By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
By Angelica Leicht
Driving off beachgoers:While I realize that all sides needed to be presented in this article ["Line in the Sand," by Richard Connelly, February 13], I feel that an atmosphere of doom for vehicular beach access was cast throughout it. The final two paragraphs leave the reader with an overall negative impression.
There is the paragraph that parallels the outdated practice of liquor stores giving cups of ice to patrons for drinking while driving with being able to drive on the beach. It is followed by the assumption that "the change will probably end up helping the beach." These leave the reader with an unfair negative insinuation that the idea of vehicles on the beach is some kind of archaic damaging practice.
It seems obvious what's happening on the west end of Galveston Island: privatization of the beaches! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the beachfront homeowners, the 1,100-acre landowner and the City of Galveston all have self-serving reasons to oust the general public from their beaches. This affects all people who enjoy trips to the beach, not just the fishermen. These beaches that are closed to the public become private playgrounds for those who own adjacent land. What a deal!
I hope most people are able to see the transparent nature of the beachfront property owners' arguments. Texas beaches, by law, are public, for all people to access and enjoy.
Taking a Bow
Wonderful research: That was a fine and well-researched article in the Houston Press this week concerning the Houston Symphony ["Going Baroque," by Jennifer Mathieu, February 20]. In my 36 years as a member of HSO it is encouraging to see reporters like this one doing serious research into the organization and then writing such a thoughtful piece.
Horrors, not Hollywood:What a nauseatingly beautiful cover story, Wendy Grossman ["Young Guns," February 6]! I've always loved the way several of the Press's feature writers can write so dispassionately about people, issues and phenomena that clearly make their skin crawl. The article makes an excellent "counterpoint" to Craig Malisow's terrific story on the peace bus to Washington ["Peace Signs," January 30].
You don't need an advanced degree in reading between the lines to see the main point: These young cadets and enlistees are children who have been fed a steady diet of military manure, and thus graduate from high school with no idea how the world really works. Their sentiments about serving their country are mostly admirable; their sense of what purpose our military serves in the world is delusional at best.
That gung-ho young gentleman from George Bush High School who found combat alluring after seeing Full Metal Jacket and Platoon has clearly missed the point of those films. War breeds and thrives on insanity; more civilians than soldiers get killed; American troops display the worst features of humanity and do things they couldn't get away with in their own neighborhoods. This side of the story does not get enough play in our schools.
Ms. Grossman should continue the investigation with a profile of local LOTC programs. I never knew that LOTC existed until I saw hundreds of uniformed middle schoolers and even elementary students mustering to march in (ironically enough) the Martin Luther King Jr. parade last month. There are plenty of ways to boost discipline in our schools; promoting military life to that age group is just plain perverse. We're becoming like those third-world nations where real preteens shoot real AK-47s in real wars.
It did not mention how many served in the Confederacy. They were called the Fifth Texas Volunteer Infantry Regiment, Company A, Bayou City Guards. The company was organized in Harris County, enrolled at Houston July 19, 1861, and mustered into the Confederate service at Richmond, Virginia, on September 30, 1861. They numbered 164.
Race and the GOP
Give us the proof: Sylvester Anderson in his "Minority Report" [Letters, February 6] is certainly passionate in his complaints about the Republican Party. I, for one, would like to know on what facts his opinions are based. He said the GOP has pandered to racial prejudices, but I saw no evidence to substantiate his opinion. If there is a "policy," what exactly does it look like? If it is "long-standing," shouldn't we all know about it? Again, Mr. Anderson says the party should rebuke itself from its "racially divisive strategy." What is the strategy that it should rebuke?
He says Bill Clinton "maintained the Democrats' commitment to human rights." Is he implying that the Republican Party has no commitment to human rights? How does he know that? How does he know that the Democrats do? Clinton reluctantly signed the welfare reform bill, but only after Dick Morris convinced him that he would never be re-elected in 1996 without signing it.
Last, Mr. Anderson refers to the Republicans' Southern strategy of "exploiting race for political advantage." How exactly does this work? Where could one research this topic?