incoming (2006-24)

A Smarter Charter

UT Research Footnote

Does Anyone Have a Hairnet?

‘For All’ Being the Operative Phrase

Haven’t You Read Your Bible?

Communism v.2.0

That the county ignored the law with regards to filing the voter-passed charter with its own county clerk and with the state, ignored the provisions of its charter with regards to publishing the voter-approved amendment concerning term limits, and finally added a third charter revision disbanding the county’s Code Commission, but did not amend instructions to the county clerk for filings with the Commission, illustrates how ineptly past county officials served the people.

On the other hand, the prospect of revising the charter with the knowledge that we have the authority to redefine all the positions within the county is exciting. There is no longer any reason to keep the elected office of county sheriff if the people decide they wish something else. We can make it a mayor-appointed position if we want. We can hook a deal with the city and use its police force if we want. We can demand specific qualifications of any candidate for sheriff, or any of the other “constitutionally mandated” offices, if we want. That is heady stuff.

Jerome Prahl

UT Research Footnote

This is a contest in which all undergraduates at UT are encouraged to find a UT staff mentor, develop a research project, and submit a proposal for funding to carry out the project; this summer, 15 research internships were awarded. The purpose of the program is to foster undergraduate involvement in research at UT. Congrats, fellow interns, and thank you to those at the Office of Research and the Chancellor’s Office for helping it happen.

Francisco Baires

Does Anyone Have a Hairnet?

Joe Acree

‘For All’ Being the Operative Phrase

John Bruce

Haven’t You Read Your Bible?

Politicians would be much more effective if they would stick to running the world and leave family business to families.

Richard Fields

Communism v.2.0

The primary symbolism representing the end of the threat was the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany in 1989. How the world, led by the United States, celebrated the destruction of “The Wall”! Now, only 17 years later, some in this country are proposing a new “wall.” A 700-mile fence.

Regarding immigration, I am totally amazed at how in a relatively short period of time, this has evolved from a benign issue to one that warrants the use of the National Guard. I believe there are three reasons people of Latin America come here. Financial gain, the opportunity for a better education for their children and better health care. My ideas on how to address these issues are as follows: 1) Financial gain—The economies of some Latin American countries such as Mexico continue to prosper, with wages in some parts of Mexico experiencing double digit annual increases. Coupled with lackluster forecast for economic growth in the United States, in time, this problem will take care of itself. 2) Education—If this country can afford to spend $4.5 billion a month in Iraq, surely we can afford to spend a fraction of that teaching Latin American countries how to build their educational infrastructure so that they too have a strong educational system. 3) Better health care—We should solicit our NAFTA partner Canada to teach Latin American countries how to have an economically and medically efficient healthcare system. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re qualified to teach other countries how to do this.

When we look back on the threat of Communism to this country, I have to ask, did we solve that problem, or did the problem find its own solution? And was it really a problem of the proportion we were led to believe? Or was it a case of politicians fanning a small fire, and successfully creating a bonfire? And does that question apply to today’s “major threat” to the United States?

I can envision 20 years from now, the problem with immigration being reversed. As baby boomers look to stretch their retirement dollars, the current stream of U.S. citizens choosing to live in Latin America could become a flood. Which would create a huge economic drain on our economy, as us baby boomers spend our dollars in Latin America rather than the United States. Ironically, I can envision a Bush-like government imposing limits on how many, and how long U.S. citizens may go/stay in Latin America. All in the interest of National Security, of course.

Steve Walker

Guidelines for Incoming Mail

© 2006 MetroPulse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments » 0

Be the first to post a comment!

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.