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,
    Ranting about "conspiracy theorists" [“Page Two,” July 13], Louis Black shows the same lack of any sense of irony as the Republikanski faithful ranting about Democrats. With no shades of gray whatsoever, he lumps all conspiracies and their believers into one tinfoil-clad gaggle, deriding them for thinking only in terms of black and white. He berates 9/11 loonies for focusing on one aspect of something and ignoring all else, then unilaterally dismisses talk of government involvement just because 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. I don't buy the inside job line either, but "bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." makes refusing to investigate the possibility that it was allowed to happen seem kind of silly, and the Manchukuo Incident and the Reichstag fire show that inside jobs can happen. Using the most special generation's opposition to war in Vietnam to allege their hypersensitivity to corruption is somewhat dubious, given the role of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in both building support for the war and grabbing unconstitutional war power for the executive branch.
    I posit that Black's la la la I can't hear you attitude poses far more threat to America than the wide-eyed gullibility of the tinfoil hatters; refusing to acknowledge that "conspiracy" just means two or more people colluding to commit a crime leads to despicable absurdity like blaming Ralph Nader for Dubya's "victory" in 2000, despite (still missing ballot) boxes full of evidence that Dubya's campaign manager used her position as Florida's secretary of state to rig the election. Not every conspiracy theory involves orbital mind-control lasers; some are just about electronic voting machine programming, and ignoring them by association threatens democracy itself.

Dear Editor,
    I read your film reviews weekly and find your what sound like 20-something reviewers generally on target, but Marrit Ingman's review of You Kill Me has little merit [Film Listings, July 13]. The movie is not funny, has production values a cross between home movie or hidden video making it painful to look at, Ben Kingsley is miscast, the script deplorable, and the direction clumsy and, did I mention, unfunny? I fled after 40 boring minutes. Spend your movie money and time on Paris, Je T'Aime!

Dear Editor,
    I am responding to the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix review that was in last week's paper [Film Listings, July 13]. I strongly disagree that the movie was even slightly better than the book. I feel that this newspaper should rightfully have a review from someone who has read the book both recently and multiple times. Although Order of the Phoenix is not my favorite of the Harry Potter books, I do feel that it is a magnificent book and that the movie could have been a great deal better.
    There were a lot of things I thought that the director could have done better, but still, Order of the Phoenix was a superdifficult book to turn into a movie.
    In my opinion there was no point in calling the movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix because there were only two short scenes in which the Order was mentioned at all. Also, what, may I ask, was the point in including Kreacher at all if they were going to cut the part where Kreacher lies to Harry?
    My other thoughts:
   1) There was no Weasley-created swamp. I wanted to see much more of the Weasley twins!
   2) Umbridge wasn't evil, just unfair and annoying.
   3) The dementors changed from HP4.
   4) Crabbe and Goyle are skinny, I tell you!
   5) I loved Luna Lovegood! Plus, the scene with Harry, Sirius, and the tapestry made me cry, so the movie wasn't all bad.
    I think J.K. Rowling is a fantastic author and that if there is anyone out there who only watches the the Harry Potter movies and does not read the corresponding book, then that should be his or her goal over the next month or so. By no means are the movies better than the books!

Dear Editor,
    Redevelopment is a hot issue all over town. City staff, environmentalists, and developers spent more than nine months looking at how redevelopment affects the Barton Springs Watershed. Some levels of agreement were reached, but some tough elements are outstanding, such as how density and traffic factor into redevelopment approvals and how to amend the Save Our Springs Ordinance without spurring a building boom over our ecologically fragile aquifer.
    The argument being made for a redevelopment amendment to the Save Our Springs Ordinance is that redevelopment with some water-quality improvements is better than having older, polluting development continue in operation because the owner is unwilling to redevelop under SOS Ordinance standards.
    That approach makes some sense if what is torn down is replaced with something roughly the same size. But if a one-story development is redeveloped into six-story condos, the result is more cars, more oil and grease, more sewage, and more demand for additional services (roads, schools), ultimately increasing pollution loads in the creeks that feed Barton Springs. Maybe some pollution is treated on the development’s premises, but lots of new pollution is created, both during and after construction, on-site and off-site.
    SOS Alliance has participated in Council Member Lee Leffingwell’s advisory group and advocated for a cap on increased density and public hearings under a redevelopment amendment. Without a density cap and public hearings, we risk inviting a building boom to the Barton Springs Watershed, increasing – not decreasing – sources of pollution and undermining city policies to steer new development downstream. Without a density cap, a redevelopment amendment would have an elephant-sized loophole that bulldozers would run right through.
    As participants in the advisory group, we are not aware of a consensus on SOS Ordinance amendments, but we will work toward solutions that increase protection for the Barton Springs Watershed. Any recommended changes should consider the whole picture (including traffic generation) and demonstrate real benefits.

