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,
    Greg Hamilton, the present Travis County sheriff, is in a contested primary election. At meetings with voters, he has been asked why such a great number of undocumented immigrants with no criminal histories are being deported from Travis County. He claims that the Travis County Sheriff's Department is only following the law and does not control who is deported. Secure Communities is an information sharing idea implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It has two parts; identifying a foreign national through computer databases and requesting that local law enforcement "hold" someone for ICE to arrive.
    The sheriff is not obligated by law to “hold” anyone for ICE. His obligation is to deal with the infraction committed at the local level. Of course, we want dangerous felons to be retained and deported. Hamilton could choose to “hold” those who are charged or convicted of severe crimes and choose not to “hold” those who are in custody for misdemeanors or who have no criminal record at all. Many counties around the nation have chosen to limit their response to the ICE request. Greg Hamilton is not using the discretion he has. He is holding everyone identified by ICE. This harms community policing, costs taxpayers, and destroys families.
    Greg Hamilton has been made aware of the distress and disruption this policy causes. Ever since 2008, there have been efforts by concerned citizens, immigration lawyers, community rights organizations to get him to change his policy. In spite of this, Hamilton continues with his policies.
    Whoever wins the Democratic Primary for sheriff will be elected in November. I am concerned that the present Travis County sheriff is choosing to make policy which our progressive community does not support and which does not reflect our core values.

Dear Editor,
    Don't hear much from Rick Perry these days …. Who's not happy that he thought he could run for president?

Dear Editor,
    We have a theory that the reason for objection to gay marriage may, for many people, lie in the word "marriage." From the beginning of time, it has meant one thing. Now, for some people, it may seem as if they're consulting the dictionary for the word "apple," and they find instead the definition of "oranges." For "marriage," they have visions of a white gown, satin slippers, a flower girl, and all the conventional accompaniments of a conventional wedding. But the scene may be different when a pair of individuals of the same sex, who care deeply for each other, decide to join their lives and evince that decision in a public ceremony. These individuals have not chosen their sex consciousness; they were wired that way by nature while still in the womb. Scientists can explain it.
    Therefore, what we need is a new word for a new social custom. So, because it makes sense and because it fits, we suggest the word "pairage."

Dear Editor,
    I share Max Gallegos' alarm [“Postmarks,” Feb. 24] over the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act with odious, anti-libertarian measures attached. I sent letters to my U.S. Rep. and two senators who replied that the offending language had been removed. I sent replies asking them to read the bill again, as passed, and they once again said there was nothing there.
    Michael Ventura's columns [“Letters at 3am”] do more than condemn President Obama as a premeditated liar, in that it is now known that the language that he publicly opposed was inserted by Sen. Carl Levin at Obama's request. Ventura's equally significant finding is that not one of the mainstream media outlets reported this fact, though they had to have known the truth. The Chronicle shines as a beacon of truth.
    In the 1920s Walter Lippmann wrote a book which declared that scientific means were available that would allow political insiders, the "governing class,” working with the cooperation of mass media, to make all policy decisions no matter who was elected by voters. He appears to have been correct. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is less than the difference between Marlboros and Winstons. Voters should avoid all of these toxins.

Dear Editor,
    Re: "Dissecting the Science of Death" [News, Feb. 24]: Is your humor obvious, subtle, or am I mistaken? You mention the "bug" (love it) experts. And the no less than four additional/different disciplines of "scientists/experts" as state resources claiming their agreement with its "primary experts." A bit much - stretching! Could this be another matter of inadequate defense money/expertise?

Dear Chronicle,
    After reading Ram Hinojosa’s letter [“Postmarks,” Feb. 24] lamenting the Chronicle’s use of staples, I feel obligated to apologize to him and to generations of readers for my earlier letter [“Postmarks,” Jan. 13] applauding the staples and encouraging their continued use. I thought others besides me had experienced the problem of pages falling out of unstapled issues, but now I infer from Mr. Hinojosa’s letter that I must be the only reader who has had this problem.
    Mr. Hinojosa goes on to tell us that with the staples, he can no longer neatly fold the paper in half to read all the text of the articles. (I confess that, in my decades of reading the Chronicle, I have never read all the text of an issue. I congratulate Mr. Hinojosa on his thoroughness.)
    One thing confuses me, though. I was easily able to fold my stapled issue in half. Oh well, this isn’t the first time I’ve thought something was simple and it turned out to be really complicated.

