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,
    A very simple question: When we have been spending money like crazy for 30 years, mostly with Republican presidents, why do conservatives pick now to stage their "tea parties"? During the eight years of Ronald Reagan, the deficit rose greatly; during the four years of Bush version 1.0, the deficit continued to rise; during the eight years of Clinton … the deficit fell (to a surplus); and during the eight years of Bush version 2.0, the deficit skyrocketed again. So, again, why now, after only a few months of Barack Obama's time, are you crying about how your tax dollars are spent?

Dear Editor,
    You recently reported about an anti-tax “tea party” in Austin [“Point Austin,” News, April 17]. Similar events are happening in various states. None is inspired by citizens from the bottom up, but instead, all are organized centrally from the top down by Newt Gingrich and others in the interest of the very wealthy. Unlike the patriots of our revolution, these modern-day protesters are being played for suckers.
    The federal economic stimulus bill provides most working families with tax cuts. But the protesters have been manipulated into not only complaining about the stimulus bill but pushing the goals of Gingrich’s organization: 1) cutting tax rates for the rich; 2) cutting the corporate tax rate; 3) abolishing the capital gains tax; and 4) abolishing the estate tax.
    Most Americans realize that our current problems stem from not investing enough in critical public structures like health care, education, and technology. Most Americans understand that meeting our obligations and cutting our deficit requires responsible taxation. True patriots pay their taxes to support the country they love.

Dear Editor,
    Fact: Of a strictly volunteer group of 1 million of you marching in a "tea party," 995,000 are earning less than $250,000 a year. Your taxes are going up zero. The other 5,000 (not a single one of whom will be marching since they've duped you into marching for them) who make $250,000-plus a year will have their taxes raised 3% – or about $30,000 in taxes per every million dollars they make.
    So for the 995,000 of you who've been duped into marching for the rich (they'll be in the clubhouse or on a yacht watching you on TV, howling), the real panic these people are feeling is not the paltry 3% extra they'll be paying but that the stimulus bill will greatly enhance education, finally raising you from a level of idiots to thinkers.
    Meanwhile, just in case you wonder how you got to be so stupid, research of any block of 10 years of the minimum wage laws will explain, but I especially like the one from 1997 to 2007, when we earned $5.15 an hour, and CEOs earned 25 times that. Finally, in 2007, when it was raised to a magnanimous $7.25 an hour, those same CEOs' earnings had rocketed by 400 times as much (about $2,900 an hour). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand where your raises went. Support the stimulus, get educated, or keep being subservient.

Dear Editor,
    With local city elections fast approaching, many may wonder, "Gee, who are these people?" And what have Perla Cavazos, David Buttross, Chris Riley, Mutt, Jeff, or any of these other "names" done for Austin, aside from litter the city with tacky signage? Elections are more like corporate interviews to select the next best candidate to represent the corporation known as city of Austin. People should take notice how "laws" are actually corporate subcategories positioned in an "org" chart designed to steal your time and money. In (media) world happenings, America's melting pot is purposely overflowing to stress the economy and stifle nationalism. Constant slander and reverse racism, political correctness and hindrance have paved the path for this tyrannic (globalized) government. This future should be unacceptable to every American. Yet, astonishingly do-good agencies are rejoicing at receiving dirty tax money for which they have not been entitled and that has been confiscated from law-abiding citizens through extortion and fraud. Acceptance of dirty bailout dollars is a clear indication of abusive taxation without citizen representation. Corporatized government cannot fulfill the needs of the people. For the people, choosing not to participate is the easy part. Detaching from the conditioning (grid) is the lifelong challenge.

Michael King,
    The fact is, Austin taxpayers do not subsidize public access TV [“Point Austin,” News, April 10]. Funding comes (rather unwillingly) from the cable companies and phone companies that sell television programming, through a supposed pass-through arrangement controlled by city officials. Time Warner passes this cost along to its subscribers, many of whom are taxpayers, but the money does not come from the General Fund. If anything, the city of Austin makes money on the franchise agreement, which also funds Channel 6 and the ME Television entertainment channel.
    Public access TV is a free-speech forum already under attack by the cable companies and the phone companies, and there are numerous reasons why the current management of the Austin channels (PACT/ChannelAustin) should not be funded by city taxpayers, but failure to exercise editorial control over its producers is not among them.
    Each producer is required to follow the laws regarding libel, slander, obscenity, etc., and each can be held responsible if they break those laws. If you disagree with something that you see or hear on the public access channels, well, make your own show expressing your opinion. You are fortunate to have the Chronicle to use as your soapbox, but most ideas and philosophies do not see public expression in the available forums. I don’t want to go into the pros and cons of that matter, but freedom of speech is a core principle of this nation. The fact that Alex Jones has successfully learned to avoid the stumbling blocks is no reason to call for his removal from the channels.

