Letters from our Readers - September 2007

Borski's No Dive
We strongly disagree with so-called 'Music Editor' Mark Williams' column re: Borski's Tavern when he cited Borski's having been "transformed from a dive into a rustic musical oasis." Indeed Borski's has undergone many changes over the years. The new owners expanded it and welcomed several musical bands of varying genres. Change is as good as it is inevitable, as evidenced by the larger crowds Borski's attracted the past twenty or so years. 
Borski's, however, was never a dive; quite the opposite. Borski's has always been a respectable fixture in North Montgomery County. While yes it was a beer joint, it was also a restaurant which served-up tasty burgers, bbq, etc. There was no riff-raff allowed in, and at the first sign of potential trouble, you were out on your ear. 
In the '60s my family owned Esparanza Ranch, roughly a mile north of Borski's. Perhaps my favorite facet of ranch work was riding our horses over to Borski's for lunch. We'd tie our horses to the wooden railing & feast on bbq sandwiches & orange soda. At least 2 other tables would host seniors playing dominoes. 
In later years I often accompanied my grandmother to Esparanza to fish, and a stop at Borski's for bbq sandwiches was an understood prerequisite. The boredom and the sunburn of our angling adventures were justified (if not welcomed) by the bold, brash bite of Borski's bbq. Odd for a Lincoln, but my grandmother's car often smelled of minnows... and bbq! 
I once gave [original owners and friends] Jake and Ruth Borski, a framed photo of my grandparents, and they were quite honored. Mr. and Mrs. Borski have since passed on. Friends Sam and Kay Page acquired Borski's in 1981 and ushered-in pleasant changes and innovations without running-off longtime loyalists. They sold it yet again not long ago to retire. 
Even with all these changes Borski's has seen, I've still not heard of any trouble. Williams should re-think "dive" if not apologize to us longtime Borski's loyalists and the former owners. My hopes and prayers are that someone buys this goldmine and keeps the tradition of respectability (and the recipes!). It was a fun and safe place to party. In my 20s, when the aforementioned orange sodas were replaced by other libations, I learned an array of Polish phrases. I would not trade that for the world. 
David N. Hooper 
Conroe, TX

The Voters & Education
As we all know the media has become BIGOTS. We the citizens get no choice as 
to the platforms of those running for president. Example was last night on 
David Lettermans show where Hillary Clinton could not answer to a campaign 
finance act. The truth those members of the establishment want us not to know. The question we must ask of ourselves is: Will we research the candidates? I am James Wright and I am asking every reader to lok over my platform and think what a secure government would be worth to you. 
http://www.wrightforpresident.com  This is the only option we have for our nations preservation. Pass the word as you are the only way we have to tell the world. Person to person! We need you to contribute if you can.
James Wright
Cleveland, TX

Senator Kay
I applaud your attention on protecting our children. Now why does it smack of election PR ? I have to ask if you care about America's children of the military the military who have not been home in 15 months, serving tour upon tour for a useless, illegal cause. The military who are serving and dying everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3735 as of today. The military that 75% Americans want to come home. Pretty quiet on that aren't you?
What about the children of the jailed Border Agents? Are you concerned that they are victims of a travesty of justice done to their fathers? Fathers doing the job they were paid to do? Victims of a trial with suppressed evidence, suppressed by a government attorney. Haven't heard your voice on that either. 
Does being a representative mean representative ONLY to those who pay the most for your vote ? How does it feel that politician has become a dirty word?
Linda Woode
Montgomery, TX

