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 [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “The Conservative Future of the LGBT Movement” [Under Covers Books blog, Feb. 22]: Maggie Gallagher seems to puzzle me. One, her near-psychotic obsession with preventing gays from being happy and miserable with marriage. I wonder if that money, time, and energy that she wasted could've been put to better use for her (if her marriage was in trouble) by getting a tummy tuck or botox injections that probably would keep her husband from being tempted by some 23-year-old female secretary, or even male for that matter. Though the other puzzle for me about her was when she said she's against gay marriage because of her religious "beliefs,” saying that gay marriage is not "real" marriage. So by her logic, anybody who chose not to have a religious ceremony and had a civil ceremony doesn't have a "real" marriage. What would she do if one of her sons came up to her and said, "Mom, I'm gay"? Would she support her son and maybe change her view about gay marriage, or would she still be digging her heels in on that, or even worse? Would she also be OK with calling her marriage a civil union as matter of law and still cling to the religious context of it as she chose to for the sake of bragging rights, just like those soccer moms having a "my child is on the honor roll" sticker to hide all of their other problems? I try hating her, but I can only feel sorry for her that she has to waste time and energy to control everything in this world to avoid being vulnerable and insecure about herself and her place in life. My advice to her: See a shrink and talk about all her myriad of unresolved issues (if any) and worry about her own life and be happy for what she has, not what she doesn't have, etc. Don't waste time on that.

Dear Editor,
    Re: Endorsement for County Court at Law No. 3 [“'Chronicle' Endorsements,” News, Feb. 19]: I support Olga Seelig because her experience exceeds her opponent’s in many ways. In judges’ races, I always vote for the most qualified candidate. Seelig has served as a defense attorney, prosecutor, and a judge/magistrate – you endorsed her opponent who, by his own admission, has only prosecuted misdemeanor cases. Having grown so close to those he worked with for 19 years at the courthouse, it will be most difficult for him to rule against prosecutors, even when they are wrong. This is especially true in Travis County, where I have seen prosecutors work to defeat judges who have justifiably ruled against them. Judicial independence is crucial to our democracy at every level of courts, not just the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Additionally, the bench should reflect our community, and it wouldn’t hurt to have more diversity in Travis County. Olga is an intelligent, energetic attorney whose law review articles have been published, and she has a proven judicial temperament, exactly what County Court at Law No. 3 and our community need. I trust that informed voters will support Olga Seelig for County Court at Law No. 3.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “147th District Court: Two Kinds of Experience” [News, Feb. 19]: Bill Gammon might be a very bright guy, but he has no experience in criminal law (other than his own pot case more than 30 years ago), and criminal matters are the only business of the 147th District Court. He will have to make legal decisions from day one, and, in my opinion, compared to Cliff Brown, he is not really in a position to do that on criminal matters. I am really troubled by his assertion that voters should not be worried about his lack of criminal experience because "civil law … is far more complicated than criminal law." It takes years, I think, to become competent in a specific area of the law (and certainly many more to become well-versed). As a criminal defense attorney, I would be way out of my league if I just decided to jump right over to civil law. It would be even more foolish if I asserted it would be a simple thing. Taking it on blind faith that Mr. Gammon can and will become competent in Texas criminal law in the nine months before taking the bench is not a solid strategy.

Dear Editor,
    Kudos to The Austin Chronicle for endorsing change in Travis County, Precinct 4 [“'Chronicle' Endorsements,” News, Feb. 12]. I have nothing against Margaret Gómez, but after 16 years, it’s time for new leadership.
    As a community leader and City Council member, Raul Alvarez has worked to protect the environment and quality of life for all of Travis County. Alvarez led the effort to finally shut down the Holly Street Power Plant, he fought the Longhorn Pipeline and approved the hazardous pipeline safety ordinance, and he authored the legislation banning big-box supercenters over the aquifer.
    That’s why the Sierra Club, the majority of Democratic clubs, and environmental leaders from across Austin like Susana Almanza, Shudde Fath, Jackie Goodman, and Brigid Shea are all endorsing Raul Alvarez for county commissioner. I’m glad the Chronicle is too.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Cap Metro Turns Toward a 2020 Vision” [News, Feb. 19]: I was disappointed to see that the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization had failed to come up with anything approaching state-of-the-art technology along Lamar. Various cities of the world, beginning with Curitiba in Brazil, have found that for buses to transport a large number of people, two things need to happen:
    1) They needed dedicated lanes so that they don't get stuck in traffic. If they had dedicated lanes, they would be much faster than cars, especially at rush hour, and attract significant ridership.
    2) Have a platform that people pay to get on before boarding a bus. With conventional bus service it takes several seconds per person for riders to swipe a card or fumble for a dollar bill. Paying to board a platform allows many passengers to board the bus in just a few seconds through several wide doors distributed along the length of the bus (as with a subway car).
    I would urge CAMPO members to inspect the highly successful, economical bus operation in Mexico City before spending millions of taxpayer dollars for a system doomed to fail. I volunteer to accompany any CAMPO board member or staffer who wishes to make such an inspection.
    Finally, such systems need not be confined to large cities. The city of León, also in Mexico, has such a system and is smaller than Austin.

