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,
    As a privacy advocate, I would like to correct a basic mistake made in the discussion about Prop 1. At the special meeting to redraft council's previous (and illegal) ballot language, city attorneys boldly stated that "corporations have privacy rights" when trying to continue to justify labeling the OGO "privacy invasive" after the judge made clear that all state and federal privacy protection law will still apply. They were referring to the waiver requirements in the OGO to open up tax giveaway discussions.
    The Chronicle repeated this idea in its summary of the amendment at 9) [“An Honest Ballot,” News, April 21]. “9) Any person or company 'seeking to engage' in economic development negotiations with the city must waive all rights to privacy concerning those negotiations.”
    This letter is not the place for a long legal memo on the issue of corporate "personhood," or on the long list of laws guaranteeing your privacy. Suffice to say, corporations aren't people, and any right these legal fictions may have to privacy is far from clear. But I don't have to go into the details of "corporate privacy" to refute the above mistake because the economic development section of the Open Government Amendment isn't about individual privacy but about the information a company should share with the community when it asks for tax breaks – information about the type of business and type of jobs a corporation wants to bring, its history of environmental compliance and good corporate citizenship, its history staying in a jurisdiction after the tax breaks run out, and other items of fundamental interest to the public.
    Companies can now claim confidentiality for virtually anything about their business, including expected traffic impact and the results of environmental studies. The legal secrecy around tax abatement negotiations is used to hide a great deal of important information from the community and can only be overcome by a mandatory waiver. When Proposition 1 passes, companies will still get tax breaks, but they must accept our open process as the starting condition for negotiations.
    The city doesn't need to know – and wouldn't ask for – the formula for Coca-Cola in order to entice a bottler to move to Austin. Companies shouldn't be given money by the city with one hand and allowed to hide information crucial to the community with the other.

   [News Editor Michael King responds: The charter amendment provision to which Jordan Hatcher of EFF-Austin refers is as follows: "The City must require all businesses and individuals seeking to engage in the type of economic development negotiations referenced in Texas Government Code § 552.131 to execute and deliver to the City a waiver of any rights to prevent the public disclosure of all information exchanged with the City. The City is without authority to engage in economic development negotiations with any company that has not first executed a waiver." Accordingly, the Chronicle summary of that provision is correct as it stands.]

To Michael King,
    Have the men of the Women's Political Caucus done it again? Recently, men have fared quite well against very qualified women in caucus endorsement meetings.
    How does this happen? For starters, quite a few men are members of WPC, including professional consultants and their cohorts. The membership fees aid the endorsing group. The pros only show up for endorsements and don't clutter up regular meetings of the faithful. No problem, right?
    At the endorsement meeting for City Council Place 2, it was fascinating to watch politicians, women firefighters, and campaign staffers, flock to support well-spoken firefighter President Mike Martinez against (on paper) better-qualified, 20-year WPC member Eliza May. This looked like a repeat of the caucus' earlier endorsement of Eric Sheperd over Judge Elena Diaz. Mr. Sheperd and Mr. Martinez share the same professional consultant, David Butts, who is on retainer from the political action committees of the police and firefighters. They were all there to vote for their guy.
    Of course losers always whine. But my good friend Eliza May did not lose. Against all odds, Eliza received the most votes in a dual endorsement with Mr. Martinez. She is PAC-less and is limited to $100 contributions, but she has a lot of friends.
    Stacking the deck on endorsements is done all over town, everyone does it. But in men vs. women races, the Women's Political Caucus was off limits – too much backlash. There was a sense of shame about stacking a contest where the men have nothing to lose and politically active women have everything to lose. Apparently, in free-spending PAC-world, nothing is sacred except power. Until we have campaign finance reform, the line between good old hardball politics and something quite different will continue to blur.

Dear Editor,
    In last week's Chronicle it was stated in “War Watch” [News, April 21] that "Iraqi civilian body count, as reported in the media, is at 36,841.” I personally believe that there is no way that the number could be this low, and in fact some respected sources place the death count at 10 times this figure. The point is there is no way to really know, which is the saddest part, aside from the actual deaths that is.