The Political Opponent Karl Rove Feared Most 
Pennsylvania is a blue state that divisive GOP campaigns of God, guns and gays occasionally turn red. When Al Gore ran for President against George W. Bush in 2000, Pennsylvania was pivotal. Labor operatives in the Keystone State assured their members: "Al Gore won’t take away your guns, but George Bush will take away your unions." 
Gore won Pennsylvania but as we all now know, the Supreme Court gave the election to George Bush who has done everything in his power to do to working people just what Labor in Pennsylvania said he would: take away their unions. 
In recent weeks, national attention has been focused on the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys who weren’t "Bushie" enough. But long before the politicizing of the Justice Department, White House political strategist Karl Rove set his sights on the real threat to a GOP "permanent majority"-- organized labor. 
From the day the Bush Administration took office, government agencies created to help working people have been under attack. It began with the appointment of Elaine Chao as Labor Secretary, something akin to naming Typhoid Mary to the Board of Health. A department created "to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States" became a haven for unfair employers. Chao’s first move was to deprive six million workers of the right to overtime pay (she even advised employers how to exploit the new rules). Next, her department slashed funds and staff for workplace safety and repealed regulations to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries. The department continues to strongly oppose any increase in the minimum wage. 
But it wasn’t enough just to keep workers down. Even more important to Bush and Rove was the need to stifle union organizing. That was accomplished by Bush appointees to the National Labor Relations Board who have manipulated the rules so that the NLRB has become a tool to penalize rather than protect workers seeking union membership. When Democrats sponsored legislation to allow workers to skip the NLRB and organize by "card check", who was it in the Senate who stopped it in its tracks? Elaine Chao’s husband, GOP minority leader Mitch McConnell. 
Why are Bush, Rove and the GOP Congress so willing to pull out all stops to deny unions the right to organize? Because unions have what the GOP can’t buy: committed grassroots political activists who leaflet, phone bank, and educate their members better than any other organization in America. It helps explain why union households vote in record numbers. 
It had to send a shiver through Republican ranks when AFL-CIO President John Sweeney promised Democratic Presidential candidates at a Chicago debate last month that 2008 "will be our biggest election effort ever." (Just a week later, Rove announced he was retiring.) 
Fox News and other right-wing political pundits try to have it both ways: they belittle organized labor as weak and passé, and then they rail against the threat of "Big Labor". What "threat" does Labor pose? What they ask of candidates they endorse is that they fight for universal health care, affordable housing, safer workplaces, lower college tuitions and other issues that ordinary people care about. By contrast, GOP candidates have some heavy-lifting to do on the campaign trail, justifying to voters the priorities of their corporate backers. 
The grassroots election fervor created by organized labor--all those enthusiastic, placard-waving union members, a sea of brightly colored T-shirts—drives Rove crazy. Somehow he never can muster shouting hordes of manufacturers or Jaycees at his rallies where attendance is pre-screened. Bankers and realtors and corporate executives aren’t much for leafleting or phone banking either, and you can’t expect those Jags and stretch limos to car pool voters to the polls on election day. 
After nearly seven years of taking the best shots the Bush administration can give them, resilient and resourceful unions and their members are upbeat and optimistic this Labor Day. Rove is packing up and leaving town, but workers have their rally caps on and can hardly wait for 2008. 
Victor Kamber
District of Columbia 

Lone Star Spending Spree 
Give George W. Bush credit. He's drawn a lot of criticism for not doing more to control federal spending over the past six years. But he is now deep into a spending fight against a sacred liberal program. And he isn't backing away.
In recent weeks, Mr. Bush has confronted Congress over the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- which is substantially funded by the federal government and up for congressional reauthorization this year. Mr. Bush understands Schip has become a wedge for expanding government-run health care in Texas.
In 1997, Congress and President Bill Clinton created Schip to provide health insurance for children of families that are living up to twice the federal poverty line. Many Republicans foolishly thought they could create a limited health-care program for kids and avoid ending up with full blown HillaryCare. What they didn't seem to appreciate was that Schip was itself a baby step toward universal health care.
But that gets ahead of the story. In 1999, Texas Republicans were divided on whether to authorize creating the program in the Lone Star State. Some GOP legislators opposed it. But Mr. Bush, then one year into his second term and preparing to run for the White House, favored it. He worked with Democrats, then in control of the legislature, to create Texas's Schip program.
It was supposed to have limits. Schip's champions argued that the program would not be an open-ended entitlement, obligating the state to pay for anyone who met eligibility requirements and signed up. Instead they promised to cap the costs at a specific dollar amount each year. If too many people sought to sign up, Schip administrators were to draw up waiting lists and halt enrollment.
It didn't work out that way, of course. Once it was up and running, the program mushroomed in cost and few officials wanted to control its growth. In 2001, its first full year, Texas's Schip cost $381 million. One year later, the program was up to $679 million and the state was headed into a $10 billion budget deficit. (The state has budgeted more than $900 million for the program for 2008.)
Not coincidentally, in 2002 Republicans won control of the legislature for the first time in more than 100 years. Shortly thereafter, Republicans cleaned up the Schip program by requiring that beneficiaries apply every six months instead of once a year (circumstances often change throughout year), and by mandating that those enrolled in the program meet specific income and assets tests. These reforms aimed to make sure the program really was a last resort for poor parents seeking health care for their children.
The assets test revealed evidence of abuse. Under the reforms, families were generously allowed to exempt up to $15,000 in value of one vehicle and up to $4,650 for a second. But several Texans were caught collecting Schip benefits while driving expensive, late model luxury cars. One person had three automobiles worth more than $50,000 after the exemptions. Another family was denied enrollment when found to have $150,000 in IRAs.
The number of people enrolled in the program fell precipitously between 2003 and 2005, to 326,557 from 507,259. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimates that 84% of that decline was a result of the reforms.
But this year, the state was flush with a $14 billion surplus and Texas Republicans were backsliding. Advocates argued to stop dropping people from the program just because they no longer met eligibility requirements. Some argued that the state should figure out who chose not to reapply for benefits and convince them not to drop out of the program. Many wanted to loosen restrictions that stopped beneficiaries from owning expensive cars and eliminate waiting periods that deterred Schip from acting as a welfare magnet for enrollment.
Republicans capitulated. In the session that ended in May, GOP legislators noted that loosening Schip eligibility was the least expensive item on the Democrats' wish list.
Rep. Sylvester Turner, a Democrat and Schip supporter, said on the House floor: "Would I like to see more kids added? Absolutely. Would I like to see 700,000 kids that would qualify for [S]chips on the rolls? Absolutely." He also urged his colleagues to "do the right thing for kids today, hoping that as we move forward, we'll take another step for kids tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow." In the end, only a handful of Texas legislators voted against expanding the program by loosening eligibility standards, relaxing the assets test and reversing other 2003 reforms. Gov. Rick Perry has already signed it into law.
This is where President Bush's experience in Texas comes to play a role in his fight at the national level, where Schip must be reauthorized this year. As the governor who signed Schip into law in the state, he can remember the arguments and the promises made during the initial debates of the program. He can see how Schip has been used to expand government control of health care and how it has been abused. He can see how a program that started out for poor children has become an instrument for universal and, increasingly, socialized medicine.
Mr. Bush comes to this fight with an understanding of how Schip has played out in the states, which is why his administration recently instituted reforms to the program that aim to restrict eligibility to those it was originally intended to serve -- the truly needy -- and not provide an incentive for middle class parents to drop their private health insurance. Moreover, he has threatened to veto federal legislation that would allow states to expand their Schip programs.
It would be easy for Mr. Bush to give in on this fight. He is, after all, in the twilight of his administration. But next month, he'll square off against Congress to oppose an incremental advance of socialized medicine. We are fortunate he is today willing to do so at a time when Republicans in his home state were quick to abandon the fight.
Mary Katherine Stout 
Director, Center for Health Care Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