Dear Editor,
    Today’s politics displays a systemic problem. The recent retirement of Evan Bayh (go to NPR for a very cogent commentary by Daniel Schorr on the retirement) supports the view that America’s political system is dysfunctional. We have the “tea-potty heads” yelling, “The sky is falling” (i.e. socialism). They have no understanding of the words they use. They are just a group of less-educated “Lippertarians” who do not understand the feudal power of corporations. We have Democrats afraid of their own shadows (instead of standing and fighting for important issues) and Republicans being their usual jackbooted, goose-stepping selves. There is the “big muddle,” who are also called Independents and were recently the key in voting out a bunch of Republicans. They, according to the so-called polls, are now mad at the Democrats and ready to vote them out. Actually, these Independents are the most enslaved of all of the above groups. The flip-flop of Independents shows a lack of cohesion and ability to think freely. Instead, they just react. It would be wonderful if the Independents showed creativity by forming a third party, something that the tea-potty heads don’t know how to do. A good third party would support major changes – end the anachronistic Electoral College and support a national system of party creation and a public system of financing elections.
    While I frequently agree with the substance of Louis Black’s “Page Two,” he seems to be a worshipper of our Constitution. Mr. Black should read Our Undemocratic Constitution by Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas law professor and constitutional scholar. Mr. Black might realize how many undemocratic features exist in the Constitution. As I have argued above, the Constitution prevents the creation of multiple political parties, leaving us with two groups easily manipulated by the “moneyed corporations” (Thomas Jefferson). Until the Electoral College is removed, until a national system of party creation is established, and until publicly financed elections are made the norm, we will be degraded by the dysfunctional political groups named above. Slowly, what few American democratic principles remain are being replaced by neo-feudalism. Corporations are the new kingdoms and fiefdoms of this “new world odor.”

   [Louis Black responds: Obviously this is a very well-thought-out letter. One of the things I like about the Constitution and have written about is its anti-democratic, pro-republic stance. Finally, from campaign finance reform to term limits, I have almost no faith that any major-fix panacea will work. One of the major problems with a multiparty system is that too often, small extremist groups wield incredibly disproportionate power because their few votes may be so necessary in building a majority coalition. But that's just my take.]

Dear Editor,
    I would be more inclined to vote for a candidate if he or she commits to promoting campaign and election reforms to neutralize the influence of special interests such as publicly financed campaigns, nonpartisan redistricting, same-day and universal voter registration, fair ballot access, etc. If anyone agrees, please mention this often to any and all candidates.

Dear Editor,
    How dare people try to link domestic terrorist Joe Stack to the tea-bagger movement? Sure, he was also an ignorant, irresponsible, anti-tax crybaby, but nowhere in his self-pitying LiveJournal post of a manifesto does he support racism, anti-immigrant xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, corporate bootlicking, or the foundation of a Taliban-like theocracy, all of which are fundamental ideals of the tea-baggers.
    Don't tar these fine, self-appointed "patriots" with the same brush just because so many of them openly support his decision to go Galt by leaving his wife and child homeless and murdering a beloved family man and church volunteer in a futile gesture of selfish insanity.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Point Austin” [News, Feb. 12]: Was Michael King at the same Democratic forum I was? I thought Kimberly Hokanson did a remarkable job, considering it was the first forum of its kind. She spent many long hours setting it up, and my hat is off to her for doing a wonderful job. Every first-time event will have a minimal amount of issues, and she should get credit for organizing this.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “'Chronicle' Endorsements” [News, Feb. 12]: As a trial and appellate lawyer for 28 years, I believe the Chronicle has misjudged Justice Jan Patterson, a veteran appellate judge who is now a candidate for a trial court, based on an incomplete set of facts relating to her seeking appointment to a vacant trial court seat last summer. Patterson did not approach the governor about this open seat; she was asked to apply. Her reasons for saying “yes” made perfect sense: she had already decided to run for district judge when her term expired, so her appellate seat was about to open up anyway. Had the governor filled her appellate seat, it would have been a brief interim appointment because the term was up this year. Perry ended up appointing someone else to the open trial court – but had Patterson been appointed, Travis County would have an exceptionally qualified Democrat on that bench today, instead of a Republican appointed by Rick Perry.
    Intelligence, experience, work ethic, and empathy are the defining qualities of a judge and Jan Patterson exemplifies the very best in every category. With her years of experience as a federal prosecutor tackling the most serious of crimes, as a civil lawyer in private practice, followed by almost 12 years on the court of appeals, Jan Patterson has unmatched breadth of experience. She works exceptionally hard, applies the law fairly and has an intuitive feel for how the court's rulings affect citizens' lives and businesses. In my experience, she always gets it right, even when she rules against me. She has taken courageous positions in support of the same values the Chronicle has always supported, including civil rights, workers’ rights, and the environment. She has earned this progressive publication’s endorsement. It takes a big person to reconsider a position taken publicly. From what I know about my favorite local publication, I believe the Chronicle has the integrity to take a closer look at the real Jan Patterson.