Dear Editor,
    Listening to KGSR up here in Vancouver, British Columbia, I heard about the Save Town Lake benefit on July 20. After going to www.savetownlake.org, I'm reading, with much sadness, about what they're facing as big business and builders are trying to encroach ever closer to the edge of Town Lake. I guess the 200-foot-perimeter building ordinance is crimping those moneygrubbing developers' plans. As someone who only briefly enjoyed the beauty of your city-center lake, I hope it won't be destroyed by overzealous builders eager to plunder that incredible place for big bucks.
    One of the first crucial things which will be affected by encroaching development is the urban bat population under Congress Bridge. Unchecked building would alter the insect population, which is critical for the colony's survival. That alone would be a travesty. But every Austinite and visitor would be robbed of this beautiful green space, which can never be reclaimed after development has its way! I wish I could join the voices of people against the variances the builders are seeking. It will serve no one well and in the end will become green space for those who live in the buildings – not a place for everyone, as it is now.
    Zilker Park, the many evenings of walks, music, and lake cruises will become a thing of the past as new residents of the condos and apartments decide they don't want the “traffic” and “noise” in close proximity to “their” place. It happened in Vancouver, and I can see it, like an ill wind, blowing no good for Austin. I hope everyone will step up and be counted in favor of the 200-foot limit as it now stands and leave the "people's park" to those who hold it dear – bats, residents, and visitors alike. I would be very sad to see the ambience of Austin's beautiful lake irreparably altered.

Dear Editor,
   Both the establishment and alternative media in Austin seemed obsessed with perpetuating the popular myth that a tolerant and liberal Austin has little or no racial tension among minorities, as evidenced in much of the press coverage of the recent murder of David Morales in East Austin ["Morales Murder Update: Amateur boxer charged," News, July 13]. News stories on the killing often omitted or buried references to blacks and Hispanics and instead concentrated on the damage to the city's image by early inaccurate police and press reports, the slow response by the Emergency Medical Services to the crime scene, a possible connection to the nearby Juneteenth celebrations, and whether the murder was committed by an individual, a group, a crowd, a mob – or as some stories suggested – by "road rage"! If whites had been involved, charged, or arrested in the incident, race would probably have received more attention in the press, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton might have come to town to march to more than Austin music.

Dear Editor,
   Property valuations on the Eastside are oddly slanted toward improvement valuations. Shacks are being valued at $350 per square foot. Ultimate values are probably correct (although very aggressive), but why are the improvements valued so inappropriately?

Dear Editor,
    I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read point five of Louis Black’s "Page Two" [July 13]: His camp owns the legacy of the civil rights struggle, and the conspiracy movement dishonors and hinders it, as he distorts the conspiracist position (they are all nonactive "hobbyists," dogmatic, uneducated, cultlike, etc.). It is futile to disprove these lies again, as Black is the rigid dogmatist. But that’s not all; he then childishly, unapologetically declares something along the lines of, "Yes, I am insulting them because I believe they have insulted me."
    This is where the attempt at dialogue by conspiracists with Black should end. "That’s all Folks!"
    There are myriad crucial issues of our movement (Black mentions the conspiracy-launched activism against poison inoculations, unwittingly disproving his accusation of nonimpact). Chief among those are the criminally stolen elections of 2000, 2004 (after which the Democratic candidates rolled over and played dead), and 2008, which the neocons will successfully steal again.
   But back to 9/11: The strongest indicator that it was an inside job is that the U.S. government destroyed all the evidence. The most spectacular crime in U.S. history, and the crime scene is sold for scrap. It is surely sheeplike to assume those who sabotaged the evidence cannot be the perpetrators or at the very least enablers.
   Black and Bush, though not co-conspirators, are certainly both Looney Tunes.

Dear Editor,
    I understand that the Austin City Council and its staff are trying to figure out ways to shorten the time length of City Council meetings. I have a suggestion that could save up to five minutes of each meeting, without subtracting from the very important work our City Council does at those meetings and without cutting into the time allotment for citizens to speak.
    Skip the prayer. In the beginning of each City Council meeting, a religious person is invited to say a prayer at the microphone. This not only misrepresents the diversity of both Austin and Texas, it’s insulting to anyone who proudly lives in reality.
    If the City Council thinks they’ll begin to do poorly at their job without that prayer being said and heard at every meeting, then that City Council should be replaced. The support for an unnecessary prayer implies a weakness in thinking that our city needs to avoid. However, I really think they’re all smarter than that.

Dear Editor,
   It was with true amazement that I read Virginia Wood's almost surreal piece on her gastric bypass surgery ["Enough Is Enough," Food, July 13].
   I have always thought that having a morbidly obese food critic is perverse at best, but her writing is usually solid, and she does have a real heart for local culinary talent. It has been sad over the years to see her barely able to move at various food events, a real red flag as to the dangers of no self-control.
   But her article about trying to slim down really takes the cake (in one bite, apparently). In the thousands of words on trying to avoid a heart attack and regain some semblance of health, not once does Wood even mention the magic word: exercise!
   Unbelievable as it seems, she spends half of her retirement savings to pay doctors to subvert nature in her quest for a more natural form, instead of the time-tested (and very inexpensive) method of eating less and exercising more.
   It's as if the thought never occurred to her. Surreal indeed … spend most of your cash to make someone else try to give you the discipline and common sense that is staring you daily in the face.
   Put that article in a time capsule; it sums up exactly how addicted our culture has become to paying someone else to solve our own self-imposed problems for us.
   I know people who were fatter than Wood who are now healthy and happy, all from getting off their asses and working out.
   But I guess lazy is as lazy does.
   Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus … and I hope he brings you some running shoes (and common sense) this year.