Humans Are Not Responsible
It seems like almost everyone is jumping on the global warming bandwagon. State governors, world leaders at the G8 Summit, and some pseudo scientists, to name a few.
We have many scientific laws, but none pertaining to global warming. Therefore, computer climate models and predictions are not based on solid scientific evidence—only on what some people think might happen.
We are told that humans are causing global warming. From about 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D. we had the Medieval Warm Period where the earth was as hot or hotter than it is today. This was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1550 to 1850. 
In 1300, less than 500 million people lived on earth. In 1850, world population was more than one billion people. So how did twice as many people cause our earth to cool?
Humans are not responsible for our weather. Nature is. For example, some scientists have discovered that fluctuations in solar activity causes our earth temperatures to fluctuate. Go to www.oism.org/pproject  for a scientific debunking of global warming. Let us get off this phony bandwagon!
Dominick Odorizzi
Porter Ranch, CA

Texas Pledge Upheld, So Far. . . 
Last legislative session the Texas pledge got a little longer…we are now “One state, under God,” just like the national pledge of allegiance states. But, to no surprise to many, self-proclaimed atheists have already begun a legal battle to have these words removed.
Last month David Croft, and his wife Shannon, filed a lawsuit on behalf of their children, seeking an injunction in federal court to stop the new pledge from being recited. The Crofts have been waging similar legal crusades for years against the state and their children’s school district, Carrolton-Farmers Branch, in North Texas. They have rarely been successful, but in spite of the law, court precedent, and common sense, they proceed while racking up legal bills all at taxpayer expense. Their latest pursuit to stop the new pledge also failed when their request for an injunction was denied.
Regardless of how misguided the Crofts are in their legal pursuits, it is still necessary for schools and the state to take time and money to defend the Constitution and the laws our elected officials have passed. Take for example the minute of silence given to children before the start of each school day. Despite numerous court cases across the country, including an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court that clearly allows for moments of silence, the Crofts are also challenging this Texas law in federal court – let the hourly billing begin!
The Crofts are also incurring legal fees with their own attorney, Dean Cook. In a recent debut in front of Federal District Judge Kinkeade, Mr. Cook quoted the infamous 9th Circuit case that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Crofts might be asking for a refund of fees, since it was this case that brought Michael Newdow before the U.S. Supreme Court, where they rightly reversed the 9th Circuit. 
Mr. Cook also argued that allowing the children to leave the room while the pledge was being recited, if they so desired, was tantamount to a “temporary jail.” Could we perhaps open a temporary jail for individuals who pilfer the taxpayer coffers under the guise of the law? 
As Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote in a recent editorial: 
America's founders crafted the First Amendment to guarantee the individual's right to believe or not to believe in God, but that protection for the individual does not banish God from the public square. Quite the contrary, U.S. and Texas history clearly shows the founders seeking Divine guidance as they fashioned our system of government. And they publicly acknowledged that influence at every turn. Right here in Texas, as our forefathers began their fight for independence, their open acknowledgement of the Almighty echoed across Washington-on-the-Brazos. When Sam Houston and his brave companions declared their independence from Mexico, they invoked "the Almighty" and "the true and living God." They closed the 1836 Declaration of Independence by "fearlessly and confidently" committing their fates to "the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations." Forty years later, the writers of the Texas Constitution began by "humbly invoking the blessing of Almighty God." With such a clear record of reliance on Providence, it should come as no great surprise or offense to acknowledge God in our state pledge.
As I have argued in speeches and past editorials, the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution clearly provides for the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And unlike the atheists so desire, religion should never be banished from the public square. But without leaders like General Abbott and others, our religious freedoms could be further eroded by the courts. As President Reagan reminded us, “Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”
Gina Parker Ford
Waco, TX

