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,
    Congratulations to Polly Parsons' Hickory Wind Ranch for being recognized as the Best Tribute to a Father in your Sept. 3, 21st annual “Best of Austin” issue. Hickory Wind Ranch provides a safe place for folks in recovery to continue their journey back to sobriety by delivering a unique program combining accountability, compassion, and support. Going onto a sober house following treatment is a vital step toward succeeding in recovery. The fact that the SIMS Foundation refers its clients to Hickory Wind Ranch speaks volumes to the professionalism and effectiveness of its program.
    But, what a difference a day makes or, in the case of Hickory Wind Ranch, two weeks make. After picking up this week's (Sept. 17) issue and reading reporter Amy Smith's story "Sober Living Dealt Splash of Cold Water" [News], it saddens me to think that this successful program is in a fight for its continuing existence because of "rule violations" as proscribed by the Slaughter Creek Acres Water Supply Corp.
    Amy Smith's article states that SCAWSC's three-member governing board may be considering denying water service to Hickory Wind based upon the "water board's regs" despite the fact that the board made exceptions for the previous owner of this property and other property owners in this subdivision. Sounds like there might be some selective application and enforcement of the "water board's regs" should the board deny water to Hickory Wind Ranch. Gosh, I wonder what that could be related to? Could it be that because of the type of facility it is, a sober living house, that someone might not want it in their backyard? Some might say it sounds like action of this type might suggest a bias by some members of the SCAWSC board.
    Please follow up on this story for your readership. Fill us in on what happened at the Sept. 17 SCAWSC board meeting. How did each board member vote?
    Austin cannot afford to lose this valuable service provider. God knows we need more of them.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Point Austin: Saving the Animals” [News, Sept. 17]: “Members of the city's Animal Advisory Commission generally support the proposal, though Chair Larry Tucker said this week it would be fine if the no-kill goal can be achieved without outsourcing” – but that’s not what he said last week or over the last year. He seems to have changed his view after a post on Austin Pets Alive!’s Facebook page last week pointed out his affiliations in his LinkedIn account – APA committee for fundraising, public relations, and political action. Of course, those affiliations were immediately erased from his LinkedIn account after the Facebook posting – especially with a decision on outsourcing due any day. APA members account for three of seven Animal Advisory Commission members: Ellen Jefferson (president of APA), Palmer Neuhaus (APA board member), and, of course, Larry Tucker, the chair of the commission. So it’s not surprising that the politically appointed Animal Advisory Commission recommended that the city outsource adoptions and that APA was the only bidder. At least Jefferson and Neuhaus pretended to be objective by recusing themselves of votes on the topic during commission meetings while the city was evaluating bids despite being actively involved in the push for outsourcing. So the question is: Does the chair of the Animal Advisory Commission really want to give the city of Austin a chance to achieve no-kill, or is he merely backpedaling after his political manipulations have been exposed? If a potential contractor had taken a near majority on the Solid Waste Advisory Commission and recommended operations be outsourced to his/her company, residents would be in an uproar. Is the city somehow willing to ignore legal and ethical infractions just because it involves puppies and kittens?

   [News Editor Michael King responds: Asked about his connections to Austin Pets Alive!, AAC Chair Larry Tucker said via e-mail that the LinkedIn listing was inaccurate and he consequently updated it. "There never was a political action committee" at APA; it was only under discussion. While he has volunteered with nonprofit fundraising and public relations, Tucker wrote, "Currently, I am only fostering animals and not active with much of anything else other than AAC," and he says he has never served on the APA board. He adds that the AAC only advises the City Council on animal welfare issues and recommended outsourcing adoptions, but without recommending a contractor. "What triggers a conflict of interest," Tucker wrote, "is if that person sits on a board of directors or would benefit financially" from a commission decision.]

Dear Editor,
    Can the “system” change? Don’t hold your breath. Your vote does not “count” in Travis County; no proof exists that your ballot was counted as you cast it. The Travis County clerk is hell-bent on using electronic voting boxes which cannot produce a recount and invisibly “casts” your vote; thousands can be “flipped.”
    Just trust us? See the 2000 and 2004 presidential election where Gore and Kerry got the majority vote, after finally being counted (thank you, Associated Press).
    Unless you are wealthy or otherwise connected, anything you work hard to protect by being civically active will receive a broad smile, ready handshake, and fall on deaf ears when it comes to your political representative. You have no standing – unless it is politically expedient to make a ruling in favor of “the people.” Exceptions exist; not all states-persons are bought and sold politicians, but to stay in power, “compromise” is the result and can come in the form of war(s), ecological destruction, poison/GMO food, and corporate-controlled elections. You did not vote for these – corporate government does.
    Money, the root of all evil, talks in this country. People walk.
    Armed insurgency is not an option; it only plays into the hands of the corporate-owned “terror” system. Nonviolent action triumphs, but that too has personal risks and is energy intensive. But when push comes to shove ….
    Presently, it is still quite powerful to simply go down to the Travis County Commissioners Court and state your case at citizens communication – no appointment necessary.
    This is an election year. You have choices: Edward Lindsay, candidate for comptroller of public accounts.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Point Austin” [News, Sept. 17]: I am concerned about the way no-kill is being achieved at the Town Lake Animal Center. Every day, Craigslist is filled with ads claiming, “If you do not adopt this animal by 7pm, it will be killed.” I am not sure this is the right way to save more animals – are people adopting because they want lifelong companionship with an animal or to assuage their guilt? If it’s the former, great. But if it’s the latter, which I suspect it is, will the animal have a life worth living, and will the person that adopts them stop at just one if it’s their guilt leading them? I am afraid we are setting up an environment ripe for animal hoarding, which is a fate far worse than humane euthanasia.

