Readers on Kay Granger's trip to Russia; school board mess; and angry white guy cartoon
On Granger: Why go to Russia?
Why would Rep. Granger accept an invitation to be in Russia on America's Independence Day?
It's bad enough that Ambassador Huntsman had the lack of judgment to schedule such an event.
—James Richardson,
Dallas
On race: Why a rude, old white man?
I found the Nate Beeler editorial cartoon offensive and racist. ("Modern Philosophy," Columbus Dispatch, June 19)
As a white man in his 60s, I find it offensive to always be portrayed as angry and rude.
Why is the person reading a smartphone portrayed as fat, white, older, patriotic, and bald?
My experience is that young people, women and people of color are just as rude and offensive.
Would you have published the cartoon if it had depicted a young socialist woman of color?
—Bill Hallman,
Arlington
On race: Don't use anti-Anglo slurs
A recent article by Mac Engel used common derogatory terms applied to Anglos by Latinos and African-Americans.. ("Mexico's match what helps make America great. Not 'Again.' Just great.")
That's as offensive as the n-word.
It is just as wrong for me — two-thirds Caucasian, one-sixth sub-Saharan African and one-sixth American Indian — to apply an ethnic slur to myself, but demand no one else use it.
Or is this becoming OK for one group to use and not another?
—L.G. Breaux,
Fort Worth
On FWISD: Trustee defends budget
I do not agree that discussions and agreements made by a minority of board members are improper. ("School trustee votes against the FWISD budget don't add up," July 1)
This is how better decisions are made.
Information provided to the public does not meet legal requirements, including required notices to the public, the comparison of the budget with the 2017-18 budget, and a number of other items.
There are huge increases in the central office budget while staffing of our secondary school core classes is being reduced.
FWISD is spending money which exceeds our income, redirecting bond money to lessen the deficit.
Staff has refused repeatedly to present budget projections for the coming years, but if this spending continues, we will be unable to replace equipment which is wearing out, including our bus fleet, and our reserves will dwindle to zero.
—Ann Sutherland,
Fort Worth
For Abbott: Against Valdez, Pelosi
There are two reasons there will not be a blue wave in Texas or nationally.
I have not voted Republican in over 20 years, but I will vote for Gov. Abbott over Lupe Valdez for many obvious reasons.
(I believe if Andrew White had won the primary, Beto O'Rourke would have had a chance to defeat Ted Cruz.)
And nationally, because 78-year-old Nancy Pelosi will not be humble and retire as House Minority leader.
—Bob Wickstrom,
Fort Worth
Against Abbott: We're No. 1
Gov Abbott’s billboards started showing up on Interstate 35 in time for the Democratic convention.
Abbott campaigned on women in business, the graduation rate for African-Americans and the unemployment and job numbers for 2017.
Those are fine points.
However; he forgot to include a billboard about how Texas ranks last in uninsured healthcare.
He also must have forgotten that Texas is worst in the nation for nursing home abuse.
—John Dearing,
Watauga
Cain a joke, but Valdez worse
I can always count on Bud Kennedy for a good laugh, and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, who is laughable all by himself, was a deserving punchline when he crashed the Democratic convention.
But he's a minor player with little to no influence.
For all their faults, the Republicans have yet to nominate a candidate for governor who intentionally skirted paying taxes.
—Jeff Murray,
Weatherford
On abortion: It separates families
About 2,000 abortions are performed daily in our country, well over 60 million since Roe v. Wade.
I cannot fathom how this goes on.
Pro-choice women think it is their right to end a pregnancy, surmising that it is their body.
Do they not recognize that the pregnancy involves a living body? The fate of one should not be decided by another.
Recent marches opposed immigration enforcement and separation of children from families.
Note that families are permanently separated by abortion.
—Mary E. Hesse,
Fort Worth
On abortion rights: It protects privacy
We consistently hear from abortion opponents who want to abolish Roe v. Wade and favor judges who support that position.
Most people on either side have never read the majority opinion.
Briefly, the decision ruled Texas Penal Code Section 1191 unconstitutional. That statute made an abortion by a physician at any time, with one exception, a crime punishable by imprisonment.
The Court ruled that pregnant women have a right of privacy involving their medical condition, and that a qualified physician performing an abortion was not criminal if competent medical practice was followed. This was limited to the period prior to viability.
The decision focused on the rights of the parties and not on abortion itself.
Roe v. Wade is good law protecting valuable constitutional rights. If those who oppose abortion wish to do so, so be it.
But the gravamen of their position should be a constitutional statute that does not impose an undue burden on those who might fall under its purview.
—Marty Goldsmith,
Fort Worth
This story was originally published July 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM.