YOU SAY: let­ters TO THE ED­I­TOR

Austin American-Statesman - - VIEWPOINTS - Allen C.ward Austin Mark Pul­liam Austin Dave Howard Austin Liz Mcil­lece Cedar Park Larry Ky­sela Buda La­marw.hank­ins San Mar­cos SHARE YOUR HOL­I­DAY WISHES CON­TACT US

Re­cy­cling guide too PC

I re­ceived my re­cy­cling guide Satur­day. It was filled with mostly good in­for­ma­tion on han­dling garbage and re­cy­cling. How­ever, the por­tion about re­cy­cling Christ­mas trees was, at least, puz­zling. In English, it tells you how to re­cy­cle your “hol­i­day tree.” In Span­ish, the tree is called “ar­bol de Navi­dad” which trans­lates to “Christ­mas Tree.” Hol­i­day tree should prob­a­bly be “ar­bol de fi­esta.”

This is just PC non­sense. Th­ese are Christ­mas trees! They are go­ing to be mulched! Re­cy­cling trees is not a re­li­gious hap­pen­ing! Who is go­ing to be of­fended by mak­ing Dillo Dirt? This PC non­sense is ru­in­ing our lan­guage.

Wind-power boon­dog­gle

Re: Dec. 3 ar­ti­cle, “End of wind?”

Your ar­ti­cle on the po­ten­tial demise of the wind en­ergy tax credit states that “Texas ... has ben­e­fited more than any other state from the fed­eral sub­sidy” be­cause it is home to seven of the na­tion’s 10 largest wind farms. It would be more ac­cu­rate to say that wind farm de­vel­op­ers and equip­ment man­u­fac­tur­ers have been the ben­e­fi­cia­ries. Wind-gen­er­ated power is — with­out the tem­po­rary tax sub­sidy — about twice as ex­pen­sive as elec­tric­ity pro­duced by con­ven­tional nat­u­ral gas gen­er­a­tors. Wind­mill farms are a vis­ual blight and slaugh­ter large quan­ti­ties of birds. The ar­ti­cle ac­knowl­edges that the ex­ten­sive grid of trans­mis­sion lines nec­es­sary to bring re­motely gen­er­ated wind power to mar­ket — at a cost of $7 bil­lion to date in Texas alone — will ul­ti­mately be borne by ratepay­ers. Wind­gen­er­ated elec­tric­ity is a boon­dog­gle, pure and sim­ple — cor­po­rate wel­fare, just like ethanol. If it is a ca­su­alty of the fis­cal cliff, good rid­dance.

Make bikes fol­low rules

Re: Dec. 1 let­ter to the ed­i­tor, “Cy­clist reg­u­la­tion.”

It’s only fair that bi­cy­cles be re­quired to have some form of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Since we share the road with so many twowheeled folks, it’s time that those who use non­mo­tor­ized forms of trans­porta­tion be re­quired to meet some of the same forms of ve­hi­cle safety and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion that mo­tor­ized ve­hi­cles do. It’s time for all bi­cy­clists to fol­low the same traf­fic laws and rules mo­torists must fol­low.

Enough with the gloat­ing

Re: Dec. 1 com­men­tary, “Mem­o­rable Fox moment: An un­bal­anced Karl Rove.”

OK! Obama won … we are all aware of it. It would be use­ful if the ‘left’ side of the ed­i­to­rial writ­ers would stop writ­ing snarky, ju­ve­nile, fluffy pieces. There are real is­sues that need to be ham­mered out, and why is it im­por­tant or even rel­e­vant that Karl Rove went wacky on Ohio on elec­tion night? Or that Fox News is bi­ased? Really, John Young and the left side … look around you and tell us some­thing of sub­stance. That is, of course, un­less you think there is noth­ing left to do but gloat. Please put your pro­fes­sional pants back on dis­play so we can have a mean­ing­ful con­ver­sa­tion. You are all now just di­min­ish­ing your­selves with this point­less drivel.

Stunned by re­buke

Re: Dec. 1 com­men­tary, “Mem­o­rable Fox moment: An un­bal­anced Karl Rove.”

I was rather stunned by John Young’s scathing re­buke of the Fox News Net­work and their con­ser­va­tive sup­port of Mitt Rom­ney and other Repub­li­cans in the last elec­tion. The net­work’s con­ser­va­tive an­a­lysts and other on-air per­son­nel pale in com­par­i­son to those from the “ma­jor me­dia” coming to us over the reg­u­lar air­waves. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC have all been over­whelm­ing in their sup­port for Pres­i­dent Barack Obama since the early days of an­nounc­ing his run for the pres­i­dency. The vit­ri­olic com­men­tary of some of MSNBC’s per­son­nel bor­dered on the out­ra­geous. It seems to me the odds were stacked against Rom­ney, and the elec­tion bore that out.

No choice for chil­dren

Re: Dec. 2 col­umn, “We al­ways have had path­way to cit­i­zen­ship.”

Ken Her­man’s ap­par­ently strong de­sire to get peo­ple to stop us­ing the phrase “path­way to cit­i­zen­ship” has blinded him to the most ob­vi­ous rea­son that term is be­ing used — namely, be­cause many of the peo­ple who came on an “il­le­gal path­way across the bor­der” did so in­vol­un­tar­ily as chil­dren, even as in­fants. They hardly had a choice but have been raised as Amer­i­cans, which they are both cul­tur­ally and emo­tion­ally. It is th­ese peo­ple that the Dream Act is in­tended to ben­e­fit, but that seems to have been lost to Her­man in his de­sire to make the wrong point. Un­like most hol­i­day sea­son of­fer­ings, wishes don’t cost any­thing. Do you have a wish for some­thing that would make this year spe­cial? Why don’t you share it with the rest of our read­ers? We’re so­lic­it­ing your hol­i­day wishes for this year for publi­ca­tion on Dec. 25. Please limit your sub­mis­sions to 150 words. Send your sub­mis­sions by Dec. 14 to let­ters@ states­man.com or to: Let­ters to the Ed­i­tor PO Box 670 Austin, Texas 78768 Please put “Christ­mas let­ters”in sub­ject line of emails or on the en­ve­lope. The Austin Amer­i­can-States­man en­cour­ages email and faxes from read­ers. Please in­clude a full name, ad­dress and day­time and evening phone num­bers.We edit let­ters for brevity, gram­mar, style and clar­ity. Edited let­ters ad­dress a sin­gle idea and do not ex­ceed 150 words.Anony­mous let­ters will not be pub­lished. Let­ters be­come prop­erty of the Austin Amer­i­canS­tates­man. Send emails to let­ters@ states­man.com. Mail to: Let­ters to the Ed­i­tor, P.O. Box 670,Austin,TX 78767.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.