Love Those 8 Liners
Once the costs are subtracted from new state revenues, will the lives of Texans truly be enriched by eight-liners? It is my contention that the lives of Texans will not be any worst. People that enjoy playing eight-liners and slots will find new avenues to spend their money on, even if they have to go across the border to find it. I do feel that any law that is passed should limit the gaming business to a few major cities, there are numerous small towns that could use the influx in sales tax revenues and employment that the games could bring. 
Alton Easton

Where Are The Conservatives
As a voting Republican and concerned citizen, I find it my civic duty and moral obligation to participate in our Republic by electing officials in government.
Lately, a firestorm has taken over the Internet and the nation. Dr. Ron Paul, a Congressman from Lake Jackson, has turned many individuals’ focus to the upcoming Presidential Election. Paul, a self-described libertarian, almost perfectly embodies the conservative values which the GOP supposedly represents. His strong principles have led his voting decisions, and a consistent voting record proves this. He has never voted for anything which he believes violates the rule of law set forth by the Constitution; in Washington, he has the nickname “Dr. No,” for sometimes being the only Congressman that votes according to his convictions. Additionally, Ron Paul is a moral and modest human being. He has been married to the same woman and raised a family of five children, who by now have their own children. Dr. Paul, trained as an obstetrician, has delivered over 6,000 babies into the world.
Over the last few years, though, I have become concerned with the direction that the Republican Party has taken. From starting wars that seemingly have no end and the American public strongly opposes, to increased government spending and intrusion in our private lives, the GOP has definitely gone down a different path. Ron Paul recognizes this change, and his goal is simply to align the party and our government back with the People. During his ten terms in the House of Representatives, Dr. Paul has never faulted from this goal.
However, there are many who wish to silence Ron Paul. During the highly biased debate presented by Fox News, Dr. Paul suggested that September 11th occurred as a result of our meddling in other countries’ affairs over the last fifty years. His suggestion, supported by evidence presented by the CIA and other various officials and experts, was met with rebuttal from Rudy Giuliani, the liberal former mayor of New York City. Unfortunately, Giuliani’s break in protocol received more attention from news outlets because of his atrocious misinterpretation of Ron Paul’s words. Fox News talking-heads quickly denounced Ron Paul’s statement and instead attempted to portray the Congressman as a heretic and lunatic. The next day, Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP, called for the removal of Ron Paul from future debates based off of blind patriotism and misconstrued words. Anuzis drafted a petition in order to fulfill his calling.
After the Fox News debate, Ron Paul came in second in a poll conducted by that very news channel. In weeks leading up to this, Ron Paul has won Internet polls conducted by ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, and many, many others. Media demagogues swiftly cover the polls by saying a vast left-wing Internet conspiracy infiltrated their polls to vote for Ron Paul. As a person who voted in those outlets, I must say that I am totally offended that news organizations who supposedly stand for journalistic values and integrity would label people like me a “liberal.” Consequently, Saul Anuzis retracted his petition because of a massive amount of phone calls, letters, and other forms of communication by people who voiced their support for Ron Paul. 
It is obvious that the support for Ron Paul is no mistake. He has attracted conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, under the message that freedom does not divide – it unites. Unfortunately, a majority of the media has and some members of the GOP have attempted to censor Dr. Paul. Besides Anuzis’ attempt to prevent the Congressman from future debates, the media has been relatively quiet about someone they have dubbed a “second-tier candidate.” It is clear, though, that the People will prevail. 
On the Internet, Ron Paul’s website has the highest amount of traffic of any Republican candidate, and he is about to overtake even the highest of the Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton). He has more people subscribed to his campaign “channel” on the video site, YouTube. Social news sites like digg.com are bombarded with any article about him, and these articles are elevated to a higher status by the general consensus of members on the web site. Barry Goldwater Jr., Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, and Bill Maher have all come out in support of Ron – even Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar from ABC’s “The View” have given him support! Some have noted that on a day when Buchanan and O’Donnell have agreed on something, Hell must have frozen over. 
Does a second-tier candidate receive the most web traffic of any Presidential hopeful? Does a second-tier candidate provoke a confrontation with a supposed “top” candidate? Mahatma Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
I sent a letter to the Montgomery County GOP similar to this one to ask them not to participate in this censorship. It is an abominable and disgusting practice that blemishes the intention of our Republic. The public deserves to know about the Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. As he has pointed out on numerous occasions, the Republican Party’s base has shrunk because of sticking to policy with which the public does not approve. The current President’s approval rating is one of the lowest in history. At the same time, the Democratic-controlled Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush.
Let’s bring back the power of the Constitution and the principles of true conservatism! Learn about Dr. Ron Paul and consider his message.
"There is but one special interest that we should be working for, and that would solve just about all of our problems, and that is our Liberty." – Ron Paul
Ryan Cain
The Woodlands, TX