   [News Editor Michael King responds: As we have reported numerous times, independent sources of civilian deaths in Iraq, although not confirmable, are indeed much higher than the confirmed, media-reported deaths as tallied by Iraq Body Count.]

Dear Editor,
    Thank you, friends and family, near and far, for so lovingly sharing your time, energy, and creativity as I undergo treatment for ovarian cancer.
    I firmly believe that I am here, full of hope today, because of your love, hugs, calls, prayers, cards, e-mails, rides, visits, donations of house cleaning, medical care, meals, funds, and other much-needed resources.
    Please also continue to increase awareness about ovarian cancer.

Dear Editor,
    I met Sumner Erickson at the Sarasota Film Festival, and I saw the movie [You're Gonna Miss Me]. This article was well done [“Starry Eyes,” Music, Dec. 30, 2005]. Hats off to the writer. Hats off to Sumner. Thank you for all you do for Roky and the revival of his sounds. I hope I can see Roky some day perform live. I am a fan for life. My 19-year-old son, Joe, and his friends really dig the sound as well, and I find him singing songs like “Red Temple Prayer,” “Two Headed Dog,” etc. Thanks for a great article.

Dear Editor,
    Michael King questions how we can afford to protect thousands of acres of land in the fragile Barton Springs Watershed and implement Open Government Online (Prop. 1) [“Point Austin,” News, April 21].
    The real question is “How can we afford to spend billions of tax dollars paving and polluting the Barton Springs watershed and continue allowing our city to use closed-door negotiations to give hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to some of the wealthiest corporations?”
    It's simply cheaper to save Barton Springs than to pave its watershed. For a small fraction of the proposed $1.25 billion in toll and highway paving CAMPO has planned for the Barton Springs Watershed, we can protect thousands of acres, preventing an onslaught of traffic and sprawl in the Hill Country that will ruin Barton Springs and the Edwards Aquifer. Watch an animation of these two futures at www.sosalliance.org.
    City Council will soon finalize a bond package for the November election. The council should include $90 million for protecting land in the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Watershed. (Last year, San Antonio voters approved $90 million to protect land in the Southern Edwards Aquifer.) The city has in the past successfully purchased land, placed restrictions on the land that strictly limit development, and resold the land to private buyers. The city can recoup its investment while accomplishing long-held conservation goals.
    Likewise, implementing the Open Government Online charter amendment (Prop. 1) will save the city millions compared to the cost of secrecy. When you tally up the cost of secret deals the city has done over the last seven years, it's a staggering $700+ million (read the full list at www.cleanaustin.org). Businesses across the globe are moving to online information systems because it saves money. The same will be true for the city of Austin if voters approve Prop. 1.

   [Michael King responds: Colin Clark and SOS continue to insist on this shell game arithmetic, but it still doesn't add up. They want real money to implement an instant online records system – they have been unable to wish away the city's initial $36 million estimate, or even attempt a counter-estimate – but promise "millions" in savings sometime in the cyber-happy future (no doubt powered by biodegradable AMD chips). They denounce CAMPO for planning roads that will certainly cost billions – but this city election has essentially nothing to do with CAMPO or that money. They demand real money ($90 million at the moment) for open space, from a council they first want to spend that $36 million (in the first year) on instant access to information that is already available, just not in cyber-happy "real time." And when they get broad public support for such initiatives – as has happened in the citizens bond committee outreach on open space – they earnestly begin burning bridges as fast as possible with natural allies who dare to differ with them on any detail, or to question their arithmetic.]

To Michael Ventura:
    effete adj 1. depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness 2. marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence 3. overrefined; effeminate. 4. no longer productive; infertile. (Compliments of Dictionary.com.)
    The 3am hour has seen more interesting moments, namely, sleeping. You seem to hover around the third definition, although I would argue for the relevance of all four. You spent a solid four columns “self-indulging” on your “depleted effectiveness” as a columnist [“Letters @ 3am,” April 14], and in my mind, rendered the Chronicle introductory space “infertile” to any semblance of what is actually occurring outside your head. You will undoubtedly enjoy this letter, as you are prone to “decadence” and “triviality.”