Dear Editor,
    According to Wikipedia, "Republican" refers to advocates of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship.
    Party of no; scientists, such things as global warming, retirement, Social Security, 401(k), minimum wage increase, American dream, I won't pay taxes cause I'm rich, foreigners, public heath care, soup for you.
    This also explains the "axis of evil" consisting of the "republics" of Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. But after a revisit of Bedtime for Democracy by the Dead Kennedys (inappropriate timing), wrestling for his seat are the Republican tea party, carpet-baggin', Rambozo scalawags. To republicate is to rewrite history with a machine gun? Being Sarah Palin is the spokesperson and wants to repeal the health care legislation, does that mean she plans on being the chairwoman of her "death panels"?
    Why did they take back the retirement packages after 19 years, for plugging in your hybrid? Was it to pay for the war they fabricated? Now the CEO that fired you put your 401(k) in his account. Yes, the same 3% that took your financial savings and then our government stimulus. They don't want to provide loans. They won't want to provide insurance for a dangerous position they put you in, to make them money.
    Dear Abby, do I make sure the body's blessed, mix it with Tuna Helper, and ta-da? Do not save the wealthy with a tax break.

Dear Editor,
    I found Michael King's article "Point Austin” [News, Sept. 17] to be misleading and unhelpful.
    While ultimately mentioning the good work of Austin Pets Alive!, the article seemed to give outsized credit for the current lower kill rate at the Town Lake Animal Center to the ASPCA, Austin Humane Society, and TLAC itself. These groups have been around forever, and certainly when the kill rate was much higher, and none of them politically advocated for the recent city resolution to become no-kill. Simultaneously, King failed to acknowledge that vanguard no-kill advocacy groups such as FixAustin and Austin Pets Alive! (and the animal lovers they inspired) were the ones who pushed for radical change that has resulted in the city's current new resolution to become no-kill and the current lower kill rate.
    The article also prominently featured criticism of outsourcing and Austin Pets Alive! by an ASPCA advocate. But the ASPCA has not pushed politically for Austin to be no-kill and is not offering to take on the task to make Austin no-kill. So why do they get to sit around and criticize other groups that want to make it happen?

Dear Editor,
    The article “Sex Offenders Exposed” [News, Sept. 10] is completely one-sided. Why are there so many who are willing to gamble with the innocence of a child? The typical child molester has 117 victims, most of which do not report what happened. This is one of the most underreported crimes there is. The problems this article talks about seem to be due to the wording of the laws and not the registry itself. We all start off as a stranger while we are getting to know a person, so why wouldn’t the registry provide useful information during that time? The Adam Walsh Act states that Tier I offenders have to register for 15 years, Tier II for 25 years, and Tier III for life. However, the state can decide to shorten the registration length according to the tier system for having a clean record for a certain amount of time and for completing certain programs. I believe the “risk assessment tools” that are currently being used are not accurate.
    There are real victims behind these sex offenders whose lives are forever changed and who will never be able to apply to have that part of their lives fixed. Victims are told to be silent and to not talk about what we have been through. It’s not right to ask that we return to the silence where abuse thrives because it’s inconvenient to others. Articles like yours say that the victims of these crimes aren’t important enough to make sure that fixes are done properly and minimize our suffering. But it does say, “Let’s just use that same broad brush that we’re complaining about to set almost all of the sex offenders free from the registry list.” Where would be the justice in that? There wouldn’t be.

   [News Editor Michael King responds: As the story points out, the inclusion of many less serious or even dubious offenses among serious crimes makes real crime victims more vulnerable, not less so. Moreover, the "117 victims per molester" statistic, ubiquitous on the Internet, has no known foundation in research. It would mean, for example, that the 1,500 registered Austin offenders would have more than 175,000 victims, nearly a quarter of the entire population. Nationally, as one researcher notes, "If all 700,000 registered offenders had 100 to 300 victims like the myth claims, there would be around 70 to 280 million victims. The USA only has 300 million individuals and around 70 million minors."]

Dear Editor,
    Joe Texas asks Bill White, "Will you debate?" White says yes. Joe Texas asks Rick Perry, "Will you debate?" Perry says no.
    End of story.

Dear Editor,
    Regarding Nancy P. Daley's letter [“Postmarks,” Sept. 17] concerning stereotypes about men, all the opinions about men that she describes are actually true. That's why no men are fighting to change them. In addition, all the stereotypes that people believe about women, blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and gays are also true. Each person within each one of the above categories is exactly like every other member of that group. Now that we know that all stereotypes are true, we can get on with living our lives, with no need to think for ourselves anymore.