The Military Draft: A Moral Abomination
An article in Newsweek, "Why We Need a Draft: A Marine's Lament," stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest online recently. It was written by a marine who fought in Fallujah, Iraq, and actually gave a pretty compelling overview of the practical need for selective service.
I'm sure the marine was right - forcing you or other people to kill or be killed next to him would have been good in the battles he fought in. In fact, I don't doubt that a few million more soldiers would be quite beneficial to the military - and to the foreign policy ambitions of the US government.
On the other hand, many Americans also persuasively argue against the draft, saying it's unnecessary or ineffective in defending America or engaging in foreign interventions. These arguments might very well be sound, and have their place.
Arguments about military "needs" or "benefits" aside, it seems that there's always plenty of politicians who absolutely love the concept of mandatory service to the state. To these types, the government IS America, and loving one's country is serving the state.
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS 
There are a number of solid constitutional arguments against the draft. The 13th Amendment makes quite clear that "involuntary servitude" is not permitted. And, the principle of "positive grant" espoused by the 10th Amendment states that any power not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution is "reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People." In short, this means that since there's nothing in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to conscript, they can't do it Yes the principle really is that simple (and can be applied to everything else the feds do, but we'll leave that to other posts).
As compelling as these constitutional arguments may be, they still miss the mark.
MORALITY 
The most important argument against the draft is moral. Whatever the excuse given for its implementation, the draft is a form of slavery. Period.
Forcing someone to work for the state; forcing someone to kill or be killed; forcing someone to do anything at the point of a gun - under threat of prison or even death - IS involuntary servitude. Of all the forms of slavery that have existed throughout history, forcing someone to fight and die in war is by far the most disgusting, and is a form of murder against all who don't survive.
Even Ronald Regan, writing in Human Events back in 1979, made a clear case against the draft: "conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state - not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers - to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
Reagan, love him or hate him, understood that America was founded on the principle of individual liberty - that the government exists to serve the people. The idea of slavery, whatever form it takes, is morally repugnant to the ideals of a free society.
MORE MANPOWER=MORE WAR 
Without the draft, unpopular wars are very difficult to fight. The ability to use conscription actually encourages politicians to wage even more wars - the massive resources are a temptation that is hard for the war-lover to resist. When the draft was finally undermined in the 1970's, for example, the Vietnam War ended.
A FREE SOCIETY? 
The draft is slavery. If we see it return to America, arguments about this country being free or not become totally moot. No society can ever be free when its own government seizes by force not only the resources of the country, but the money and lives of "its" own people.
A government that uses military conscription in the name of freedom is an illegitimate, criminal organization. A government that is willing to enslave people cannot be trusted to protect your liberty. A government that forces people to fight for its goals, its protection, and its benefit has created a morally perverse situation where there is no free society left to defend. 
Michael Boldin
http://www.populistamerica.com
mboldin@populistamerica.com 

Spinning the Surge 
Courier September 2 editorial quotes Representative Brian Baird (D Wash) “We're making tangible progress on the ground ….and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region.” 
The Congressman made that comment before a hostile crowd of 550 in Vancouver. Amidst calls for Bush's impeachment, they let him know that they disapprove of his support for the troop surge and that he is not representing the will of his district. (Oregonlive.com)
“Support the Troops” Baird also voted with Republicans against a Democratic resolution giving combatants leave equal to their war zone service. 
Courier implies Senator Carl Levin (D Mich) agreed with Baird. The Senator's website said, “While we believe the surge is having measurable results, and provides a degree of “breathing space” for Iraqi politicians to make the compromises essential for a political solution, we are not optimistic about the prospects.”
Courier: “Proportion of Americans who believe the surge is 'making things better' has increased 31 percent from 22 percent.” This implies a 31 percent quantum leap to 53 percent! 
USA Today reported: “Those saying additional troops are 'making things better' increased to 31% from 22% (Up 9%). “Not much difference" dropped from 51% to 41%. 'Making things worse,' down from 25% to 24%.” The pro-surge jump came from a decrease in “not making things much different.” In other words, a few of the “undecided's” wavered. So?
Kevin Brady quotes all troops in unison: “Sir, we'd love to come home but the job isn't done.”
Sergeant John Bruhns says, “Keeping American soldiers in Iraq an indefinite period of time, attacked by unidentifiable enemies, is wrong, immoral and irresponsible. Support our troops, bring them home.” (moveon.org) 
Name of the game: Spinning numbers, misleading readers, orchestrating troop-quotes, unintentional (?) typos - keeping thousands of war profiteers fat and happy. (The Ripoff in Iraq RollingStone.com.) 
Bill Barnes 
Conroe, TX