Dear Editor,
    I greatly enjoyed Cheryl Smith's article on Oakwood Cemetery and those who seek to foster its recognition and preservation [“City of the Dead,” News, April 21].
    There is more to say about Oakwood than is included in the article. First, while there are a number of old graveyards in Austin, Oakwood is really the grande dame, rivaling the State Cemetery. There is a who's who of Austin buried there, including Elisha Marshall Pease, James S. Hogg, and two other Texas governors; capitalist Maj. George W. Littlefield; Alamo survivor Susannah Dickinson; writer O. Henry's first wife, Athol Estes Porter; educator Annie Webb Blanton, and many other Austin greats.
    Also, the value of the tombstones as funerary sculpture is considerable and underestimated. The Stasswender family referenced in the article have sculpted many very fine headstones over the past century, and the craft of other stone carvers, artisans, and architects may be seen there, dating over a 167-year period.
    Finally, Oakwood is a dandy place to spend a spring afternoon, soaking in its slightly threadbare beauty and fascinating history. A useful Oakwood Heritage Walking Tour brochure is available from the ACVB Visitor Information Center, 209 E. Sixth, Austin 78701 (866/GO-AUSTIN).
    Thanks for your consideration.

Dear Editor,
    HEA Aid Elimination Penalty senselessly hurts those students most in need. If you or anyone you know has been denied financial aid as a result of a drug conviction, please contact Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
    This 8-year-old student organization has launched a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty, with pro bono legal representation from the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. SSDP is still seeking additional plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit. Contact: ssdp@ssdp.org. To keep up to date on the progress of the lawsuit, or to help Students for Sensible Drug Policy identify new plaintiffs, please visit www.ssdp.org/lawsuit.
    Drinking by college students, ages 18 to 24, contributes to an estimated 1,400 student deaths, 500,000 injuries, and 70,000 cases of sexual assaults or date rapes each year, according to a 2002 study commissioned by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Task Force on College Drinking.
    SSDP, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, and NORML say students should not be punished for making a safer health choice in recreational drug use. Sixty-four percent of University of Texas students urged administrators to reduce penalties for marijuana. Florida State University recently passed their referendum by 60%.
    "This victory demonstrates that students clearly recognize the truth: Alcohol is simply more harmful – both to the user and to society – than marijuana," said Judie Niskala, UT Campus Coordinator for SAFER Texas. "Not surprisingly, given this truth, they agree it does not make sense to punish an individual more harshly for using the less harmful substance." And it certainly doesn't make sense to add insult to injury by taking away student aid for a safer choice.
    SSDP also recently reported wining another federal lawsuit in which they sued the Department of Education for refusing to provide the student organization with a state-by-state breakdown of how many students have lost aid due to a drug conviction. The government eventually provided Students for Sensible Drug Policy with incomplete data. When SSDP receives the complete information, the organization plans to release a summary.

Dear sir/madam,
    My name is Pam, and I am from Melbourne, Australia. I am a big Dale Watson fan and have even traveled to Austin to see him play at Ginny's Little Longhorn. He has been to Australia a few times, and I have seen him here as well.
    I read the story: "Honky-Tonkers Don't Cry" by Darcie Stevens on Nov. 25, 2005 [Music] and thought it was well written.
    I just wanted to say that Dale Watson is simply brilliant, and all my friends agree with me as well. Thank you for your time.

