Cycle progressive, not vicious
In response to the Viewpoint "Austin's Vicious Cycle" (Nov. 19), the Housing Authority of the city of Austin would like to bring attention to the progressive efforts it makes to ensure safe, quality affordable housing opportunities exist for low-income families.
HACA, the No. 1 housing authority in the state, also tied for the No. 2 housing authority in the United States, houses over 18,000 Austinites within its 19 communities and through the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
The agency also partnered with Foundation Communities and the Capitol Area Homeless Alliance in 2003 to create the first permanent supportive housing exclusively for single adults with low incomes.
The community built for the program is solely intended for adults who live alone on a very low income, including people who are homeless, facing eviction or leaving transitional housing. Only one-third of a resident's income is required for homeless-subsidized units.
HACA's mission is also to provide safe housing for its 18,000-plus residents; therefore, an applicant with a criminal history is initially denied housing. However, applicants may appeal if denied because of a misdemeanor. If rehabilitation is proven, they are accepted into the program.
Through HACA's many programs, the agency moves thousands of people into public housing, helps them achieve self-sufficiency so they can live on their own, then moves thousands more in.
So if you take a closer look, Austin's housing cycle is not a vicious one; it's a progressive one that breaks the poverty cycle and responds to the challenges of the future.
Jennifer Jones Spokeswoman Housing Authority of the city of Austin
The good, the bad, the ugly
Before beginning a tirade about the apparent ignorance of MPA candidates, I want to congratulate The Daily Texan for following The Daily Californian and other college dailies in providing interesting and useful information on the pursuit of coitus. Devon Ryan's editorial ("The wrong way to be up all night," Nov. 17), while not as stimulating as the "Sex on Tuesday" column, was well-written, knowledgeable and informative.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Merrick Brown's editorial on price-gouging ("UT stores gouging on-campus residents," Nov. 19).
The idea that a student in the Graduate School of Business would totally ignore economies of scale and the principles of cost accounting in expressing an opinion is mind boggling. Hasn't Brown studied economics, retail marketing or governmental/nonprofit accounting?
Brown's article appears to have been written by someone completely unaware that Jester City Limits, CVS, 7-Eleven and the Campus Convenience Stores do not buy from the same vendors or, if they do, do not do so under the same terms.
Everyone who has studied business knows that small businesses and local government contractors do not necessarily receive the same price breaks that large purchasers do. Brown acknowledges that "the Texas Union ... wasn't trying to compete with CVS or HEB, and they simply don't have the purchasing power of stores like CVS," but fails to consider this or the cost of convenience in his analysis of the pricing schemes of Jester City Limits or the Campus Convenience Stores. This failure should lead to a similar result if he were to do so in one of his classes.
Ryan used knowledge gained through study and personal research to write an informative and thought-provoking column; Brown used the status of a student in the Graduate School of Business to write a column that was ill-formed and polemic.
Perhaps the next time you find condoms, tampons and Strawberry Pop-Tarts on your shopping list, you'll forgo the Budweiser and the Viagra and rethink your priorities and walk farther. Or maybe you prefer seeing the world through a blue haze.
Charles Tolliver UT alum
Boyko hates America
Every day I grimace while I read the partisan trash spewed out by the likes of Brian Boyko. This refuse is published daily under the pretext of the Texan's Opinion Page. I usually shrug it off, but this time Boyko has gone too far.
In Thursday's paper, the closing sentence of his opinion piece states: "This decision ... illustrates why so many Iraqis are so desperate to kick the American invaders out of the country and why it is so vital they succeed."
I would like him to come out and directly state what he is insinuating. It seems he believes that America is invading Iraq purely for profit. The last time I checked, though, this war is costing America a bundle.
Even worse, he is apparently advocating that the Iraqi insurgents force our troops out of the country.
In short, it seems he wants a violent uprising that kills American soldiers.
Unless you didn't mean what you wrote, which based on your shameful track record is unlikely, then you are a traitor and a seditionist, and I am ashamed to admit that you are an American.
Hurry up and leave the country that gave you so much opportunity, and take your lies and your hatred with you. I've had it!
Nathan Harold Computer engineering senior
No love for ... canola oil
It scares me that my sarcasm meter didn't budge at all when reading Brian Boyko's column ("No blood for ... canola oil?" Nov. 18).
Could someone please do me a favor and explain to me how patent lawyers are going to enforce intellectual property law in a country where armed militants storming police stations is a common occurrence?
Joseph Koenig Electrical engineering senior
MPAA campaign a scary waste
Nothing is novel about the conflict of content creators and content distributors over the use of new media technology. What is novel is the way that the entertainment industries have shifted their targets from the groups that make distribution possible to the public that consumes them.
From the milestone Sony v. MGM "Betamax" case to last month's Federal Court of Appeals ruling favoring the legitimacy of file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus, the tide of judicial logic has slowly turned in favor of value-creating technologies.
Never discouraged, the Recording Industry Association of America and now the Motion Picture Association have risen to bite the very hands that feed them - the movie-consuming public. Although over 60 million Americans use file-sharing networks, the MPAA seems to feel that they have nothing to fear in their use of intimidation.
Although none of Hollywood's latest attempts at terror have given me my money's worth, Thursday's full-page MPAA ad in the Texan sent chills down my spine.
Although the ongoing campaign against listeners by the RIAA has proved a massive waste of taxpayer money (having made improper use of federal offices, filed lawsuits illegally and done nothing to stem the tide of downloading), the movie industry is set to follow in their footsteps.
They also have another trick up their sleeve: the INDUCE act. The recently-introduced congressional legislation would devote federal funds to putting "music pirates" (students) behind bars.
