By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
Divide and Conquer
I am elated that Mr. Diaz was able to achieve his goal of becoming a Border Patrol agent ("The Thin Green Line," by Megan Feldman, January 24). However, the continual hiring of agents with a Hispanic background is highly suspicious. It seems that the plan for continuing the assimilation of anything remotely non-American into "Sir, yes, sir" is working, as is the plan to continue hatred and racism within our own communities. Referring to humans as "aliens" or even "terrorists" is a clear indication of the amount of fear that has been injected into the American pie. Do your jobs, sirs, and beware of the alien. They just might be cutting your grass.
Xolótl Zarazúa, via dallasobserver.com
I, too, share my happiness that Mr. Diaz achieved his goal; he is truly an example of a legal immigrant's success story, something that occurs all too seldom. However, the previous commenter's own words underscore his or her ignorance. Hiring agents with a Hispanic background makes great logistical sense. They require little or no training in Spanish or other facts pertinent to assignment along the Mexican border, saving taxpayers untold amounts of money. To the next point, assimilating "anything remotely non-American," I should think that would be a worthy goal for anyone actually living in America. As far as the fact that humans are referred to as "aliens" is concerned, from a legal standpoint, what better word would describe border crossers? It's my understanding that the word "alien" is, in one of its definitions, synonymous with "foreigner." That the word has a more pejorative connotation to it than originally intended is not relevant. I do, however, agree with the previous [letter] when he says that referring to humans as "terrorists" is an indicator of fear "that has been injected into the American pie." It most certainly has been and deservedly so. It is an undisputed fact that terrorists do cross at the U.S.-Mexican border quite regularly, so, again, this description is quite appropriate.
David, via dallasobserver.com
Disgusting Bleeding Hearts
I started reading the "Judge Dread" article (by Matt Pulle, January 17) about two hours ago. About a third of the way into it, I tossed it aside—was disgusted. But I made myself give it an honest read and finished it. I'm still disgusted, especially after reading every bleeding heart opinion from various important (I guess) legal people interviewed by Mr. Pulle.
Are those important legal people referring to the same Michael Richard, already on parole for burglary, who entered Marguerite Dixon's house on August 18, 1986, who raped and murdered Marguerite Dixon by shooting her in the head with a .25-caliber automatic pistol? The same Michael Richard case where the Harris County jury found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death?
Judge Keller wasn't moving that case forward to a conviction or to the death penalty, and she wasn't dealing with that case in a cavalier manner—she was enforcing what had already been decided 20 years ago! Death by lethal injection. And to say that turning in yet another appeal was a "life and death situation" for Michael Richard—give me an effing break!! Michael Richard's life and death situation was decided 20 years ago by the Harris County jury. (But what do I know? I'm just a regular person, who wonders how we can still be feeding, housing and providing medical care for a convicted criminal who was sentenced to death 20 years ago!)
But here's the thing I find most appalling about this whole disgusting article: In the fourth paragraph, it explains the appeal that Richard's attorneys wanted to turn in was based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision, made just that same morning, that raised DOUBTS about the constitutionality of lethal injection. The "doubt" has to do with a Kentucky case that alleges the use of particular chemicals in a lethal injection should be banned as cruel and unusual punishment...because of pain and suffering they might induce in condemned inmates. Again, give me an effing break!
Sorry, all you death row convicted criminals, my bad...we'll stop giving you this injection of chemicals for an end to your life that MIGHT be a little uncomfortable for you. Instead, we'll just keep feeding you every day, housing you every day, providing for your medical needs every day. And the victim's family and loved ones—you know, the people that loved the person you brutally murdered?—well, you don't need to worry about them because we don't!
Why isn't the real story how pathetic our legal system is that allows the ongoing appeal process, and the loopholes therein, that thumbs its nose at the original sentencing?
Tonia B., Midlothian