Dear Editor,
    I swim in Barton Springs and I've noticed that in the afternoon there's a ton of algae floating in the water. I believe the algae is due in no small part to "grandfathering," where developers demand – and the city of Austin gives – exemptions from the Save Our Springs Ordinance. Some developers don't want to comply with the law passed by Austin voters 14 years ago. We told them the "rules of the game," and yet 14 years later, they want special treatment to allow them to maximize profit at the expense of our springs.
    When the city approved Advanced Micro Devices' plans for a major office complex over the watershed – without a single City Council public hearing or vote – I knew I had to start doing something again. The AMD plan doesn't come close to meeting SOS pollution removal standards. AMD falsely says they're complying with the SOS ordinance, and no one on council even stood up to publicly oppose the move.
    So I'm supporting Prop. 2, the Save Our Springs charter amendment, so the city will stop giving exemptions to our water quality laws when they don't have to and will at least hold a public hearing on developers' "grandfathering" requests – a big change from the current "behind-closed-doors" approval "process."
    And companies (and their spin-offs) that move major employment centers to the fragile Barton Springs Watershed don't get city subsidies – our tax dollars – if we approve Prop 2. AMD's spin-off Spansion has already requested hundreds of millions of tax dollars in subsidies from the Del Valle Independent School District and will probably come to City Council as well.
    Prop. 2 gives voters the opportunity to speak clearly to both council and developers that we care deeply about Barton Springs, and they should respect our vision for Austin.

Dear Editor,
    Although I would certainly hate for Jim Bob Moffett or any of the Stratus folks to "open their kimono" [“Postmarks,” April 21] before they were ready, I still object to secret deals being made by city staff or City Council. From the Stratus deal, which has thrown open the floodgates of suburban development over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in direct violation of the SOS ordinance, to the highly popular toll road plan, to a commuter rail plan, which for all practical purposes gives all of Austin's mass transit funds to the hamlet of Leander, secret agreements, which are presented as immutable, take-it-or-leave-it "done deals" are frequently not in the best interest of the public, who must live with these deals long after the deal makers have moved on to bigger and better things. When I see high level city officials driving around in giant, gas-guzzling SUVs, it is clear to me that these people do not understand critical, pressing issues such as global warming, peak oil, and the massive trade deficits and military decisions which are undermining our security and our economy. Everyone has a right to be ignorant, of course, but I don't want ignorant people making decisions and deals on my behalf which I can't provide input to before it is too late. It's just that simple. A public vetting slows things down, but it also guarantees that no stone has been left unturned before a decision is made. When we're making decisions that will have an enormous impact on our community for decades, doesn't it make sense to have an open process and make sure that we get it right? Yes, Prop. 1 isn't a perfect solution. It will, however, help put a stop to secret deals like the examples cited above, each of which is likely to have an enormously detrimental impact on our community. If you have a better proposal, let's here it; otherwise, Proposition 1 is the only option I see on the ballot.

Dear SOSAnista board,
    Your Chron/PR letter reminds me of poison ivy, so pretty to see and so impossible to live with [“Postmarks,” April 14]. Truthfully, your clique views the COA as a weapon of mass development.
    “You have a secret – Chapter 245 committee that makes every single call about what development is grandfathered and what development isn't. ... You look at your own calendars, tons of meetings where you're doing city business. ... We ask for your calendars, we look in there, the overriding, prevailing characteristic is there's nothing there.” statement of SOSA executive director Bill Bunch, March 9.
    Office calendars are not meeting notes, so like President W., SOSA's looking for something that doesn't exist. SOSA believes nothing can overcome the SOS ordinance, but 245 was designed as bulletproof anti-SOS state law. State law supersedes local law, and Texas isn't pro-environment, so SOSA dredges COA office calendars for conspiratorial “insight” and proposes Big Brother “open” government.
    How will Austin negotiate when all its thoughts are public and none of its adversaries? What successful negotiation was ever made when everything was subject to constant cyberspace sniping at every stage? Who would negotiate under the conditions the amendments propose? The COA negotiated the Intel/CSC/Silicon Lab structures off the watershed area but could lose that ability should your candy-ass “clean water” amendment be adopted. A state court could legally rationalize such a result, which is why there's an office complex adjacent to Barton Springs when there shouldn't be. SOSA's positions don't advance; their city candidates don't win. So a gangrenous coup is staged by IR proxy, and everyone must fear 20,000 signatures. Didn't Griffith have about 20,000 signatures but less than 11,000 votes? Your “victory” is anything but assured.