Toll Roads are Not Cost-Effective
A fuel tax, a.k.a. gasoline tax, is a sales tax imposed on the sale of fuel. The fuel tax in Texas is currently set at 20¢/gal since being raised to that amount in 1991.
As in most instances throughout the U.S. the fuel tax collected in Texas is dedicated to the building and maintenance of roadways; however, often it is 60-percent of the tax revenue that goes toward this effort while 40-percent of the collection is used for more general purposes, e.g., public and/or higher education. Consequently, much of the revenue is diverted to other interests.
We are told by Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) that there is a vast shortage in the revenue for building and maintaining roadways and that the only method to improve that shortage is to generate toll roads.
TxDOT continues to whine about its lack of revenue, yet it has spent more than a reported $9 MILLION of taxpayer dollars to promote and advertise its toll roads.
In addition, TxDOT now is using tax dollars for "lobbying" the U.S. Congress to eliminate the current laws prohibiting placing tolls on already-paid-for interstate highways.
So, if TxDOT is in such dire straits financially why is it spending our taxdollars for reasons OTHER THAN building and maintaining Texas roadways?
Another reason given for the lack of sufficient revenue from the collection of gasoline taxes is that the tax rate has been frozen in Texas since 1991. The reason for the freeze is unknown, at least publicly. Perry has been instrumental during his 2 terms as governor in continuing the freeze, frequently stating that increasing the gas tax is NOT an option. Furthermore, the Texas GOP has kept a platform of “No new taxes” and has supported the governor in maintaining the freeze on gasoline taxes.
So, apparently what we have in Texas is a self-imposed shortage of available financing to build and maintain roadways throughout the state. Six years ago Gov. Perry authorized TxDOT to “use whatever creative means available” to compensate for the shortage of financing and to generate more revenue for roadways. In reality, the meaning of that statement was for TxDOT and the legislature to develop the ways and means to build toll roads. The push for toll roads also was sparked by Perry’s wealthy pro-toll campaign contributors, which already had been determined and initiated when George Bush had been governor.
In conclusion, the shortage of revenue from the gasoline tax is self-imposed because of two main reasons:
The gasoline tax rate has been frozen since 1991
Approximately 40-percent of gasoline tax revenue is being diverted to other interests. 
The shortage has increased also from TxDOT:
Spending MILLIONS of our tax dollars to lobby Washington so it can legally continue to do what it has attempted to do illegally, that is, to toll our existing already-paid-for highways and roads 
Spending MILLIONS of our taxpayer dollars to promote and to advertise toll roads and plans.
The bottom-line is that toll roads are NOT a cost-effective method of financing roadways. Generally, up to 80-percent of the toll revenue collected goes to the management, building and operations of the toll roads. It is not unusual for the state to contract the toll road to a private concern from 50 to 80 years, e.g., on some toll projects the state has a 70-year contract with international toll maven CINTRA and its American partner Zachry Construction.
Because of the relatively inelastic nature of demand for fuel, in the short run the tax will be an effective source of revenue. In the long run, however, theory predicts that people adjust their consumption of petrol; that is, over a period of years, people will consume less as the price increases (by buying more fuel-efficient cars, for instance). Thus, some environmentalists have advocated a fuel tax as a way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Still, the more intelligent alternative to toll roads is to permit the gasoline tax rate to increase naturally along with the inflationary index and cost-of-living factors and to ensure that 100-percent of the revenue collected from the tax goes to the building and maintenance of our roadways.
Gov. Perry has vehemently stated that he will NOT support increasing the gasoline tax. 
In addition, it has become more obvious that TxDOT is NOT working in the best interests of the Texas community. The laws provide the legislature with minimum controls over the agency; consequently, TxDOT continues to do whatever it wants without repercussions or accountability to the people of Texas.
Furthermore, as more local county governments work with the "runaway" agency it becomes clear that more oversight of TxDOT is needed, perhaps even leading to its restructuring.
However, if the state legislature agrees with and authorizes a more rational attempt to use a fair and adequate gasoline tax, the revenue collected will generate sufficient financing needed for building and maintaining our roads.
Toll roads are NOT needed.
Peter Stern
Driftwood, TX

Serving at the Pleasure of Bush
Poor Prime Minister Maliki. He’ll rant, he’ll rail against Blackwater mercenaries as they shoot their way through his country, but quite soon, President Bush will tap him on the shoulder and remind him that the head of Blackwater is a top Republican donor, the scion of one of the wealthiest families in South Carolina, and co-founder of Focus on the Family, to boot. Bush will then remind Maliki that the only way Iraq’s Republican sponsors will survive the 2008 election is if high-rollers like Blackwater keep donating. If that means U.S. contractors continue wandering the roadsides dispensing Saddam-style justice as they see fit, then so be it. The unspoken message is that Blackwater will be in Iraq long after Maliki has gone. Yeah, being a figurehead isn’t always easy, but as another figurehead once reminded a roomful of federal Prosecutors, “We serve at the pleasure of President Bush.” Like Alberto Gonzales, Maliki will soon realize he’s about as essential as table garnish, and just as easily replaced.
Ellen Beckett 