I expect cooperation with this type of anti-consumer carpet bombing from the mouthpieces of multinational media conglomerates, but the pro-student stance of the Texan has left me with a higher set of expectations.
With DVD sales up 33 percent in 2003, it is sheer avarice that provokes this kind of misguided boot-stomping on the part of the MPAA. I hope that in the future, the Texan can associate itself with cooler heads.
Byron Landry Economics senior
Web-Exclusive Firing Lines
Color blind society ultimate plot short-cut
Marshall Hopkins seems to suggest in his letter ("Rent 'Blade Runner' again," Nov. 19) that a world without race would be preferable. Or maybe he was simply making some snarky comment to tweak the religious.
At any rate, he reminded me of an old sci-fi book I once read. A man whose dreams change reality falls into the hands of a crusading psychiatrist who uses him to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, dreams are funny things, so when he plants the suggestion that his patient dream of a world without racial conflict, everyone winds up gray. It's funny how the end of racial difference figures so prominently in today's sci-fi.
Is this how an RTF major would solve the world's problems: with the ultimate plot short-cut?
Jennifer Small UT alum
The City of Austin is evil!
I was shocked to read about the crimes against society that the City of Austin has committed and keeps committing. This insane gang of cruel, heartless ultra-conservatives that is our city council has really crossed the line this time. Whose interests do they think they are representing? Not mine!
I personally never minded being harassed by crack-heads in need of spare change or taking a detour on my way from a downtown bar to my car in order to avoid tripping over bums sleeping in their own vomit. Instead of trying to get rid of those outstanding citizens, we must (in the true spirit of "progressivism") give them special privileges. And we certainly need a new leadership - one that would provide (hopefully by raising taxes) a shelter of choice and a warm meal for every lazy criminal at the end of a long day of drinking beer, popping pills and staring at girls' boobs on the Drag.
Ani Popova Computer sciences senior
Most Kerry voters not anti-Bush
In the story "University panelists analyze election" (Nov. 19), Prof. Richard Pells is quoted as saying, "Most people who voted for Kerry voted for him because they were voting against George Bush." This is false.
According to CNN exit polls, 57 percent of Kerry voters said their vote was mostly pro-Kerry, while only 36 percent said it was mostly anti-Bush.
The way the numbers were reported may have been confusing: CNN said that 70 percent of those voting mostly against the "other guy" were Kerry-voters. But "70 percent of X are Y" does not imply that "70 percent of Y are X," and one needs to apply Bayes' Theorem to calculate the desired percentages.
Geoffrey J. King Computer sciences graduate student
A liberal does not a commie make, I
In response to Robert Rosenbaum's Firing Line ("Living in a socialist paradise," Nov. 18): If you look beyond what you believe about socialism and Marxism, you would know that they're not one and the same. Socialism advocates greater equality for the people, while Marxism advocates a the same with a little radical reaction (read: revolution) thrown in the mix. While some socialists likely supported Kerry, Marxists were much more likely to support neither candidate and call for the creation of a third "working-class" party.
To get to the point, don't throw around terms you don't fully understand, basing your views on only your beliefs. After all, these are the same beliefs that put your infallible leader into office again.
The issue that liberals have with Bush's re-election is how people can overlook cold, hard facts, such as a growing deficit, an unnecessary war, a failing economy and the slippery slide towards a police state, all in the name of beliefs. Governmental policy based on morals or religious belief results in oppression. I won't tell you that religion is the opiate of the masses, but isn't it a basis for terrorism? Ever hear of "jihad?"
Simply put, it takes more than beliefs to make good policy. As far as I'm concerned, our president can either make a prayer circle or he can make a difference. It appears that we have four more years to find out which one it'll be.
Stephan Hardeman Anthropology junior
A liberal does not a commie make, II
Mr. Rosenbaum, the issue many have taken with the values-based re-election of George W. Bush has nothing to do with an aversion to either religion or voting with the heart. "Liberal" is hardly synonymous with "atheist."
Rather, much of the criticism falls upon the platform of blue-collar morality cynically pushed by an administration that in fact caters to the wealthy elite. It is hypocrisy that is being attacked, not religion.
The Bush administration secured its so-called mandate by manipulating the fear and aggression of a large portion of America in the name of moral superiority, and will likely now continue to institute policies that will exacerbate the economic descent of its primary constituency.
The specifics of your Firing Line aside, your opinion ignores the fundamental private interests of the current administration. That they would exploit your faith and beliefs so casually for personal and cronyistic gain should give you cause to, at least temporarily, join with the "Marxist" and the "socialist" in opposition.
E.C. Arndt UT alum
Pistons/Pacers incident a disgrace
What I saw this weekend was an absolute disgrace, not just for the sports world but America as well. Sure at plenty of games we've seen fans throw drinks and popcorn at teams, which is bad enough, but fans threw a chair and came on the court. During the next weeks suspensions will be handed and many in the media will find a way to blame Ron Artest, the lack of security or the sale of beer as the reason this melee occurred.
Problem is, none of them are the ones we should be concerned with. Yes all involved are to blame at some level, but it's the fans who truly are a disgrace to us all. People know that throwing beer on a person walking down the street will start a fight, so what makes a player any different? What makes an NBA player exempt from rules we live by? Fans like this should try doing it without a buffer of a thousand fans, just one on one with the players, and see what happens.
A Pistons fan right now is posting online about how manly he is for pouring his drink on someone from 10 yards away. A Pistons fan is talking about how this now makes his team cooler, and him cooler for liking them. A Pistons fan, like a White Sox fan and so many others, is a shame and ruining sports for us. I guess this is yet another reason why Detroit is called the arm-pit of America.
Matthew Bessman History senior
Be the first to comment on this article!