Dear Editor,
    “You [Americans] have to be subdued. We [Muslims] have to be above you.” Testimony of convicted September 11, 2001 mass murderer Zacarias Moussaoui.
    “The further we move away from 9/11 without another domestic attack, the more tempting it is to believe that awful day was an aberration, to think we can return to normalcy if we merely leave Iraq and the other Middle Eastern regimes to their own purposes. But the forces of radical Islam aren't going to leave us alone merely because we decide that resisting them is too hard. The main political difference in the U.S. today is between those who appreciate that Islamic terrorists represent an existential threat to American life and liberty and are prepared to do what it takes to defeat them, and those who think the threat is overstated and can be ameliorated or appeased.” April 14, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
    The quotes above succinctly define today's American cultural and political crisis. Are America and the free world in danger of obliteration by Islamist fascists, e.g. al Qaeda and Iranian Mullahs, or was the world war declared by the mad Iranian monk Khomeini upon the U.S. in 1979, the subsequent Islamist terrorist crimes of the Eighties and Nineties, and the mass murder and destruction perpetrated on September 11 by bin Laden's savages not really lethal attempts to destroy civilization? History speaks for itself. Islamist terrorists threaten the free world with extermination.
    A great cultural test occurs this November when Americans choose who will control Congress. Sadly, the Democratic Party leadership and members suffer from neo-leftist utopian denial of the Islamist fascist threat. Fortunately the Republican Party is not burdened with that affliction. If Americans retain a Republican Congress, the Islamists savages will be significantly closer to utter defeat. Conversely, a Democratic neo-leftist Congress ensures Neville Chamberlain appeasement of the Islamist enemy mortally exposing civilization to annihilation.

Dear Editor,
    Monday night's second show was ablaze until Chris Robinson doused the flames with a tirade against some talkative members of the audience. All of the show's momentum was lost while the crowd sat in stunned silence during Robinson's lecture, which was capped off elegantly, "I don't care if you're fucked up. ... If you don't like it then you can get the fuck out." It was an unfortunate and uncomfortable end to an otherwise awesome and unique show. His arrogance and hypocrisy is shameful, and it's not the first time. (He did the same at South Park Meadows and the Bronco Bowl years ago under slightly different circumstances.) Mr. Robinson was far more distracting and rude than those he halted the performance to correct. While I dislike an inattentive audience member as much as the next guy, I'll defend his right to be rude if he chooses. It was not Mr. Robinson's place to correct such trivialities, that's what beer and bikers are for! Booo!

Dear Editor,
    Just an FYI. You posted the winner of the bloat contest today and wanted to send a tree to the owner of the house [“We Have a Winner! Sort of ...,” News, April 21].
    To my knowledge it has not been sold. It was built from an out-of-neighborhood developer that obviously lacked any sense of scale or taste.
    My wife and I couldn't resist going to tour it on one of its "open houses" (which is almost every weekend of every month). We scaled the oversized stairwells, knocked on the hollow doors, and can sum it up as such: spit and toilet paper piled 35 feet high.
    By the way, a friend of mine who is a big realtor in town told me that the realtors association of Austin recently took their own tour of homes in the area. This one was on the docket and was unofficially voted as the ugliest house currently on the market.
    If realtors are saying this, buddy, you know the thing's a stinker.

Dear Chronicle,
    I recently participated in the round panel discussion about service industry issues with your publication [“Restaurant Service: A Discussion,” Food, March 31]. I very much enjoyed doing so; it was educational and inspirational to discuss our craft with so many accomplished hospitality professionals.
    However, there are two major corrections that I would like to bring to your attention.
    The first is that the article incorrectly titles me as the general manager of Magnolia Cafe. This is in fact not the case. I am the assistant general manager of the Lake Austin Boulevard location. I attended the discussion only after the actual general manager, Ross Harper, was invited and unable to attend. He asked me to attend in his place.
    Mr. Harper is not only the general manager, he is an exemplary hospitality professional. Working under him has been extremely inspirational through the years.
    The second correction is that many of the quotes attributed to me are actually quotes from the very articulate Susan Shields. I would like for her to receive the credit for which she is entitled.
    Thank you so much; again, it was a pleasure speaking with all of you.