Bring on the PR “Surge”
First it was “shock and awe”. Saddam was toppled – but rampaging insurgents denied Iraqis the stable democratic government promised them. After months of furious fighting, experts agreed a military victory was unlikely, that there had to be a political solution. 
With much fanfare, Iraqis voted until their thumbs turned blue, and in a triumph of democracy elected a truly representative government of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. They, of course, hate each other, intensifying a raging civil war and ruling out a political solution.
What to do? “Move America Forward” (MAF), formed in 2004 to support the President’s Iraqi war policy, recalled that about the only good news coming out of Iraq was PR generated by the Rendon Group, paid millions by the Pentagon to generate “feel good” stories about the American occupation. With a September deadline fast approaching for General David Petraeus to report to Congress, why not a Rendon-like PR “surge” here at home? 
It’s in the works. MAF has announced it will launch a nationwide caravan Sept. 3-17 to win hearts and minds. MAF says the caravan will feature pro-troop rallies that will be attended by “thousands upon thousands of patriotic Americans.”
This is what we in PR call an “Astroturf” campaign as opposed to a genuine “grassroots” effort to win public support for a cause or issue. Even the most vocal critics of the Iraq war support our troops and consider themselves “patriotic Americans” likely to attend “pro-troop” rallies. Such events attempt to distort, not reflect, public opinion about the war. They are as flawed and meaningless as “push” polls that ask when the opposition candidate quit beating his wife.
For the record, a recent NY Times/CBS survey found that two-thirds of those polled said that the war is “going badly” and that “the U.S. should reduce its forces in Iraq or remove them altogether”. A Washington Post/ABC poll reported that “by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the President to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular.” 
MAF’s key players have strong ties to GOP wing-nuts. Chairwoman Melanie Morgan gained notoriety in 2006 when she suggested that NY Times editor Bill Keller be executed for treason. His crime? Reporting on the US government spying on American citizens.
The Caravan for MAF rallies will wind up in DC after stops in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso, Waco, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Wichita, Kansas City, Des Moines, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. And, of course, Crawford, TX. 
The Pentagon is so pleased with PR’s contribution to the Iraqi war effort that it recently enlisted the help of Madison Avenue. A marketing study recommended “rebranding”. Instead of the “force” brand, the study argues a more effective brand might have been “We will help you.” 
Think of that! At last the Iraqis will be exposed to a message familiar to generations of Americans: “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you.”
It should be noted that Congress is calling for a probe of the Rendon Group. Something about what role it played in “communicating false information and shaping the news accounts justifying the war in Iraq.” 
Victor Kamber

Opium Production
In order to combat the harmful heroin trade a commonly overlooked mistake is the natural value of the product. But this can be countered by the introduction of the most harmful poppy pest the root weevil also known as Curculionidae. A weevil is any beetle from the Curculionidae super-family. But, the weevil I think your looking for is the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) which commonly attacks cotton crops. It lays its eggs inside unripe cotton bolls, and the young weevils eat their way out. This effect would destroy the very valuable head of the Opium poppy and therefore destroy the local economies resistance to law enforcements efforts to curtail this product.
A twofold approach is necessary. One to destroy the value of the crop and two to introduce measures to teach farmers to grow other less harmful products. Though a strict and rigorous control program over the local product DDT powder or 12 % hexachlorane must be maintained. Because, to destroy capsule weevils during the budding stage, the plantation is dusted with a mixture of 12 % hexaclorane and 5.5 % DDT (25 kg per ha). Or, in spring, if large infestations of weevils are observed in the fields, a 12 % hexachlorane or DDT powder is applied (20 kg per ha). And, if necessary, the application is repeated during the leaf-formation stage.
Norman Christian Hoffmann

We Need a Uniter
It's time to realize that the most powerful leader of the free world has to know something about the world to do the job properly. False assumptions from lack of experience in a world increasingly competing for economic leadership and energy can only lead to greater debacles
that sap our national blood and treasure. 
Each American should be looking not at just one issue - but whether this or that candidate has the global expertise needed in a global economy facing worldwide opportunities and threats.
The next President will also need -- from Day 1 -- a GLOBAL strategy for our country to grow and prosper in the face of rising economic powers in Asia (e.g. China and India are competing for the same oil to
grow that we are) and falling oil reserves. Having enough energy to power our homes and vehicles will be our premier challenge in this century, even more so than terrorism, which will also remain high on the list. 
One novel plan a President with vision could promote would be to harness the solar power from the desert in places like Algeria that would provide Europe the power it is now getting from Russian oil. Since Russia has been cutting off oil supplies to make political points, this would increase the security of a vital American ally.
Our leadership can't just "make it up as we go." I want to see a plan that benefits our nation as a whole that also develops global
partnerships to 
The next President must be a uniter, not a divider. Our nation is a rich mix of cultures and religions. We have no battles between
Muslims and Christians in America. However, they could develop as
extremism grows beyond the Middle East, and if politicians favor one religion over another. The Pope recently issued a statement that said that other religions were "flawed" -- and he was referring to other
Christians! So it isn't just an "Islam" issue. It's bigger than that. We can't backslide away from ecumenical progress started by the late John Paul. Christian extremism is not a solution. It's the same problem. 
We need a President who earns us respect worldwide by showing respect.
Christian, Jews and Muslims all share common ground in Abraham. All are part of the American dream.
Finally, our next President, regardless of party, will need to be a national -- and global-- bridge builder. That, plus a policy of
justice and fairness is the only way to reduce terrorism and maintain economic prosperity and growth without falling into a war based on false assumptions. I've been talking about this since this first speech at a college 20 years ago. 
When you consider a candidate for 2008, keep this in mind.
Michael Fjetland
Global American Series

