Postmarks
Don't Blame the Movies
Fri., May 28, 1999
I thought I'd answer Avi Green's question in her letter in last week's Chronicle [Vol. 18, No. 38]. The question was, "How many teens are going to become crack addicts after seeing Idle Hands?" Ummm ... none of them. If all it takes is a shitty horror film to turn a kid to drugs, I think there's something else wrong.
Keep in mind that it's just a movie. Blaming this film for any atrocities that might happen in the future is as bad as the couple in Louisiana suing Oliver Stone for the death of their family member (and not the actual killer).
This is along the same lines as blaming Marilyn Manson, video games, other movies, and trenchcoats for what happened in Colorado. Hmmmm ... What about the 99.99% of the other people who listen to Manson, play Doom, watch The Matrix, and don't kill people? You think maybe something else was askew with the boys? You think maybe there were other reasons why Hitler was their role model?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to watch eXistenZ so it'll influence me to do heroin for the first time.
John Rabon
Guns Make Us Free
Editor:
Last month 14 innocent persons were killed at a government school in Littleton in a sneak attack by two twisted misanthropes. Career politicians immediately started trying to use the tragedy to disarm Americans -- pretending the tragedy could have been prevented if we had a lot more gun laws.
In 1993 ninety innocent persons were killed at their home in Waco after a sneak attack by heavily armed legions of the federal government. These career politicians did not demand the disarming of the government agencies responsible for killing this larger group of defenseless children. Why?
The most serious threat to any people's liberty has almost always been from their own government. It is obviously true that the most serious threat to the liberty of Americans is from our own federal government.
That is why the right to arms is in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The right to arms is not about hunting or sports; it is to help us remain a free people. It is one of the checks in the prudent system of checks and balances set up by our founders.
And yes, remaining a free people does involve risks.
Mike Ford
Follow Light Rail Money
Respected Editor,
Think about light rail and gentrification. This is how one West Coast source describes light rail to me:
"Motorists in San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Portland, San Jose and San Francisco sit longer and longer and think about all the taxes they have to pay to support the rail systems that don't reduce traffic congestion at all, don't take people where they want to go, and are less efficient than the express bus services that were eliminated when the light rail systems were built."
And another source states: "With regard to the LRT continuing useless investments in San Diego. $1 Billion (light rail funds) in the last 10 years has attracted ~50,000 riders, while adjacent freeways have increased 300,000. Freeway travel is still expanding 3-5 times LRT."
This Portland source said: "I can tell you that the voters did not approve another LRT line in Portland last fall, called the South-North line. However, the transit agency is working hard to reshape the proposal so it can go ahead anyway. Some think it unlikely that Portland will build any more LRT -- others disagree strongly."
The business community in Austin/Portland are lobbying for a huge amount of public money for a limited usage light rail that does not measurably decrease congestion or pollution. Why? Because a light rail line will automatically and dramatically increase the property taxes on residences/businesses in the rail development corridors ... again.
Follow the money, who stands to show a pretty profit? It's the loans made on housing and businesses in the rail corridors. This is a federally backed loan system that has been refined and honed across the nation, its called a LEM (location efficiency mortgage).
http://links.cnt.org/lem/ This is one money-making system that is designed to push you out of your car, requires rail passes, and in return you get an approved home loan.
Rick Hall
KOOP Ship Sinking
Editor:
The KOOP Board of "Trust"ees upheld unanimously their decision to oust me from KOOP Radio. Without going into detail, here's an account from a listener who attended as a witness on my behalf:
"That was the first time I visited the station, and I hated it. I could almost touch the arrogance in the air. The Board felt like a bunch of fools who probably don't have anything else going in their lives and are trying their very best to enjoy their 'power.' In real life, with that rigid attitude, they don't stand a chance ... Time reveals the truth one way or another!"
Many thanks to all who attended the meeting on my behalf, wrote letters/e-mails, and made pledges to try to help me keep/regain my show. "What next?" I am asked. ...
Here's an analogy: The ship is definitely taking in water, and morale is dangerously low. Some are quietly abandoning ship; others keep their eyes on the horizon and pretend everything's smooth sailing. A few say that continuing to argue will only make matters worse. However, now the captains have started throwing off anyone who points out there's a leak and that passengers and investors will most likely not continue to have faith in this venture! What is one to do?
I think it's time to get some new captains in there who realize the need to fix what's wrong rather than pretending everything is hunky-dory. If you agree, I ask you to support my efforts with a donation made out to:
Friends of KOOP
P.O.Box 13531
Austin, TX 78711-3531
I wish the situation were not as dire as I feel it is and hope the station can ultimately survive. However, be aware that right now your donation to KOOP Radio will be used to pay expensive lawyers in an effort to maintain the positions of power of a "bunch of [arrogant] fools."
Thanks again for all the support including that of Mr. Black for letting me inform you of the situation via these letters. You might catch me filling in every once in a while on KUT, so stay tuned!
