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,
    Your Halloween Front Page Edition propagates bitterness and disharmony ["How to Assemble Your Armed White Male Mask," Oct. 27]. For sure, too many people everywhere are being shot every day. But to pounce on the white guy again with MOJO's slant is really unfair. Shooting and killing people cannot be reduced to a race issue and definitely should not be blasted as another play on white privilege. Simply stated nearly every mass shooting incident in the last 20 years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common. The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes. OK, you and your readers will shout back, “Drugs! Hey man, back off … yeah yeah, but Paddock was white.”
    Well then, to address your slap that all white males are the only ones shooting people, let's take an objective read from others like Daniel Engber (www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/10/what_the_white_mass_shooter_myth_gets_right_and_wrong_about_killers_demographics.html) or even John Kruzel's article, which does not discount MOJO but at least puts the facts in proper perspective (www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/oct/06/newsweek/are-white-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/). Can agree on one point, that it is mostly males doing the shooting!

Dear Editor,
    This will be short, direct and to the point. What in the hell were you thinking when the decision was made to put the “Armed White Male” Halloween mask on the cover of your publication? [Oct. 27] And, whose decision was it? To say it’s in poor taste is putting it mild. Y’all have just lost a longtime reader. I’d imagine I’m not the only one. Step up, apologize and clean up your act, like, now.

Dear Editor,
    You can't be serious? Armed white male mask instructions? [“How to Assemble Your Armed White Male Mask,” Oct. 27.] First of all that's racist. Secondly, that's terribly insensitive to the many people who lost loved ones in recent tragedies. How about a black male Chicagoan? He could look like a gang member holding a gun. How would that come across?
    Austin has always been a place of accepting all walks of life. Perpetuating division is shameful. Yes white males have long been a majority who have not expressed much oppression but that does not make it OK to stereotype or demean them.
    Your edit should resign!

Dear Editor,
    I’m a business owner here in Downtown Austin, and I just wanted you guys to know that you’re fucking assholes for this cover [“How to Assemble Your Armed White Male Mask,” Oct. 27]. This is a city that’s built on tolerance and diversity, and you thought it would be a good idea to spread racism and hate for money? Fuck you. 
    I will NEVER EVER support your work again. You should be ashamed of yourselves. 

Dear Editor,
    Thanks for the tasteless front cover mask story [“How to Assemble Your Armed White Male Mask,” Oct. 27]. Mother Jones' database is your best news source for information on crime statistics, really?  
    Let's have a new mask next week showing a black male with a gun. Why not? According to the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, 16,914 murders in the United States were committed in 2016 with some 6,095 by black men, and 5,004 by white men, yet the country is 13% black and 72% white according the the U.S. Census bureau. I'll never see that mask, however, as we are all so sensitive about bringing up any point that might appear to denigrate any minority, but have no problem in kicking white males around.
    Let's go back to 2002 when (from Wikipedia): "snipers were John Allen Muhammad (aged 41) and Lee Boyd Malvo (aged 17), who travelled in a blue, 1990 Chevrolet Caprice sedan. Their crime spree, begun in February 2002, featured murders and robberies in the states of Alabama, Arizona, and Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Washington, which resulted in seven deaths and seven injured people; in ten months, the snipers killed 17 people and injured 10 other people."
    Mother Jones' database doesn't even list this event!  
    Mass killings are caused by sick people regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. To single out an ethnic or racial group and try and pin some type of stigma on them is nothing more than pure racism plain and simple. As a white male without a single gun to my name, I find myself now cast in among the nut bags who've perpetrated these crimes.
    This is truly fake news. Stick to your all's excellent coverage of local politics and weekly happenings/reviews. We can always watch Fox News if we need a dose of yellow journalism.

Dear Editor,
    I found the "How to Assemble Your Armed White Male Mask" [Oct. 27] article pointless and extremely distasteful after 58 innocent people lost their lives to the white male you were mocking earlier this month. I get that it was tongue in cheek, but if you're trying to make a point, why not put a little more info about what people can do to stop gun violence, get involved, or disarm these dangerous white males??
    No one needed to see an image of a gun pointed at them less than a month after Vegas, and then be encouraged to make a mask emulating the shooter.  I'm sure some people will be wearing these "as seen in the Chronicle masks" around on Halloween.
    As a gun violence prevention advocate, I am disheartened that nothing is done in this country about the growing problem, and media outlets don't help when they wash shootings from their memories within a few short weeks, or make a joke about it when some of us are still reeling from the violence.
    Chronicle, be part of the solution, not the problem.
    The article was insensitive, upsetting, and definitely not funny.

