Austin American-Statesman - - OPINION - Jay Jan­ner

Tea party and racism

racist?” Re: July 17 com­men­tary “Is the tea party

of I the think opin­ion not. John that the Har­ti­gan tea party Jr. seems peo­ple to are be up­set of a black about ad­min­is­tra­tion. the state of our nation be­cause

I be­lieve that a party by any name would be up­set with any ad­min­is­tra­tion that is bring­ing about the chaotic un­cer­tainty that our coun­try faces as a re­sult of leg­isla­tive and ad­min­is­tra­tive de­ci­sions dur­ing the past 18 months.

In essence, the tea party move­ment is in­clu­sive of race and reg­is­ters con­cern for the lives of all Amer­i­cans. Jerry Scofield


Har­ti­gan’s thoughts on the tea party were ab­surd. The move­ment is clearly ide­o­log­i­cal, and its views are well known. So why does Har­ti­gan ig­nore these facts and fo­cus in­stead on am­bigu­ous racial terms and skewed statis­tics? One might agree or dis­agree with the tea party, but dis­miss­ing its phi­los­o­phy be­cause of skin tone is the real racist act. chriS Toland


Border se­cu­rity

Re: July 16 ed­i­to­rial “Make a fed­eral case over it.”

You com­pletely missed the point. Amer­i­cans want border se­cu­rity. With­out that, noth­ing else works. Clearly, I am not from your school of thought. faye TeSSnow

Lago Vista

The ed­i­to­rial makes it sound pretty sim­ple. The ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­cans (and Tex­ans) are wrong in their sup­port of the Ari­zona law, and the fed­eral laws need an over­haul.

Well, those same laws are what cre­ated the great­est melt­ing pot in the world for im­mi­grants. It’s not the laws that are to blame, it’s the lack of fed­eral en­force­ment. Let’s do that first, then maybe dis­cuss tweak­ing the laws or deal­ing with the 11 mil­lion il­le­gals al­ready here.

Phil May­field philmay­field@roof­con­sult.net


Wowed by IMAX and real life

Wowed by the movie “In­cep­tion” at the IMAX The­atre at the beau­ti­ful Bob Bul­lock Mu­seum re­cently, we reached our car in the park­ing garage only to be thrilled again.

Only in Austin would a kind per­son pick up my hus­band’s wal­let from be­side our car and place it in our door han­dle for safe­keep­ing un­til our ar­rival — know­ing that in Austin it would still be there upon our re­turn.

Maybe I’m naive, but I think our city is filled with good Sa­mar­i­tans who keep alive the spirit of do­ing good deeds. I, for one, in­tend to keep that spirit alive.

Thank you! Now, if I can just do some­thing about my hus­band’s ab­sent­mind­ed­ness … nancy Mar­quez


Pro­gres­sive tax struc­ture

Re: July 18 PolitiFact ar­ti­cle “Con­gress­man over­es­ti­mates tax bur­den on wealth­i­est few.”

Ac­cord­ing to the ar­ti­cle, an un­bi­ased or­ga­ni­za­tion found that the top 10 per­cent of Amer­i­can earn­ers paid for 52 per­cent of all fed­eral taxes, even with pay­roll taxes and cor­po­rate taxes in­cluded, which, as you state, are spread more evenly over all wage earn­ers than is the in­come tax. My bet is that most peo­ple would be very sur­prised at how much of the fed­eral tax bur­den is paid by the wealthy.

The num­bers def­i­nitely show that we still have a very pro­gres­sive tax struc­ture in this coun­try. Some­how, I don’t think Democrats re­ally want ev­ery­one to know that the top 10 per­cent pay 52 per­cent of taxes. They would lead us to be­lieve that the wealthy avoid pay­ing a large share of taxes, and this just isn’t so.

ThoMaS dove thomasadove@gmail.com

Round Rock

Lots of bot­tled-up frus­tra­tion

Re: July 19 ar­ti­cle “Bot­tled wa­ter deal brims with UT ap­peal.”

It’s time to wean our­selves away from bot­tled wa­ter as much as pos­si­ble — not to en­cour­age more con­sump­tion of it.

Be­tween the chem­i­cals leach­ing from the plas­tic into the wa­ter, the lack of stan­dards for wa­ter qual­ity for bot­tled wa­ter and the plas­tic waste, this is not a prod­uct that should be pro­moted. Fo­cus­ing on health­ier, more en­vi­ron­men­tally friendly al­ter­na­tives

such as stain­less steel re­fill­able bot­tles is the way to go.

In 2009, Austin started im­ple­ment­ing the state’s first zero-waste strate­gic plan, which places a charge to the city to re­duce garbage sent to land­fills by 90 per­cent by 2040. The Uni­ver­sity of Texas will not be do­ing any fa­vors for res­i­dents and stu­dents with this ven­ture. This is a short-sighted deal for profit and a long-term prob­lem for our land­fills and tax base.

STacy Guidry stacy@tex­as­en­vi­ron­ment.org


Re: July 19 ar­ti­cle “Bot­tled wa­ter deal brims wih UT ap­peal.”

In light of to­day’s cir­cum­stances, in­sti­tu­tions like the Uni­ver­sity of Texas should be search­ing for ways to meet the triple bot­tom line — eco­nomic, so­cial, and en­vi­ron­men­tal re­spon­si­bil­ity.

Tim McClure and Steve Gura­sich could bet­ter serve our alma mater (and their cof­fers) by of­fer­ing a burnt orange re­us­able can­teen stamped with one of the many UT icons for sale at sport­ing events.

I would love to “Drink Wa­ter, Bleed Orange and Fund Schol­ar­ships,” but I don’t want to trash the en­vi­ron­ment in do­ing so.

I only have one ques­tion for UT Pres­i­dent Wil­liam Pow­ers Jr. Do you re­ally want your legacy to be tied to a prod­uct that is dis­carded as quickly as it is con­sumed? Please re­con­sider and lead by ex­am­ple. Show the rest of the coun­try how to do it right.

dayna cow­ley Class of 2002


I can­not be­lieve it. The cause is ad­mirable — schol­ar­ships. The means cho­sen is ap­palling.

I re­lo­cated here 18 months ago from Dal­las. I’ve told peo­ple one of the good things about Aus­tinites is they are very en­vi­ron­men­tally con­scious. Not this group, ap­par­ently.

It takes more than 47 mil­lion gal­lons of oil to pro­duce plas­tic wa­ter bot­tles for Amer­i­cans ev­ery year. Each bot­tle re­quired nearly five times its vol­ume in wa­ter to man­u­fac­ture the plas­tic, and about 86 per­cent of the bot­tles are thrown away.

Car­bon cred­its do not give bless­ing to this ven­ture.

SiS­Ter JT dwyer


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.