   [Editor's note: As noted in the feature, Virginia Wood had Lap-Band surgery and not gastric bypass surgery.]

Dear Editor,
    Again, I congratulate Louis Black for debunking those advocating irrational conspiracy theories ["Page Two," July 13]. And his clarity regarding 9/11 not being an inside job is especially laudable. From there, however, Mr. Black retreats from truth revealing intellectual and moral blindness.
    In his last two "Page Two" articles, Mr. Black exhibits his new left tendency of bashing President Bush, the Iraq campaign, and America's war against Islamist totalitarianism. He does not grasp that the United States is in an existential world conflict with a primitive force dedicated to genocide, torture, and enslaving humanity in theocratic hell.
    I submitted a letter to the editor last week succinctly and cogently making this case. For whatever reason, Mr. Black (or his staff) decided it was not worth posting. My own suspicion is that he is tired of facing his own fears regarding the Islamist danger and is in denial. So whether Mr. Black has the courage to post this is apparently in question. We will see.
    But this is certain, Mr. Black's refusal to openly acknowledge the mortal threat Islamism poses can only indicate hopeless delusion and belligerent ignorance. And now this virulent propaganda is widespread throughout America. The deadliest conspiracy theory of all now infects the land: There is no world war against genocidal and tyrannical Islamist radicalism, and the American military action in Iraq is criminal.
    These are despicable lies of ignorance and cowardice inimical to the survival of the free world. All who hold these conspiratorial positions enable the advocates of worldwide Islamist despotism and its associated horrors. They must live with that. Moreover, if this insidious thinking destroys American resolve Islamism will triumph, freedom will be exterminated, and the enslavement of humanity is certain.

   [Louis Black responds: It is not uncommon to run across letters that accuse me of somehow manipulating online comments, "Postmarks," and forum postings. I don't. There is many a slip between the cup and the lip, as they say. We post almost all the letters we receive (there have been times when we have not posted Mr. McDonald's since he says the same thing in every letter). The exceptions have nothing to do with our courage or lack thereof but instead usually involved unacceptable yet petty hate language or clearly libelous charges. Almost any letter criticizing this paper or attacking an article herein gets posted. In the print edition we include as many letters as we can fit, that space varying from issue to issue. Although there have been accusations of further manipulation, those are far more often errors of one sort or another.]

Dear Editor,
   I appreciate Virginia Wood sharing her struggle with weight ["Enough Is Enough," Food, July 13].
   I request she focus a few articles on how an epicurean can eat well in Austin on 1,500-2,000 calories per day.

   [Virginia B. Wood responds: Thanks for your kind words about the surgery article, but I honestly didn't share all that personal information because I was looking for a career change to writing about diets and fitness. I just wanted to be in control of my own story. The mainstream media is flooded with headlines screaming about the newest diets and fitness crazes regularly. The last thing in the world I want is to be sentenced to that beat. Sorry.]

Louis,
    I know your mailbox is filled to the rim with letters regarding your comments regarding 9/11 revisionists [“Page Two,” July 13]. While I also consider myself a revisionist, I found many of your comments to be fair.
    Your most important insight was the fact that JFK conspiracy theorists have essentially done nothing. Sure, they have written books and debated the assassination among themselves. But what have they really accomplished? What have they changed?
    I am in the group of revisionists who believe that 9/11 was simply allowed to happen. While we may never uncover conclusive evidence that the feds made 9/11 happen, they can certainly be held responsible for negligence or for sheer incompetence.
    One thing you, the other revisionists, and I share is a deep concern for the future of this country. We are all worried and angry about the unmitigated disaster that is the presidency of Bush and about his many collaborators in the so-called opposition party. The other collaborators in this war are on network news, in The New York Times, and just about every other legacy media outlet.
    As long as people like Katie Couric continue to parrot the lies of the federal government, there will be people like Alex Jones making films like TerrorStorm. The people want the truth. They know they can't get it from the legacy media, so they go wherever they find something that makes sense. This is what all 9/11 revisionists have in common – we don't trust the legacy press, unless we want football scores or weather reports.
    Last fall, I voted three straight tickets: 1) straight libertarian, 2) straight no on the levies, and 3) straight against whomever was endorsed by the Statesman.
    Finally, when will the anti-war left (which includes you) wake up and realize that this war is a product of both parties and that the only way to end the war is to throw both of them out?