at this point in time some would label such thinking as invalid. Look down the road and chew on that for a while in this season of reflection, change, and renewed compassion for other human beings.

Louis Black,
   Everything in this world produces more of its own kind. Abortion produces death. Approximately 1½ years ago I asked my ethics professor if women who had abortions commited more suicides than women who did not.
   The teacher got offended and said I would have to look that up myself. I did and found out that suicide rates for women who had abortions were not recorded in the mainstream except for in Finland.
   In Finland, the suicide rates corresponded with higher abortion rates. Apparently Finland was the only country to record this information. Well, the rates were higher (for suicides coupled with abortion). Whatever we produce reproduces. Death produces death. Abortion produces suicide and guilt-death of confidence. That's the truth no matter what philosophy or perspective.

Dear Editor,
   I was thrilled to read Mike Clark-Madison's relatively good take on the absolute necessity for many neighborhoods to take a more responsible stand on density in and near their own homes ["Austin@Large," News, Dec. 19]. However, I found it odd that he would put the Villas in with superduplexes as examples of "bad" infill.
   While spending the last seven years living (and owning homes) in two central Austin neighborhoods, one fairly responsible [Old West Austin Neighborhood Association] and one not, I've also been serving on the Urban Transportation Commission, a role which requires that one view issues such as development outside the prism of what is best for an individual neighborhood in the extremely short-term.
   Oddly enough, every single person I've spoken with outside the NUNA [North University Neighborhood Association] neighborhood (where I now live) views the Villas as an unquestionably good thing – since it is providing student housing within walking distance of UT with a fairly good streetscape (it's not Post on Third, but it's still among the better complexes). In fact, many wonder why the project is so small, not why it's so large, which is presumably Clark-Madison's problem with it.
   I would argue that at this point in history, anyone who opposes the Villas has a great deal of suspect credibility to overcome outside the echo-chamber of a few neighborhood associations who apparently think their mandate is to replicate Circle C closer to downtown.

   [Mike Clark-Madison responds: Actually, Mike Dahmus presumes wrong; I do think the Villas project is too small, or at least the part of it where people actually live. Even smaller – indeed, nonexistent – is the street-level office and retail space (other than the existing Blockbuster) that could be created along (and even within) the Villas' massive street frontages. What's too large is the space devoted to cars – both the enormous parking garage and the surface parking of the Blockbuster. I can't see any way around the fact that, despite some aesthetic trappings, the Villas is a big suburban apartment complex – and, worse yet, one designed to be both overpriced and homogenous – dropped into what might be the very most viable location in the entire city for a truly urban – mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit-dependent – project. If we can't push the urban envelope on the Drag, we can't push it anywhere, and we should just give up. To say – as four council members did – that this is the best we can do, or that density alone makes a project "urban," is a failure of vision and leadership. My point was that, as Dahmus suggests, knee-jerk opposition to density per se makes it easy for the city to view such failures as acts of bravery.]

Dear Editor,
   A lot of excitement has been generated recently over the possibility of new sustainable energy programs that will release us from dependence on oil, nukes, coal, etc. A gentle note here to be mindful of. One must remember that energy, no matter the form, is never wasted and often out of control. Just as our ancestors invested a great deal of effort at hunting and gathering before domesticating the horse, in turn providing the power for petroleum, which led to the use of nuclear systems, all of our energy resources are now geared to providing us with the possibility of eco-friendly alternatives. Photocells are not constructed of hemp fiber. The manufacturing of many of these new product designs – geothermal, solar, tidal, etc. – are costly in terms of energy usage. Monetary issues are moot as the stuff is printed like junk mail. Conservation is still and always will be of primary concern.

Dear Editor,
   Louis Black's recent editorial about the boycott ["Page Two," Dec. 5] mellowed into a thoughtful piece. However, I disagree with a theme he continues to develop this week ["Page Two," Dec. 12], that it is possible to justify philosophical, but not economic, opposition to abortion. If abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then it is terribly unjust. Terrible injustice should be opposed, even if there are unfortunate economic consequences. If one of the prerequisites for a social movement to be moral is not "threatening people's jobs," it seems that anti-slavery, anti-segregation, and anti-apartheid efforts would be disqualified (as an aside, I wonder if Mr. Black believes the "outrageously self-righteous" abolitionists were wrong to "judge their fellow humans in the name of deeply held religious beliefs" when they condemned the slaveholders' "right to choose"). Assuming we can agree that these peaceful but financially disruptive efforts were justified in that they prevented a greater evil, would this not apply even more to abortion, if it in fact causes not enslavement or segregation but death? Clearly, the starting point for discussing abortion and the boycott must be whether what is being aborted is a human being. So, when two human beings reproduce, is the result a human being? To ask that question is to answer it. From the moment of conception, an individual with his or her own unique DNA begins to reproduce cells and mature. That is life. Therefore, although mothers having choices and contractors having work are normally desirable, these privileges must yield to the right of innocent human beings not to be killed. We must treat these adults with compassion, but should we not also show a little compassion for the children whose lives would be ended by this practice? When conflicts arise between the interests of different parties, laws are supposed to restrain people in positions of power from using their freedom to oppress others who, despite their weakness and vulnerability, are still human beings with rights. In the case of abortion, however, our laws excuse oppression instead of restraining it. Awakening people to the immorality of our failure to protect innocent human beings appears to be "moral bullying" in your eyes, but history shows that at times of great injustice it is compassionate and right.

   [Ed. Replies: Obviously on an issue such as abortion, the more thoughtful the discussion, the more complicated it is as well. Just a few thoughts: The leadership of the Planned Parenthood boycott has talked a lot more about controlling people's behavior than anything else. I may disagree over abortion with pro-lifers, but if they are equally committed to social welfare and health care for mother and child, as well as education and other quality of life issues – in other words if they really value life and don't just want to punish or control other people – they are on consistent moral ground, and we are in respectful disagreement. Toward those ends, however, I would think they would support Planned Parenthood where so much of the mission is toward family planning, health, and education, and so very little toward abortion. Finally, almost any current social movement will cast itself and want to be identified with past history-changing social movements. Saying that your cause is morally the same as a previous cause does not make it so.]

Hi Raoul,
   I wanted to comment on the review from Matt Dentler on Libby Kirkpatrick ["Texas Platters," Music, Nov. 14]. I can agree with some of the comments about the subject matter in her songs. However, to suggest that there are not any good songs on this record is absurd. I admit that this record is a little abstract and may take a little time to fully understand. Maybe Matt did not really listen carefully to Goodnight Venus with his heart.
   We have had about 26 good to very good reviews, with two poor reviews that focused on the lyrics. A great record takes a few listens and usually grows in time.
   Thanks for your help. Happy holidays.

The news media are full of stories lately about how our economy is supposedly "rebounding." Unfortunately, this is only occurring in the service sector where adequate health insurance and other benefits have long been a sick joke. Since our so-called leaders are intent on placating multinational corporations at the expense of American workers, and since geedubya feels the need to liberate, at our expense, people who have never yet had the determination to liberate themselves, it is time for a major change. Throw the bums out of office! If the insanity that is the new U.S. economy is allowed to continue much longer, all formerly middle-class Americans will soon be selling cheap, bad food to each other to merely subsist.