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,
    Re: “Questions About Best Tattoo Artist” [“Postmarks,” Sept. 11]: Marisha, thanks for your opinion; everyone has one. It is obvious that your opinion does not match the majority. Karen Slafter is more than a flash tracer. She is an artist who always puts her own special touch into her work. I have many tattoos by Karen and some by others in the Austin area, and the only ones that I am ever asked about or complimented on are those from Karen. The others I have are good work too, but Karen’s work is a step above the others. If you are in Austin and you want true custom art (not just a flash trace), then I would suggest booking with Karen. I recently went in with just a concept of what I wanted, and her creation is so much better than I could have imagined. That is a sign of a true artist!

Dear Editor,
    I just wanted to say thanks to Cindy Widner for a lovely tribute to King of the Hill [“The World Is Flat,” Screens, Sept. 11]. She hit the nail on the head about this great show and the genius of Mike Judge. Thank you, Cindy, and thank you, Mike!

Dear editorial board,
    After 30 years of involvement in the labor movement and in Democratic politics – including 20 years as prosecutor for the Travis County Attorney’s Office – John Lipscombe has proven himself to be the most qualified candidate for judge in Travis County Court at Law No. 3.
    Not only has John successfully earned the backing of countless leaders in our community – which include our current mayor, Lee Leffingwell; Council Member Mike Martinez; Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin); Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin); County Commissioner Karen Huber; and more than 600 other community leaders and advocates – he and his wife, Jan Breland, have demonstrated their effectiveness as a force for positive change both in our legal community and in Austin at large by donating their time, energy, and money to causes like Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children of Travis County and the Democratic Party.
    As a practicing assistant county attorney, John occupies the courtroom with unmatched aptitude and understanding. His experience makes him an unmistakable fit for his position as future judge; because of this I support him wholly as the best man for the job. In addition to his experience and prerequisites, it is apparent that John’s exceptional character sets him apart from any other candidate. From his humble work as a shuttle bus driver to working odd jobs that put him through law school, John has been a firm example of what hard work and perseverance truly mean.
    John has honorably represented Travis County as a lifelong Democrat, proud union member, and active participant in our community. He has earned our support, and on March 2, residents of Travis County should consider electing not only the most qualified advocate for our court, but also the best person for our community.
    As March 2 approaches, I proudly recommend John Lipscombe – the obvious choice for our future judge in Travis County Court at Law No. 3.

Dear Editor,
    Katherine Gregor’s article on the Austin Water Utility and Austin environmental advocacy groups doesn’t mention the enormous cost to ratepayers of the utility’s proposed new water treatment plant – $1 billion [“Ending the Water War,” News, Sept. 11]. That’s about $1,250 per Austinite, even if we use less water in the future through conservation and efficiency.
    The Austin water utility won’t acknowledge that our current treatment capacity can accommodate 10 years of population growth at today’s water-use levels. With additional conservation efforts, we can maximize our existing water system for years longer and save ratepayers $14 million every year we delay the billion-dollar boondoggle.
    Instead of focusing on conservation – the cheapest source of water – the water utility wants to dig Austin ratepayers into a 30-year debt hole of ever-increasing water rates to pay off the proposed treatment plant. The debt will eat up bonding capacity, hindering funding to replace old pipes, purchase critical watershed protection lands, and become the most water-efficient city in Texas.
    If we commit to the billion-dollar boondoggle and succeed in using less water, the utility will collect less revenue from selling less water. How will we pay off our debt to Wall Street? By raising water rates even higher than planned.
    In the past, San Antonio used more water than Austin per capita. Today, San Antonio uses 23% less water per capita than Austin. If Austin catches up with San Antonio in water conservation, we could add more than 325,000 people to our water system without expanding water use one gallon. Conservation can save ratepayers billions of dollars in reduced water and sewage treatment and pumping costs.
    Let’s get serious about conserving water. It’s the cheapest source, it’s readily available, and it’s the right thing to do. We can save water, save money, embrace sustainability, and avoid boondoggles.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Questions About Best Tattoo Artist” [“Postmarks,” Sept. 11]: I thought that an establishment or individual won a “Best Of” slot based on votes, and that no one was discredited by not being included in this one issue of the Chronicle. Publicly slandering a person in the editorial pages is nothing new … just tired. Don't you have anything better to do? Grow up. Nobody's saying anybody sucks.

