Your Turn: Sept. 28
Winners’ historyRe: “Ancestors the heroes,” Your Turn, Sept. 20:Frederick Vasquez’s letter concerned Alamo heroes. I descend from the city’s Spanish founders. I wonder what their Mexican descendants felt in 1836 watching American settlers given free land in Mexico. Would Mexican citizens lose family ranches? Would their women be safe? Their language disappear? I can’t know.And trying, after 200 years, to know revolutionary motivation is guesswork. Most hated President Antonio López de Santa Anna’s brutal changes, but he was required to address threats to Mexico. Settlers failing to assimilate, who kept slaves illegally, were threats, but not all were fighters. Many wanted peace, and to stay on “their” land and manage their own affairs. But fight or negotiate? Some fought; more fighters were needed.A military leader was chosen. Sam Houston recruited in Tennessee and Kentucky. Not a legal immigrant or landowner, Houston came for personal ambition, appealing to other Americans to enter illegally and fight. Santa Anna promised death.Why fight? If another country has a cruel dictator, do you saddle up, leave home and ride off to challenge him? No, you don’t. But if winners get free land, with Mexican law gone and slavery legal, you might. They did. Heroes? Depends who you ask. The result was Texas. We Texans are Americans today, an amazing cherished outcome.The Alamo became the “Cradle of Texas Liberty,” inspiring the decisive battle. Heroes? To their fellow fighters, yes. Maybe not to my ancestors, instantly second-class citizens for generations. Certainly not to anyone of African heritage, coming so close to freedom if the Texans lost, who saw themselves remain in slavery. Winners write history. We are the Alamo City. And we love our heroes.Jan KisslingDelay, delay, delayLet’s look back two years and review what happened when President Barack Obama wanted a vote on his nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy. I distinctly remember there was a call to delay, delay, delay.Fast-forward two years, and what do we have? Now, we have President Donald Trump wanting to have his nomination rammed down our throats as expeditiously as possible when he was the one who wanted the delay two years ago.His nominee is being blasted for his past behavior, and still President Trump insists on having his nominee selected. Now there is no room for delay. Why not delay the vote on the nomination until the issue on behavior is resolved? It only makes sense. President Trump will not be paying for his nominee’s salary if he is voted in. We will.I want to make sure that we are getting our money’s worth. I don’t want to pay someone who is to be held to the highest morals when that person does not fit the mold. Let’s delay, delay, delay.Santos HernandezVote this timeOK, Americans, your inattention to the 2016 election — and often not voting — could soon give you Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and then get ready …He will sit on a court that will almost certainly harm women’s reproductive rights, make voting more difficult and reduce environmental regulations. The court will also permit even more leeway in campaign contributions and curtail various immigrants’ rights.Maybe you who stuck your heads in the comfortable world of self will vote in 2018 and then 2020, this starting the move toward a Supreme Court that cares for millions of Americans rather than a selfish elite.Eugene Novogrodsky, BrownsvilleWho needs court?It appears we are looking at a tactic that will prevent any vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court from ever being filled.It’s obvious that any time a candidate supported by one political party appears to be on the verge of getting confirmed, another political party only needs to leak allegations of misconduct, no matter how long ago those might have occurred, and demand an investigation by the FBI.This shouldn’t be a concern, though. Pretty much any decision the court issues these days is supported by half the population and detested by the other half. Without a Supreme Court, there won’t be any need to provide opinions about that pesky Constitution. This will give us a clean slate to start all over in building a model civilization.The legislative body of this country wouldn’t be needed either. It isn’t as if Congress, locked in paralysis of partisanship, is doing much of anything productive these days.That leaves the executive branch to stand on its own. All we need to do is decide whether we prefer a monarch or a dictator to efficiently run government, or perhaps someone else can make that decision for us so we don’t have to waste time voting. We will all live in a state of peace and tranquility made possible by an unlimited supply of someone else’s money, while the news and social media broadcast the wonders of our existence 24/7 without the constant bickering that is broadcast and printed today.Glenn PollickConservatives wonHillary Clinton did receive more popular votes than Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.But there is more to this story. The Federal Election Commission’s website says 32 people ran for the presidency in the last election. The top four conservative candidates (Trump, Gary Johnson, Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle) received more popular votes than the remaining 28 candidates (including Clinton).In other words, the conservatives actually defeated the liberals with a majority of the nation’s popular vote, as well as winning the Electoral College for Trump by a significant number.Darrell Williams Sr.