By Chris Lane
By Jeff Balke
By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
Market bias: The article carries such a message of distrust that seems to be based more on who the principals are with Green Mountain Energy instead of focusing on what they are trying to do ["Red Light, Green Light," by Melissa Hung, June 7]. This is a market that does carry extraordinary risk, and investors will want proof that customers exist for this before putting up the capital to build new generating facilities.
Had the owners been liberal-minded with liberal-minded investors, I don't think their strategy would be questioned at all. It just goes to show that environmentalism is more about political philosophy and less about really caring for the environment.
Renewable goals: Wonderful article on green energy/deregulation. I had Green Mountain in California and am surprised to learn who really owns it. The piece shed some light on what really goes on with energy brokers. On the one hand you have big, often shady corporate giants holding the reins of power; on the other, you see that totally renewable energy sources are not completely practical at present.
Hopefully, with the growing environmental consciousness of folks out there, voices will be heard and all companies, big and small, will work tirelessly to bring 100 percent renewable power to many more customers. Articles such as this go a long way toward educating us all on the promises and pitfalls of deregulation and the quest for renewable power.
HISD's ways and woes: For three weeks straight you reported on school district scandals that in most communities would have citizens up in arms -- and would spark official investigations. A live-in conflict of interest with a financial chief of staff and a multimillion-dollar consultant serving as the pied pipers of privatization [The Insider, by Tim Fleck, May 17]; a for-profit firm managing a neo-reform school with a school board trustee in tow, that trustee reaping a sizable reward for his involvement; and clerks serving as attendance police to toss kids out (!) of their parents' school of choice [" Learning How to Survive (at) CEP," by Wendy Grossman and Margaret Downing, May 31].
What's wrong with this picture? Where's the "Rod Paige miracle" we keep hearing about? I'm glad someone is following the money; from the rest of the Houston media, you'd think we had nothing but valedictorians in our public schools.
Divine line: Keep up the good work. God is going to bless you. Your articles on CEP are very informing. You are doing what newspapers should do. Report it all.
Investigate the conflicts: From what I have been reading in your paper recently, I get the impression that HISD's board is filled with people who are for the most part corrupt. The deals they have made with CEP and others sound strangely like serious conflicts of interest and violations of the Texas Education Code. So why is no investigator from the attorney general or law enforcement agency looking into this matter?
Our daughters are homeschooled, and the more I learn about the school district as it is now, the more I am glad for that decision. If they could have had the experiences I did in HISD in the '70s, it would have been good for them, but those times are apparently gone. I am sorry to see that happen.
Kill the ad: "Executing the Truth in Ads" is an appropriate title for your article [by Steve McVicker, June 14]. Surely I'm not the only person that recognizes this "ad" as absolutely "a disingenuous effort by anti-death-penalty forces to portray death penalty proponents as possessing some sort of blood lust" (to quote you). That explains why a relatively large percentage of this propaganda was sent to Texas newspapers, and explains why the ad ran only in Terre Haute. It also explains why Tom Ungar believes that the ad is "a true and accurate depiction of many pro-death-penalty supporters." Only someone seeking to vilify the supporters of the death penalty would espouse that position.
He insults the intelligence of marketing people everywhere.
It's amazing to see the depths to which some organizations will stoop to promote their agendas. Is it not intuitively obvious, even to the most casual observer, that this ad campaign is rooted in anti-death-penalty doctrine and a blatant attempt by its authors to advance their agenda?
Contradictions: I too was amused by the thin nature of the apology issued by the Chron's editorial board on the alleged trashing of the White House by Clinton staffers [News Hostage, by Richard Connelly, June 14]. The Chronicle truly is schizophrenic (big-time) in its treatment of the Bush administration.
Not surprisingly, Bush was wholeheartedly endorsed by the paper. I say not surprisingly because the Chronicle surely recognized it would not prosper in a community filled with heavy-hitter corporate supporters of Bush unless it did so. Yet within days of his taking office, the editorial pages were running scathing denunciations of the very policies Mr. Bush had publicly promoted during his campaign. It's as if the editorial board members didn't read their own newspaper.