Dear Editor,
    Next week the Committee on House Administration will consider the Fair Elections Now Act, a sweeping and historic bill that gives a voice to everyday Americans on the right, left, and center by allowing us to take our elections out of the control of big donors and place them back in our hands. The legislation will return us to elections of, by, and for the people, and since it’s paid for with the sale of the unused broadcast spectrum, it doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime – it’s the special interests who take the hit. If you agree that the true partisan debate is less between liberal and conservative but more about public and private interests, then please contact your congressperson.

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Page Two” [Sept. 17]: Black declares that “ideas once considered delusional nightmares are now accepted as real politics” and that the London al Jazeera TV news “is so much less polemical and ideologically constricted than it is on the Fox network.” It’s clear that (notwithstanding his disclaimers) he’s either unable to recognize his bias or isn’t truthful. Sadly, I suspect the latter.
    A prime clue is his comment that while viewing al Jazeera he observed that “the reporting was consistently much less ideologically crafted propaganda and far more fair and balanced than almost anything seen on Fox.” Objectively evaluated, this is simply untrue. Moreover, anyone with an IQ above 80 knows that al Jazeera is the mouthpiece for the tyrannical, genocidal, enslaving Islamist movement. And yet Black declares them as “far more fair and balanced than almost anything seen on Fox.” He’s not fooling anyone.
    It’s clear that the “ideas” Louis refers to as “delusional nightmares” are those of American conservatism. But instead of speaking directly, he willfully defiles himself with transparently embarrassing obfuscation. He shows he simply doesn't have the objective moral and intellectual clarity and courage to rationally challenge the philosophy of individual liberty, free enterprise, constitutionally limited government, and robust defense from tyranny – American conservatism.
    There are only two philosophical and ideological political choices in America – liberty (American conservatism) or individual-freedom-crushing leftism. And the upcoming congressional elections are the most existentially important in the last 100 years – maybe ever.
    If our citizens choose liberty, civilization will be temporarily secured again. If they choose leftism, American exceptionalism and leadership – culturally and economically – will be seriously wounded. Ergo, civilization will be mortally threatened. The bottom line is that the Republican Party represents liberty and the Democratic Party is the home of the left. We must choose wisely!

   [Louis Black responds: As McDonald is more interested in ranting than dialogue, in stringing together viciously loaded words insulting everyone and everything with which he disagrees, responding plays right into his hand. So this is a sucker play. He says that it's "clear" that "delusional nightmares" referred to conservative ideas. McDonald, of all people, should get that the left is also more than capable of such nightmares. As for the rest, current news media certainly invites open discussion and debate. There is also McDonald's objective truth as vetted by and absolutely replicating the opinions of McDonald. Your choice.]

Dear Editor,
    I read the “Sex Offenders Exposed” [News] in the Sept. 10 issue and say that it is time to stop treating sex as a crime unless it really is criminal, like molesting children or raping women. It makes perfect sense to require a pedophile or a serial rapist to register with the authorities as a sexual offender, but to make someone who peed on a fence register is absurd as he is not a sex offender. As for the guy who was accused of violating parole for channel surfing, I fail to see the logic in that. How is changing channels a crime? I guess we're all a bunch of perverts because everyone channel surfs. What's next? Farting in public being a jailable offense and enough to be required to be on the sex offender registry with everyone knowing that you are a serial farter? Don't laugh. It may happen.

Dear Editor,
    In all honesty, I don’t know what Pedobear is. An icon, a mascot, a meme – and I didn’t know what that was until I looked it up – a pedophile in disguise, a warning against a pedophile, something that started good and is being perverted – the answer depends on who you ask.
    I do know, however, what Pedobear represents: our darkest, deepest, most visceral fears and the monster in the dark on which we hang all those fears, the ubiquitous sex offender.
    Police departments have issued warnings, releasing elaborate bulletins detailing the inherent dangers. Well-meaning (I assume) journalists have written articles and posted blogs doing the same. One cute little thing wrote, “You never know who is behind the mask,” and in so doing inadvertently hit at the heart of the matter; the emphasis for child sexual assault is still where it has always been, on “stranger danger.” Even if Pedobear were indeed a “cover-up” for predators, it would still be true that less than 1% of sexual crimes against children are committed by released, registered sex offenders. Less than 10% are committed by a stranger.
    “The research showed that almost half (49%) of youth under age six and 42% of children ages six to 11 were sexually assaulted by a family member and another 44% by family acquaintances” (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
    Our children do not need to be taught to be afraid of everything that enters their environment. They need to be taught common sense about speaking to and interacting with strangers. They need to be taught that people sometimes wear masks that cannot be easily seen. Most of the monsters are wearing a daddy mask, an Uncle Joe mask, a Billy’s daddy mask. Our children need to be taught to speak up and speak out when something makes them uncomfortable or afraid no matter who makes them feel that way.