Food for thought
Behold, the Texas taco
Regarding “Not all tacos deserve a spot at Houston’s table” by Lisa Gray (Opinion, Friday): I enjoyed your piece on tacos. “Loving all tacos is the path to blind, wrong-headed taco mediocrity.” I love it.
I am reminded of a trip to San Diego many years ago when a dinner choice leaped off the menu and thumped me between the eyes. Fish tacos! It was a travesty. And San Diegans were proud of it! Now fish tacos are everywhere.
What’s next? Fajitas primavera? Brussel sprouts and kale on an organic, artisan, low sodium tortilla?
Perhaps our much-vaunted border wall should be situated on the north and the west rather than the south. On second thought, I would not want to cut off our friends from the Southwest. Perhaps Arizona would consider a wall along the Colorado. I don’t think they would require much persuasion, and I have no problem with a chimichanga.
Anthony McGarvey, Spring
Founding Fathers
Regarding “Tools for war only” (Letters, Tuesday): The author writes of his training with an M16 rifle and how they have no place in civilian hands. The M16 as well as all fully automatic firearms have been regulated in this country since 1934 by the National Firearms Act and further regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968. There are only a small number of these firearms legally owned by citizens, licensed by the federal government.
I must assume he is therefore speaking of the AR-15 which is a semi-auto, civilian firearm owned and used by millions of Americans across the U.S. as well as Canada and Australia. This rifle is used for competitions, target shooting, hunting and self-defense. It is America’s rifle.
The Founding Fathers never mentioned the word “sporting” or “hunting” regarding firearms. In 1776 it pertained to the most modern firearm of the time, a flintlock, smooth-bore musket. Today it is the modern sporting rifle, the AR-15.
Read the writings of Madison, Jefferson, Washington and Franklin, among others, and you will soon learn that the Second Amendment is not there to protect your right to hunt a duck but to allow the citizenry the ability to defend oneself from a tyrannical government.
Jeff Kesler, Sugar Land
Intervention needed
Regarding “How does Big Pharma set prices? In aword: high” (Business, Sunday): I wish to note a recent national survey of more than 1,100 American adults in which they were asked how worried they were about the cost of their drugs. The survey was conducted by the Patient Council of the Right Care Alliance, of which I am a member.
We found that more than half of those responding were ‘very’ worried about the cost of their drugs. Governments were constituted to, among other things, protect the public from monopolistic pricing.
It’s long past time for the federal government to assert its power to protect its citizens from harm caused by drug-price gouging.
John T. James, Houston
Likely scenario?
Regarding “In fear for his life?” (Letter, Saturday): The officer was being tased by the woman he was trying to arrest. While tasers may not be lethal, they can make a person temporarily immobile, giving the woman time to grab the officer’s gun as well, and use it against him.
I’m sure all of this was running through his mind in the few seconds that he had to react. So, yes, he was in fear for his life!
D. O’Neill, Cypress
BIBLE VERSE
Help us, O God our Savior, for the glory of your name; deliver us and forgive our sins for your name's sake.
Psalm 79:9