Dear Editor,
    I've noticed a trend over the past year or so of an increasing number of responses from Chronicle staff members to letters published – as if the editors and writers have to get the last word in. Moreover, the responses tend to be snooty and sarcastic rebuttals, direct slams against the letter-writers. It's your rag, but I feel that responses are only justified when the letter-writer states something glaringly inaccurate, and maybe not even then. Letter-writers will tend to be a bit bombastic and/or critical of publications, but that doesn't mean you have to reply with ...
    What? You say it is indeed your rag and that if I don't like it, I don't have to write a letter and be a target for ridicule. OK, maybe so, but did you really need five responses last week and the week before too? Oh, I'm being hyperbolic, and I can't count, since it was only four?
    Regardless, are Louis Black and Michael King, among others, so thin-skinned that they can't let a few critical comments and even inaccuracies slide by without challenging them and name-calling back? After all, the letter-writers don't often get a chance for a rebuttal to the rebuttal, do they?
    What? You mean if I stop asking questions in my letter, you might not be so tempted to offer a response? I just did it again? Oh, got it. On a final note, I see that your Web letters are “posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper.” Is that real-time?

   [Editor responds: The Chronicle's policy has long been that staff responds only to errors of fact in the paper. Online is open territory. Recently, for a number of reasons, we have gotten lax over restricting the print responses. Thank you for bringing it up; we will be more careful in the future.]

Dear Editor,
    Well, I know this e-mail is being written two years too late, but last night I was filled with so much piss and vinegar after watching the movie The Secret Lives of Dentists [Film Listings, Sept., 5, 2003]. I could not let this unbelievably horrible film go without venting to someone. While watching the movie, I kept flashing back to, what I thought was, a favorable review of this movie. This movie sucked. I'm not just talking about normal suckiness that is usually reserved for the next Deuce Bigalow sequel. I'm talking about highbrow, go nowhere, pretentious, independent, suckitude. You gave this movie three stars? Are you f'ing blind and deaf? I want my 104 minutes back. The movie started and ended with no point whatsoever. There is no pathos for any character, be it wife or husband. The kids are annoying and, at times, completely unnecessary to the plotline. There are so many plot holes and inconsistencies in the plotline it's ridiculous. It's day then night then day again in the same, small time frame. Yeah, yeah I understand, there were days and nights melted together due to the flu problem, but that is regardless. Denis Leary plays a boring version of Brad Pitt in Fight Club. He leaves sullen and sad? What the hell! I'm so sick of good reviews because films are, so-called, independent. Aaarrrggghhh! I hate you for making me watch a totally worthless movie. I want my 104 minutes back!

Dear Editor,
    Something stinks in Austin. Like the spoiled food I found in my fridge after the planned “rolling blackout” that was half-ass attempted on the hottest day of the year. Blame can't be directed at the bumbling fools over at ERCOT or the PUCT. They are just a typical example of uncontrolled and asleep-at-the-wheel bureaucrats doing business as usual without direct leadership. A rolling blackout at the ballot box needs to happen in this state, from the top down. Turn out the lights on the dimwits at the Capitol complex. Turn the switch off to the people who are lining their pockets with special interest money and making the great state of Texas a puppet whose strings are being pulled by self-serving groups from Washington and greedy land speculators from other states and even other countries. Let Perry build his new railroad folly that will destroy thousands of acres of our precious land to benefit a few swindlers on both of our borders, north and south. Just let the first cargo that is transported be the deadwood in Austin. I don't even care what border they go to. Just get them across. They certainly have made it easy enough. Let them serve the people there because it sure as hell ain't Texas.