Dear Editor,
    Health care in America has been turned upside down: The less you can pay, the more you are charged. More jobs are involved in denying health care than providing it. Premiums soar while coverage shrinks. And every year, less of our insurance premiums actually pay for health care and more pay for executive salaries and other administrative costs.
    “You lie” is not just about another fanatic congressman screaming at the president, but the claim that insurance reform is not in the direct self-interest of many of the frightened protesters, who are shouting “No!” the loudest.
    Unless denying the uninsured the right to buy into Medicare-type public insurance is a “deal breaker,” deep-pocketed insurance giants will win this deal.

Dear Editor,
    In response to Marisha Hicks’ question about Karen Slafter [“Postmarks,” Sept. 11]: The great thing about the Readers Poll is that it’s a write-in ballot and we all have to think for ourselves in order to answer [“Best of Austin 2009”]. This means winners don’t rest on their laurels but are chosen because readers put thought into their choices. In fact, they have to – there’s no other way to choose the “Best of Austin” unless one thinks for themselves. This selection process helps explain why Karen Slafter won – because more people voted for her than didn’t. Simple as that.
    In addition, the Readers Poll is about opinions. We write in who we think is the best. If you don’t think it’s Karen, write someone else in. When you say she’s not the best, you’re saying you don’t think she’s the best, and that’s fine. That’s what the poll is about – for Austinites to tell everyone who they think is the best. Isn’t it great?
    Finally, there are many other facets of a tattoo artist’s work beyond just ink. Karen also has a wonderful bedside manner, putting her clients at ease. She has the utmost respect for clients’ wishes, creating a base of trust, which is paramount to any relationship wherein someone permanently marks your body. She is not snobbish and doesn’t turn away tattoos because it’s not her favorite subject or design. She’s concerned not only about the time spent in her chair but about what goes on before and after an appointment, taking the time to draw up original designs (without charging extra for this) and also to provide expert guidance for aftercare. She wants her clients to heal well and for their tattoos to be lastingly beautiful, providing touch-ups as needed. All of these reasons, in addition to her stunningly beautiful work (my opinion!), help to explain why Karen is considered by many (in point of fact, most) to be the “Best of Austin.”

Dear Editor,
    Re: Your article "Ending the Water War" [News, Sept. 11]: Austin Energy gets it. At a recent forum, an Austin Energy rep said that it's more cost effective to reduce consumption than to expand supply. (She was talking about electricity.) Now, if only the Austin Water Utility got that.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “The Dragonfly Queen” [Arts, Aug. 28]: I was not familiar with the prior play, but after reading the Chronicle review and Vortex synopsis, I decided to take several seventh-grade theatre students to see this play. The information made this play seem like an off-beat Star Wars type of fantasy. I was shocked to find the content replete with partial nudity and lesbian sexual innuendo, and we soon left the theatre. I saw no warnings of this content anywhere and am extremely disappointed that the Chronicle and the Vortex made no mention of the adult/lesbian nature of this production.