   [News Editor Michael King responds: Time Warner is required (under its publicly granted franchise) to underwrite equipment and operations at PACT, to a project formally granted nonprofit tax status, in a building owned by the city and an operation directed and managed by city administrators. In all these ways, taxpayers are certainly subsidizing public access TV; the entire project would not even exist without the support and administration of the city and the public. As I wrote, Alex Jones has long been using the nonprofit context of PACT and its public support to promote his private commercial interests – websites, DVD sales, and radio broadcasting – and he is certainly violating the spirit if not the letter of the ChannelAustin principles. It's not about his content, and I stand by what I wrote.]

Dear Editor,
    Re: "David Van Os on Single-Member Districts" [Newsdesk blog, Feb. 28, 2008]: It is amazing all these folks commenting on the "gentlemen's agreement" but having no knowledge of its factual history. David Van Os' account was disingenuous, which might be why he lost his court case.
    First of all the term "gentlemen's agreement" is a put-down by those opposed to it, because there was never a gentlemen's agreement. It came about because we couldn't get single-member districts passed and had to play with the rules given to us.
    In the early Seventies, Austin hadn't elected a black or Hispanic to the City Council or virtually any other elective office. The liberal community (not the white business community, except for a few progressive businesses) joined in a united effort to change that. Led by the UT activists from the Student Action Committee and the University Young Democrats coalition (they provided 90% of volunteers and were seen as neutral in the Austin liberal feuds), we set up a "black" seat and a "Hispanic" seat and said we would not support any white liberal running in those places, or a conservative for that matter.
    The right opposed our efforts (just read the Austin American-Statesman of that era, it also opposed our efforts), as did Austin's radicals. In fact, the radicals were always running opposition candidates in an effort to split the liberal vote, giving the victory to a conservative. They were never successful, and we have kept those seats in minority hands for nearly 40 years … quite an accomplishment Austin can be proud of.
    Maybe it is time for single-member districts, but it carries a danger. Blacks live throughout Austin now, and there aren't enough in one district to guarantee a black victory. Is that important? I think it is, so what do we do?

Dear Editor,
    Michael King's "Madness in Many Packages" is another example of why I've become more frustrated with the Chronicle weekly [“Point Austin,” News, April 10]. Not only did he slam Alex Jones ("tin-pot conspiracist,” “Infowars La-La Land,” “MisInfowars,” etc.), but he also has no idea about what really goes on at Highland Mall during the Texas Relays. Nelson Linder's NAACP publicity stunt is just that. Having worked at the mall for four-plus years up till January of this year, I had experience with the Relays firsthand. The Relays were a source of stress and frustration for many of the patrons and management alike. There are just too many people. Using a business space as a hangout is not good for anyone. My experience is that it actually hurt my sales tremendously. General Growth Properties, which co-owns Highland Mall, is bankrupt. In the past, they've had to hire tons of extra security to control the chaos, which I believe makes it even less safe. There was an Austin Police Department officer or security guard every 15 feet. They can't afford it. The businesses know it's not going to be beneficial to sales and will add unwanted stress to their lives. How is this racist? Now King and Linder and others will not be shopping at Highland Mall. So who suffers? The community that works at Highland Mall! Wake up Austin!

   [News Editor Michael King responds: This week the local chapter of the NAACP reconsidered its initial suggestions of a boycott of Highland Mall, with Nelson Linder calling instead for "community education and dialogue" on the matter and public discussion of alternatives for next year's relays, including programs for African-American youth.]

Michael King.
    I enjoyed your column on Alex Jones in the recent Chronicle [“Point Austin,” News, April 10]. It should be pointed out, however, that the shooter in Pittsburgh was not a Marine. He was kicked out of boot camp. While in boot camp you are simply a recruit, and the title of Marine is only earned after 13 weeks of training. That whack job was never a Marine and never will be.

Dear Editor,
    In its April 10 issue, the Chronicle admitted that it was incorrect when it reported that the percentage of impounded animals killed at Austin's pound has declined each year since 2000 [Oops!]. In the correction, it claims instead that "the total numbers of animals killed at the Town Lake Animal Center slowly declined over the previous decade." That too is wrong. Starting with fiscal-year 2000-01, the shelter's total number of animals killed each year are: 11,567; 10,722; 12,466; 12,887; 14,304; 12,343; 14,055; and 10,916. While we speak for most Austinites in celebrating the most recent downturn in shelter killing, we wish the Chronicle would stick to the facts, which are quickly verifiable through Public Information Act requests.

   [Editor's note: As we noted in our correction, the comparison was to the previous decade, for which Ryan Clinton neglects to cite any numbers at all. Beginning in 1994, the city shelter was regularly euthanizing animals in annual numbers exceeding 15,000 or more and approximately two-thirds of the animals it was receiving. While the improvement in numbers since 2000 has not been consistent every year, both the overall numbers and the percentages of animals killed has declined over the previous decade, and equally important, the number of unnecessary euthanasias has also declined.]