Yours in KOOPeration,
Ricardo Mendoza
World/Latin Music Radio DJ in
Houston and Austin 1990-1999
Car Control
Dear Editor:
It's weird how people worry about getting shot but not about being killed or seriously injured in a car crash. News media play up gun violence and play down car violence. Guns killed about 36,000 people in this country in 1997. Cars, trucks, and motorcycles killed 43,000 people in crashes and an unknown number from respiratory ailments. Car crashes are the number one cause of death for children between the ages of one and 14. There are video games in which children can play at running people over.
Car-free areas might be very appealing to parents as places to raise children, if parents realized that cars are more likely to kill their children than guns are. In addition, car-free areas would be unattractive to gun-toting criminals, as there would be no getaway cars and no parking lots to lurk in.
Cities don't need cars. Pedestrians and rapid transit are the lifeblood of a city. A bicycle can be a civilized personal city vehicle. Cars don't really belong in cities; they're too loud, too smoggy, and too life-threatening. When there are too many cars around, everyone's quality of life is reduced.
There are too many cars in Austin. I don't mean people. I mean cars.
Yours truly,
Amy Babich
Respect on the Road
Dear Editor:
Having been a longtime reader of the Chronicle, and occasional contributor to the "Postmarks" section, I have seen and responded to my share of letters penned by Ms. Babich. A few issues back, she wrote letters promoting not only her campaign for City Council, but for her business as well. This showed some cunning on her part by using the "Postmarks" section for the promotion of her business, rather than purchase advertising. Let's hope your other advertisers don't catch on.
But I digress from the actual purpose of this letter. I would like to know from Ms. Babich if she finds all uses of the automobile to be unacceptable. Aside from the obvious beneficial uses of the automobile and any variations thereof (such as ambulances, police cars, delivery trucks, etc.), does she see any benefit to the personal use of cars? I speak for many when I say I enjoy my car. I like being able to hop into it whenever the mood strikes me and zip to the store or stop off at a friend's house all without taking into consideration the weather conditions outside. Unbearable Texas sun? No problem; I'll just switch on the A/C. Wind chill down to -10? Crank up the heater. I do not believe that cycling, while generally a pleasurable experience, can be enjoyed 100% of the time and during all weather conditions. Ms. Babich, when it's 100 degrees in the shade or cold and wet outside, haven't you, just once, ever longed for an easier/quicker way across town?
My point is, as far as I'm concerned, there are just some things in a city this size that makes sole use of a bicycle just impractical. However, I realize that for some, the bicycle is their sole means of transportation. For the many rude drivers out there, I can be counted among those that are courteous to the cyclists that share the road. On a side note, I would like to comment that I have seen some rude cyclists out there, so it would appear as though we drivers aren't the only ones who have a mean streak. If we are to share the road, it would seem logical that courtesy should be a shared trait as well. Total elimination of personal vehicles will never occur, but perhaps mutual respect will.
Sincerely,
Eric Harwell
A Modest Disposal
Editor:
"Susan Swanson? Mr. Peterson is ready to see you," said the secretary. Susan slowly got out of her chair, brushed her skirt down, making sure she looked decent for her job interview. Susan graduated in the top 10% from the University of Virginia, and has had many successful job experiences. Although she was nervous about the interview, she was confident that with all of her experience, she was extremely qualified for this job. Susan slowly entered Mr. Peterson's office. "Hello Ms. Swanson, it is very nice to meet you," Mr. Peterson said with a sly grin. As Mr. Peterson and Susan exchanged handshakes, Susan noticed that he was staring directly at her chest. Mr. Peterson said, "So, Susan, why do you think you are qualified for this job?" As Susan began to inform him of her previous job experience, she noticed that Mr. Peterson was now staring at her legs. Susan got the job only because of her sexual, female characteristics. This is just another classic example of how women in today's working environment are negatively stereotyped. This should not be occuring anymore. We, as loyal American citizens, should not sit back and let this happen. This stereotype that has been placed on women needs to be eliminated immediately.
In order to eliminate these negative stereotypes that cause women to have unequal job opportunities, we need to begin with children by instilling in them moral values in the home and school how women should never be negatively stereotyped. We should accomplish this as well as stereotypes should be avoided on television and films, and in companies where there are only males, there needs to be a required percentage of women that should hold these jobs. Wait a second here. How in the world will this ever work? It is impossible to solve a gigantic problem like this in this manner. It is almost like curing racism, and you are always going to have the people that just never think they are doing the wrong, immoral thing.
So, how then are we going to solve this? The only possible way to eliminate all negative stereotypes on women, is to ultimately liquidate the entire male species. Yes, this would end all evolution because babies would never again be born without the sperm from males. But for God's sake, we have almost conquered the task of creating a human clone.
With men in our world, women are classified as having inferior abilities. For thousands of years, women have been stereotyped, and therefore punished not only in working environments, but in everyday situations. It seems as though women are judged by stereotype instead of first impressions. Just like Susan Swanson, women are constantly portrayed as sexual objects through the media, job positions, and even fairy tales. The only, and last solution to this serious dilemma is to completely eliminate the male race, therefore eliminating all stereotypes of women in our world today. All men must die!
Sincerely,
Tova Boyko