Dear Editor,
    Re: "Huber Responds" ["Postmarks," Feb. 17]: I also live in Shady Hollow. Brodie was not designed as a major through road. It has several tightly curved areas. Traffic has almost doubled in the last five years. Some of it is from in-building in the community. A large portion of the traffic is caused by continuing Brodie to intersect with FM 1626 back in the 1990s.This provides the only access to MoPac for a growing Hays County population to MoPac.
    As for the 45 SW link from FM 1626 to MoPac/45 SW, MoPac was built as a high-speed multilane divided highway. The 45 SW connection was planned and right-of-way gained decades ago. A two-lane county road connector is needed, not a multilane toll road as originally envisioned.
    Does anyone believe that Hays County commuters will drive a widened FM 1626 east to Manchaca Road; then drive north to Slaughter Road; then double-back west to gain access to MoPac? That will not happen. That will just make Slaughter all the more crowded and Brodie a continuing crawl in rush hour.
    I attended the Shady Hollow homeowners association meetings about 45 SW. I was there when Karen Huber said that the link will get done. She has changed her mind, probably with a concerted effort from our neighbors in Circle C Ranch, who do not want to see the MoPac/45 SW original design completed. Circle C Ranch, also has Escarpment, another multilane divided road, to the west, that can be used to access MoPac at two different entries.
    I think no one expected Austin to grow as rapid as it has. Southwest Travis County has now become cost effective for development even with the added environmental costs. At one time, growth in this area was not a big deal because of the environmental and building cost concerns. Those days are over. We need the 45 SW connector built as a smaller county road project between Hays and Travis counties. Also needed are the improvements along MoPac to continue the traffic flow past Slaughter Lane without an interruption from the current traffic signal.

Hi Marc Savlov,
    I loved your article – you really captured what I think makes this film so important [“Domestic Terrorists? Or Activist-Acolytes Led Astray by a Mentor?,” Screens, Feb. 24].
    There is one issue, however, which needs clarification:
    In your piece you write, "According to Crowder and McKay's testimonies, however, the Molotovs were Darby's idea and it was he who egged them on to commit to acts they never would have conceived of in the first place." [Editor's note: This text has since been corrected.]
    This statement is only half true. While they both feel that they never would have been in that situation had it not been for Brandon Darby – and he certainly encouraged them to view violence as a legitimate course of action – they do not claim, in the end, that the Molotovs were Darby's idea. David McKay did testify in his initial trial that the cocktails were Darby's idea. But then, at his retrial, he admitted that this was a lie and that he and Brad came up with the idea for the cocktails on their own. He was sentenced to an additional two years in prison for obstruction of justice because of this lie. We document all of this in the film.
    Brad Crowder has never claimed – either in court testimony or in interviews – that making the Molotov cocktails was Darby's idea.
    This slight error might seem trivial, but it's an important distinction. We try to present a nuanced and accurate account of these events in the film and to open a discussion about the FBI's use of provocative informants in so-called domestic terrorism cases. This particular case is complicated, to be sure, but we think – as your article points out – that these issues are important and that the events of the film have repercussions for all of us.

Dear Editor,
    I'd just like to say that you did a great job with the article about Troy Dillinger, “Confessions of a Mind on Overdrive” [Screens, Feb. 24]. It may sound cliché, but it's people like Troy who are fighting the good fight to keep Austin weird. The shows he puts on are a lot of fun and he promotes the hell out of local Austin businesses. Austin is truly a better place for having Troy as an ambassador of sorts.

Dear Jordan Smith,
    The week before last, I was concerned because of a lack of your articles. But this past week, bravo, four presentations – great! [“A 3-D Race for the Bench,” “Paper Towel Choking Case Back in Appeals Court,” “Dissecting the Science of Death,” and “Rick Perry Death Watch,” News, Feb. 24.] Just wanted you to know that one of your fans missed you.

Dear Editor,
    Regarding five-star movie status in The Austin Chronicle [“Postmarks,” Feb. 24]: Hannah and Her Sisters was rated five stars in 1986. I have seen it around a dozen times, and still agree with that assessment. Warning: this is a movie written and directed by Woody Allen, and features him onscreen in a prominent role.