Dear Editor,
    One is amused that a “journalist” (more realistically, an essayist) is complaining about other “journalists” (who are really media “personalities” with no pretension of being anything other than emotional empaths) creating unreal perceptions [“Page Two,” Sept. 11]. All this in respect to supposedly free markets, supposedly regulated health care, and supposedly effective government.
    More “real” perceptions that deal with trillions of dollars, millions of human lives, and the global infrastructure of health care would be governed by some sense of scale measured by numbers. Such numbers expose any number of original sins: Americans viewing health care like they do a mall full of designer clothes and kitchen widgets; doctors who live where they want to enjoy the fruits of their role in society rather than situating themselves in the areas of greatest need; politicians that can't balance a checkbook, whether their own or their constituents'; and “insurance” companies that are forever “marking up” progressively expanding claims, and thus carving bigger and bigger slices out of the national salami.
    There are a number of implicit “guarantees” that are more perception than reality: One is that the U.S. government will pay all the debts it incurs, as is mandated by the Constitution. Another is that health care is a “right,” even if such rights are admittedly confined by the constraints of existing infrastructure and provider expertise. Such assurances will be more and more vigorously abused until there is no doubt that any meaningful limit has been exceeded. At such point the “victims” will be people that probably haven’t even been born yet.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Can This District Be Saved?” [News, Sept. 11]: Some planners desire to retain an architectural semblance in the Warehouse District to evoke the good old days. No one can duplicate these vibrant times now gone. Bureaucrats salve their consciences as the wrecking ball approaches the remaining modest warehouses. The effect of salvaging frontages is to keep the rind and toss the orange. The fantasy will attract developers and play to tourists. Austinites beyond Downtown will visit only if there's a parking space.

Dear Editor
    The Save KUT Austin committee inadvertently included the name of Suzanna Choffel in our ad regarding KUT. We sincerely apologize for the error.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Reefer Madness: Seeds vs. Suds” [News, Sept. 11]: Your review was misinformed on one point: Smoking tobacco kills, but smoking pot, according to Dr. Donald Tashkin, the nation's top research scientist on this subject, "seems to have a preventive effect" on lung cancer.
    This is consistent with a host of new studies demonstrating that cannabinoids, the active ingredients in marijuana, inhibit tumor growth.
    Our government has known this since 1974 but has ignored the evidence. We shouldn't.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Twisting in the Wind” [News, Aug. 21]: It is unfair to charge GreenChoice customers both for clean energy they chose and polluting power they didn’t. This discriminates against making better energy choices. Yet it’s how Austin Energy does business right now.
    The city utility may eventually erase distinctions in billing, simply averaging all costs of generation together. But for now, as segregated options, most solar and wind energy alternatives cost more than most conventional generation sources. Therefore, averaging in “green choice” power with “no-choice” coal and nukes would increase general rates.
    So, the very same big corporations that got us into the nuke – then successfully lobbied for special discounts, refusing to pay for the nuke – now are whining their bills could go up if green power gets added into the general rate base.
    A temporary compromise that is both simple and fair suggests itself in the chart you show, a “Residential Bill Comparison” [“What You're Paying For,” News, Aug. 21].
    Rather than charge a residential customer both eight cents a kilowatt-hour for a “green choice” alternative and 7.1 cents for “no-choice” coal and nuke, instead, charge each customer only for the kind of power they want.
    Anyone who doesn’t want to pay for clean energy doesn’t have to. Their bills will not go up as a result. Also, while there’s still a premium charged for choosing green energy, it’s not so prohibitive that no one will buy it.
    Some would still argue that solar and wind requires backup generation and therefore green choice customers should pay for conventional power too. But with the actual cost assignment so debatable, as outlined in your article, it makes sense to do a simple split in billing between “green” and nongreen.
    This would be sufficient to reflect the real cost differences, without unnecessarily limiting or stifling the growth of alternatives.

   [Associate News Editor Nora Ankrum responds: This reader may be misreading the chart to mean that GreenChoice subscribers pay both the fuel and energy charges on top of the GreenChoice charge. While GreenChoicers do pay the energy charge (which does cover some costs of nonrenewables, hence the debate about whether green customers pay for too much brown power), they do not pay the fuel charge. Also of note: The GreenChoice Batch 6 charge is no longer 8 cents; on Aug. 20, City Council approved AustinEnergy's proposal to reduce the rate to 5.7 cents.]