ACL Live at the Moody Theater
Response Proof of 'Chronicle' Failings
RECEIVED Tue., Jan. 11, 2005
Dear Editor,
[Michael] King’s invective aside (ranting over a 1 1/2 year old, unpublished, off-subject letter) ["Postmarks," Dec. 31], he fails to mention the CAN chart ambiguity. The chart is titled Served People. Chart subheadings make statistic interpretation elusive, but the editorial slant is clear enough. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry, but if the "reform" is wrong, highly vulnerable lives and public funds are wasted.
Sadly, this "editorial" response is proof that the Chron is more party dilettante than community news asset. In free societies, everyone’s a "self appointed authority"; that’s why formal authorities seek to convince us. Personalized attacks are illogical fallacies, unworthy of serious editors, and contemptuous of readers’ intelligence. Three-hundred-word formats don’t foster fully developed writing styles, contrary to what "self-appointed" style police believe.
Is it the Chronicle’s position that 3,789 Austin "homeless" generate nonduplicated support services for 14,287? Do you mean that is the total homeless population? Basic reporter follow-up would reveal 3,789 is a daily Austin/Travis County McNumber, which annually expands to about 6,000. Multiply it by four or five and one approximates the most accurate homeless number. "Soft" numbers come from government computers that now only "talk" to one another, and social service agencies short on funding, personnel, and resources.
As to Downtown Austin Alliance motives, don’t you read your paper? DAA supports city ordinance changes "which effectively criminalizes aspects of homelessness." In class warfare, one outlaws the survival modes of the target. Hence, no sleeping, sitting, standing, selling, begging, or access to restrooms downtown. What’s the homeless attitude about an underfinanced, DAA-led 10-year "reform" plan? Isn’t this the population most impacted, shouldn’t they have an empowered voice?
[Michael] King’s invective aside (ranting over a 1 1/2 year old, unpublished, off-subject letter) ["Postmarks," Dec. 31], he fails to mention the CAN chart ambiguity. The chart is titled Served People. Chart subheadings make statistic interpretation elusive, but the editorial slant is clear enough. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry, but if the "reform" is wrong, highly vulnerable lives and public funds are wasted.
Sadly, this "editorial" response is proof that the Chron is more party dilettante than community news asset. In free societies, everyone’s a "self appointed authority"; that’s why formal authorities seek to convince us. Personalized attacks are illogical fallacies, unworthy of serious editors, and contemptuous of readers’ intelligence. Three-hundred-word formats don’t foster fully developed writing styles, contrary to what "self-appointed" style police believe.
Is it the Chronicle’s position that 3,789 Austin "homeless" generate nonduplicated support services for 14,287? Do you mean that is the total homeless population? Basic reporter follow-up would reveal 3,789 is a daily Austin/Travis County McNumber, which annually expands to about 6,000. Multiply it by four or five and one approximates the most accurate homeless number. "Soft" numbers come from government computers that now only "talk" to one another, and social service agencies short on funding, personnel, and resources.
As to Downtown Austin Alliance motives, don’t you read your paper? DAA supports city ordinance changes "which effectively criminalizes aspects of homelessness." In class warfare, one outlaws the survival modes of the target. Hence, no sleeping, sitting, standing, selling, begging, or access to restrooms downtown. What’s the homeless attitude about an underfinanced, DAA-led 10-year "reform" plan? Isn’t this the population most impacted, shouldn’t they have an empowered voice?
At 17 years in Austin politics,
Ricky Bird
Bastrop
Ricky Bird
Bastrop
[News Editor Michael King responds: Mr. Bird can call a reporter a drunk for not parroting Bird's position, misrepresent or bungle published statistics, call names at will, and accuse anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith – but it's the Chronicle that's the "dilettante." He should be grateful he's confined to 300 words.]