By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
"The Truth" will not set you free: Robert Wilonsky's "Right Hand of God" report (February 17) is a reminder that political action committees--whether liberal or conservative--have achieved one result: The public should be wary of any group with freedom, free or liberty in its name. As a 47-year-old, I've been privileged to study groups at many varying Catholic and Protestant churches. I've been in study groups at temples for the Old Testament. And I've heard one very consistent message from scholars and evangelists: If somebody says they know "The Truth" of God's words, actions or aims, run--do not walk--as fast as you can. The Bible is a mirror to reflect on one's own life. It's not a checklist to correct others.
What they're teaching in Mesquite: I feel very strongly about making the following comments. I am a sophomore in the Mesquite Public Schools and a future voter. Although I do not personally believe in homosexual marriages or abortion, I am frightened by the blatant disregard for our basic constitutional freedoms. In my history class the other day we were discussing the resilience of the virtually unchanged Constitution. Our forefathers penned the Constitution to escape religious persecution and to secure our personal freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They did not qualify it to specific individuals then, and we shouldn't now. That is why the Constitution has lasted as long as it has. Regardless of whether I support Mr. Ford or any other special interest group, that should be the voter's right, and I firmly believe that the Constitution should remain clear of special interests and represent the freedoms America continues to stand for today.
A Fine Whine
How about some personal responsibility: Judge Linda Hack (Letters, February 17), with all due respect, why are you complaining about what the world owes you when you have obviously squandered away your chance?
You said yourself that you are an "intelligent person," yet you also said you spent $10,000 a year on CLOTHES. I can only imagine what kind of car and house goes along with such a ridiculous budget. Why do you believe that the government owes you a penny when you could not properly plan for a financial disaster? Why do you think the government is supposed to help you now that you failed miserably at proper handling of your finances? You obviously lived well beyond your means and did not plan for your future. Putting away enough money for a few months of unemployment would have been the least thing you could have done. With an income like yours, you likely could have done a lot more than that and signed on to some helpful insurance policies (like a disability policy).
I think it is quite hilarious that you feel fine to rant about the "corporate giants who are raping America and the world of all its resources for their private gain," even though you were happy to be among them. When you were rolling in your designer clothes and lavish lifestyle, how much money did you give to charitable organizations that help the homeless? How much did you put away for the future? How much did you volunteer your time for the less fortunate?
This is not to say that your current state is punishment for your past lifestyle, but I am quite annoyed that you believe the government owes you now. Don't you think your past life owes you more than the government does? Time to think about personal responsibility, Judge.
Green With Envy
Sad: In response to the article "Crapped Out" (by Rob Patterson, January 13), at first I took offense, then pity on your article. I find it sad that you had to go to some random UT forum to find a bunch of foul-mouthed college kids trashing Pat Green. If you don't like his new album, give your own reasons and opinions. Calling Green a sellout because his music has grown and evolved over the years is ridiculous. I love his old stuff. I love his new stuff. If a performer has ambition to be a national recording artist and can do what it takes to get there, more power to him! You can't become a national recording artist and only sing about Texas. This album is popular on a higher level than people who use the word "sucks" and, better yet, "sucks ass" to critique music.
I would suggest experiencing Pat live--he's still the same old Pat, still the best live show out there. A little older, a little wiser, but still as fun and carefree as any Texan around. Maybe becoming a dad had more to do with the change than "selling out."
Red berets welcome: Mayor Laura Miller's reluctance to embrace the Guardian Angels in their quest to reduce crime in Dallas is a paradox of monumental proportions. While presiding over a city that has become the murder capital of the nation, her honor repudiates the organized efforts of residents to take back their city from the hoodlums. As a former police officer, I know the value of getting residents involved as the eyes and ears of the department. Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels' leader, has trained those concerned residents to be a force for good on the streets of every city with an obvious need. Perhaps Ms. Miller, in her efforts to pull off the "strong mayor" perception, believes that spurning the anti-crime group will make her appear worthy of the title. Of course, she has little to fear from the criminal element in her gated community. If she wants to prove how "strong" she is, she should take a stroll some night in Oak Cliff or Deep Ellum without bodyguards. I'll bet she'd welcome the sight of those red berets at the first sound of rapidly approaching footsteps.