Dear Editor,
    Let's see, the "tin-pot conspiracist" Alex Jones has interviewed recently [“Point Austin,” News, April 10]: Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz; U.S. Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Brad Sherman; and investigative journalist Greg Palast. Do I sense a bit of envy on the part of Michael King, Louis Black, and the so-called progressive Chronicle?

Dear Editor,
    As producer of the variety show Sacrebleu! Television, I'm a little tired of the Chronicle's writers always focusing in on so-called "lunatic" and "crackpot" shows. Why can't they see the potential of public access TV? In essence, it exists to help the community become conscious of itself – much like a local indie news rag (i.e., The Austin Chronicle).
    There are hundreds of interesting producers and shows at channelAustin. Too bad most writers seem to take the easy-story route, filling their columns by cracking cheap shots at the TV station's biggest drama queens.
    In his recent article, subtitled "From Highland Mall to PACT, the lunatics are at large" [“Point Austin,” News, April 10], Michael King writes:
    "Isn't it about time Jones and his MisInfowars are sent packing by PACT to the pirate-radio oblivion he so richly deserves?"
    Well, if Michael came to channelAustin's free producer orientation on Mondays at 6pm or read through the TV station's policies at www.channelaustin.org, maybe he'd understand why Jones hasn't crossed the commercialism line.

   [News Editor Michael King responds: The Richard Poplawski episode is a national story with a strong local news hook, directly related to PACT. Sol Waters would apparently prefer that we instead promote his midnight variety show, or others like it. No offense intended at all, but we'll go with the actual news. And if Jones' relentless self-promotion of his web/DVD/broadcasting mini-empire does not in fact "cross the commercialism line" of the channelAustin regulations, then those regulations are deaf, blind, and badly in need of an upgrade.]

Dear Editor,
    Rush Limbaugh infuriates me nearly as much as the excrement about the business closures due to the Texas Relays [“Highland Mall Hysteria Over Texas Relays,” News, April 10]. Nelson Linder, Sheryl Cole, Marc Ott, and Michael McDonald (as well as Wells Dunbar for this drivel) need to spend a Texas Relays Saturday on Sixth and Red River. The issue is behavior, not race. If you remember the first year this city tried to have a Mardi Gras parade, then you recall why it never happened again. That too was most certainly about race: Damned white kids do not know how to behave. I was at the intersection of Seventh and Red River for gunshots and stampedes three years in a row (I was not there for the one this year; yes, it happened again). To attribute the desire to close one's business to being a "paler part of Austin … not be[ing] accustomed to African-American youth culture's" blah blah blah is insulting and, well, racist! The idea of some sort of consumer-driven sanction against such businesses is absurd. I conduct business in this area, and I stayed home because of the hassle, potential (not imagined) danger, and poor profitability, not because of skin color. Why were the access roads going to be closed? Ask my friend George who sat at the eastbound intersection of 12th Street and the I-35 access road for 35 minutes while car after car ignored the stoplights on their way into Downtown, blocking the intersection. Hey Sheryl, you know where there is "room for improvement"? Teaching our young people manners.

Dear Editor,
    I always recall the first Critical Mass ride I ever attended. Somewhere on Congress a motorist tried to run over (or appeared to try to run over) a cyclist near the back of the group. The kid escaped injury, but his bike was mangled around the front tire of the vehicle, a gold Jeep Sahara. Against the protests of a passenger, the driver came out swinging. Outside of his car, blindly attacking a dozen or so Critical Mass kids, he naturally took a few lumps.
    But it's what happened next that's remained with me: After the hunter became the hunted, he limped back into his Jeep and tried to speed off. Only, the kid's bike was still wrapped around his front tire. So instead he accelerated into an uncontrolled arc across a wide Congress intersection at 25 miles an hour or so, finally striking a car waiting at an oncoming red. A female driver leaped out and opened a back door to check on an infant in the backseat of the car (as far as I could tell, both were unharmed, thankfully). The man who struck her was now speechless, but when a group of us rode over to check on the struck driver, she excoriated the cyclists, whose presence, she obviously felt, was the prime motivator behind the wreck, and not the insane rage of the Jeep driver. The Austin Police Department then picked one rider at semirandom (ironically, the guy most cooperative in attempting to explain what had just occurred), charged him with blocking a thoroughfare or something, then took him away. (All of this was caught on tape and presumably resides on the Internet somewhere.)
    What I learned is this: Critical Mass is important, but it's also divisive. It's a fun, empowering participatory event that also incited near-fatal road rage on my very first tour. We desperately need improved bicycle infrastructure just as urban centers are increasingly finding cycling preferable to hunting out parking spaces. But we also need improved services. I don't expect sympathy from rush-hour commuters, but I do expect the APD to cease operating as if cyclists live with a level of privileges and liberties below that of both motorists and pedestrians.
    The city needs to put cycling issues at the forefront of its agendas, if for no other reason than to prevent Downtown from becoming a rush-hour battleground.