Karl Rove: Democratic Secret Weapon
Karl Rove gave the Republican Party the political equivalent of the credit card teaser rate! It sure seemed good in the short term but reality sets in over the long run. Yes, “political genius” Karl Rove is the Democratic secret weapon that spells many, many Democratic victories over the next generation.
The big problem for an evil “genius” is that they are evil and the American people really are not evil. Yes, Americans can be deceived and manipulated with scare tactics, lies, dirty tricks and simplistic slogans…. for awhile. In the long term, those efforts always backfire. When these “darkside” political tactics get transferred from election strategy to policy, they will inevitably blow-up in the face of their users. Karl Rove never learned this lesson from the era of Richard Nixon.
We should realize that Karl Rove was not the only top Republican to misunderstand the lessons of the greater Watergate scandal. Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, most Republicans in Congress and the Republican National Committee are equally blind. In the Republican Party, they are all Rovians! Hurrah for us Democrats that they are!
Voter suppression, tampering with the voter rolls, intimidation, fear, slander, lies, deception and obsessive secrecy were keys to Republican victories in 2000, 2002 and 2004. These “darkside” tactics led to the Rovian Republican dream of a permanent Right Wing Majority ruling America for the next generation. It was always a crazy dream. It only made sense if you lived in the distorted, alternative reality of 24 hour Fox News and Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio. Most Americans live in the real world.
Even the short term victories from 2000 to 2004 were only possible because Democrats had not held firm against the creeping subversion by the Republican Right of our courts and regulatory agencies. Democrats should never have permitted Right Wing radicals like Thomas and Scalia to have become Supreme Court Justices before 2000. Bush did not legitimately take control of the Presidency in 2000. 
Rovian tactics like the illegal, false felon purge by Katherine Harris in Florida before Election Day 2000 made the Florida vote close enough to let the Supreme Court thwart the will of the people and select George W. Bush over the real winner, Al Gore. Thus began the rule by Rovian policy which we call the Bush 43 Presidency.
In policy terms, the triumph of Rovian policy meant secret government by and for the economic elite. Trillions in tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy and a few extra dollars in tax breaks for the rest of us were the first order of business. Most of us saw our tiny tax breaks disappear into our gas tanks as the oil companies who bankrolled the Rovian Republican Revolution financially raped us. California got punished by Bush (Rovian) energy allies like Enron in an illegal, electricity price-gouging scheme that federal regulators should have stopped immediately. Unfortunately, the Rovians got to the regulatory agencies first.
There was an immediate drop in Bush’s approval rating. Only the 9-11 attacks saved Bush from one-term status and allowed the Rovian Revolution to last past the first few months.
Bankruptcy laws were changed to screw-over debtors. Polluters got pretty much everything they wanted. Trade pacts were signed all over the third world so companies could ship good American jobs out of the country while flooding us with cheap, often dangerous imports. Within a couple of years, the 9-11 scare tactics and secrecy were not being truly effective in keeping Americans in line politically.
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush dreamed up a war in Iraq! It was a great political success and Rovian Republicanism was soon in total political control. All government policy was soon Rovian Republican!
Then the results of Rovian Republicanism became apparent. Afghanistan did not turn-out to be a mission completed as the Rovians had told us. The same goes for Iraq but multiply the mistake fifty times. Osama never got caught. The anthrax terrorist was never caught. Food and energy costs rose sharply. Republican officeholders were caught in scandal after scandal. The White House got caught in lie after lie. Stonewalling and claims of executive privilege became the order of the day. The national debt exploded. The super rich got much richer while everyone else got poorer.
The true nature of the Rovian Revolution which is Bush Republicanism has been revealed. It is out of touch with real American values.
Americans support Social Security and do not want it privatized. They support universal health care. They do not want the Bill of Rights trampled on by power crazed public officials. Americans do not want endless war. Americans want a strong defense but realize stupid can never be strong. Most Americans want to be union members. Most citizens want to protect American manufacturing and American jobs. Americans want renewable energy, safe products and bridges that will not collapse under them. They want honest elections where everyone gets to vote and have their vote counted. Americans like balanced budgets. They want to rich to pay their fair share of the tax burden. Americans want to be able to sue corporations when those corporations wrong them.
Americans do not want the kind of Republican rule that Karl Rove was selling. Americans in increasing numbers like the Democratic approach over the Republican one. Thank goodness, the Democrats had their secret weapon…. Karl Rove (and crew).
Stephen Crockett 
Earleville, Maryland

Editor's Note: We encourage you to send in your Letters to the Editor, but please remember to give your name and town. `Anonymous' letters will no longer be accepted. Direct confidential questions by calling (936) 539-2200 or e-mail editor@thebulletin.com.

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2007

LETTERS FROM JULY 2007

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2007

LETTERS FROM MAY 2007

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2007

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2007

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2007

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2007

LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2006

LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2006

LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2006

LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2006

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2006

LETTERS FROM JULY 2006

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2006

LETTERS FROM MAY 2006

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2006

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2006

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2006

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2006

LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2005

LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2005

LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2005

LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2005

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2005

LETTERS FROM JULY 2005

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2005

LETTERS FROM MAY 2005

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2005

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2005

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2005

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2005

LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2004

LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2004

LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2004

LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2004

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2004

LETTERS FROM JULY 2004

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2004

LETTERS FROM MAY 2004

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2004

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2004

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2004

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2004