Recycling can work: I was in awe to read about what Charles Siderius uncovered about the rip-offs such as double weighing, etc. ("Garbage In, Garbage Out," May 16). That is wonderful investigative journalism, and we need to have more such in all of our media.
However, he lost me and detracted from his report by getting into political opinions that are not really true. He seems to have a problem with "government-mandated" programs. Properly applied government-mandated programs are very important. The interstate system is an example of such. We have a serious problem with clear cutting, deforestation and diminished use of available farmland. A clear commitment to recycling, regardless of what our present "market" dictates, would be in the best interest of the long-term survival of our species.
At present, there are government-mandated subsidies and taxpayer giveaways for the timber industry as well as nuclear, coal, etc. This only assists in disruption of our air and water biomes and ultimately affects your and my health. We need to stop these giveaways and put those bucks where they make a positive difference.
We have the capacity to recycle up to 91 percent of our waste. Recycling, saving space that would not otherwise go into landfills and conserving our forests, makes good economic as well as scientific sense.
It is too bad that Dallas has allowed this travesty to go on. But let's not throw the baby--the benefits of recycling--out with the rotten bathwater.
Waste not: You are so right, and your revelations are even more depressing. I have written our city council many times. So few people are recycling. As I go down my alley, mine is the only pile of papers, etc. By the time I take out all the papers, cans and bottles, there is very little trash left to be picked up, yet I have to pay $15 to have everyone else's picked up. We should be encouraged to recycle by some incentive--lower payments or only once-a-week pickup. Actually, I don't even fill my garbage can once a week.
Down on Dallas vice: In your article "The Naked Truth" (May 23), I see that Dallas vice has wasted no time in wasting our tax dollars, charging adult video store clerks with selling the very material they are licensed by the city to sell. You'd think vice would listen to the citizens' concerns, via the juries and judges who have thrown multiple cases out of court (12 in a row, defended by Andrew Chatham alone), instead of listening to the complaints of a couple of rogue and increasingly obsolete organizations like the Center for Decency. Don't think we don't know the truth. Dallas vice is using the "alleged" complaints of these organizations as a scapegoat for the real truth, which is if vice doesn't harass everyone involved in the adult industry, they don't have jobs anymore.
Making up ridiculous charges and conducting what should be regarded as unconstitutional harassment campaigns are what keep the vice cops gainfully employed. Dallas has shown, based on juries' decisions, that free speech and free expression should be upheld, rather than supporting quasi-religious attacks on legitimate businesses that much of the population patronizes. Of course, vice ignores this, otherwise they might have to get a real job as a real police officer, fighting real crime that actually has a victim.
Vice gives the Dallas police force a bad name. These morality stormtroopers are a thorn in your side, as well as that of our Constitution and the tax-paying citizens of this city.
And by the way, vice should be getting sued instead of just losing cases. Where is the ACLU, and how long are we going to let Dallas vice use the whining and complaining of the Center for Decency to dictate morality to a community that should be able to make its own decisions, based on what the market will bear?
First Amendment warrior: Thomas Korosec's article might have been titled "John Wallace Saves the First Amendment in Dallas." Well, maybe he only saved some low-level porn clerks from being convicted and fined for distributing speech that the Dallas Vice Squad and prosecutors deemed not to be protected by the First Amendment. But that is not a small thing. The owners and the lawyers, especially the lawyers paid for by our tax dollars, were in no mood to fight for either the rights of citizens to view or the right of clerks to sell this sexually explicit stuff. John Wallace stood up for what is right, and the system changed. Amazing.
Hypocrisy: When Belo refuses to respond to inquiries, it suggests a secret agenda or secret policies that can't be questioned by outsiders ("Dog Bites Belo," May 16). That may be acceptable for business, but it destroys any journalistic credibility.