Dear Editor,
    I just got back from a road trip through North Carolina with my girlfriend, who is African-American and a self-identifying bleeding heart liberal. So of course one of the stops on the trip was at the International Civil Rights museum in Greensboro, N.C., where they've preserved the Woolworth's lunch counter where four young black men started the sit down movement to protest the "whites only" seating policy backed up by Jim Crow law. The amazing tour showed how the racism was so embedded in the Southern culture of the time that the white citizens were largely oblivious to the immorality of the injustices they were perpetrating.
    And then we arrived back in Austin and picked up a copy of the Chron. With a cover featuring an "Armed White Male" Halloween mask. Which I looked at uneasily and finally asked my girlfriend, "Would this be borderline racist if it instead featured a black man pointing the gun at the readers?"
    "Not even borderline," she said. "That'd be straight up racist."
    "Does it make any difference that they put a white man instead?"
    "Nope," she said. "Still racist."
    Thought y'all would like to get a heads-up. I'm sure y'all had good intentions, as many of the citizens in Greensboro in 1960 no doubt had, not knowing any better, until it was politely pointed out to them.

Dear Editor,
    Just read your article about babies in restaurants ["Dear Glutton: Dining With Newborns," April 14]. Really wished you would have mentioned it's polite to take a crying baby outside. As a childless fiftysomething it's really unpleasant to spend $60 or $70 on a relaxing restaurant meal and listen to a crying baby at the table next to us. It seems it used to be customary to take a crying baby outside, but I see it happening less and less.

Dear Editor,
    I was under the impression that the Chronicle was a champion of racial and gender equality and sensitive to the perceptions of those stigmatized on that basis.
    As your current cover ["How to Assemble Your Armed White Male Mask," Oct. 27] shows, some classes of people are clearly more equal than others.

Dear Editor,
    Regarding your cover Halloween mask 2017: “Armed White Male" [Oct. 27]. What if the cover had said "Armed black male." The outrage would be swift and legitimate. But whites are fair game; especially older white males. Now ask yourself why Trump has so many supporters despite his vast sea of flaws.

Dear Editor,
    It was a total surprise to me and many of my progressive friends that The Austin Chronicle was “No” on Proposition 7 ["Chronicle Endorsements," News, Oct. 27]. I know my colleagues at the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) sent information to the Chronicle. It provided information on why CPPP, RAISE Texas, and many other local and state groups believe that “prize-linked savings” is an important tool to help many low-income Texans become more financially secure.
    We have been working on ways to increase savings for emergencies (so people don’t have to go to payday lenders) and to reach short- and long-term goals. One of the problems this program would help solve is that 46% of Americans do not have enough money to cover a $400 expense.
    In 2015, working with Rep. Johnson from Dallas, we were successful with the Texas Legislature approving legislation allowing financial institutions to offer prize-linked savings accounts. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by Governor Abbott saying that it would require a change to the Texas Constitution, which generally prohibits the Legislature from authorizing lotteries.
    Again in 2017 a similar bill passed through the Legislature with strong bipartisan support (all Austin legislators voted yes). The bill supporting a constitutional amendment allowing prize-linked savings also passed the Legislature. Both bills were approved by the governor leading to Proposition 7 on the ballot.
    It is terribly disappointing that the Chronicle is against Proposition 7 based on simply not wanting to change the constitution. We did not have any other option to make this product available for Texans.
    Nationally as of 2017, 25 states allow prize-linked savings. From 2009-2016, over 75,000 accountholders saved over $175 million, and over 80% of accountholders are financially vulnerable.
    I would have expected The Austin Chronicle to better understand the need for this important policy change.

Dear Editor,
    I get the impression that one of Mary Tuma's goals as a journalist is to see how many times she can work the phrase "anti-choice" into the pages of the Chronicle [see the War on Women's Health page]. Speaking as a pro-choice person, it's just cheap. And it's needlessly divisive and caustic. Certainly Tuma's predecessors at the Chronicle like Jordan Smith and Lauri Apple didn't see a need to beat their readers over the head with their opinions, being more likely to use the just-as-accurate phrase "anti-abortion" instead.
    If a person or group is doing something questionable, that'll be obvious enough if you simply lay out the facts. Tuma's choice (no pun intended) of phrase either bespeaks an insecurity that the reader might not "get it," or else she feels a need to disparage her opponents in a very non-journalistic way.

   

[Staff writer Mary Tuma responds: My goal is to shine a light on the attacks toward women’s health care, not encourage divisiveness. To the claim that “anti-choice” is “just as accurate” as “anti-abortion”: I consciously and deliberately employ the term “anti-choice” to signify the fact that those who advocate against abortion are also advocating more broadly against a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her body when it comes to reproductive health care in general, and thus, her quality of life and her future. The term “anti-choice” is not meant to be “caustic” as Mr. Bluejay asserts, but to reinforce the reality that lawmakers are not just restricting abortion but women’s bodily autonomy.

Perhaps Mr. Bluejay would be better served directing his media criticism to the many mainstream news reporters who continue to use the phrase “pro-life” when describing the anti-abortion camp, a far more “divisive” and misleading rhetorical term, considering their lack of empathy for survivors of rape, incest, and life-threatening pregnancy complications when crafting and supporting abortion laws.]