12.07.2015 Views

Aug. 1, 2008 - The Austin Chronicle

Aug. 1, 2008 - The Austin Chronicle

Aug. 1, 2008 - The Austin Chronicle

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> Hightower ReportBY JIM HIGHTOWERDHS BORDER FENCEWILL SPLIT CAMPUS<strong>The</strong> Bushites like to bill themselves asconservative, freedom-loving patriots. Butwhat they’re doing in Brownsville is theexact opposite.<strong>The</strong> people of this city, located at thesouthernmost tip of Texas, right across fromMexico, are locked in one of several nightmarishbattles that Bush’s thuggish, autocraticDepartment of Homeland Security hasforced on border communities. At issue isthe multibillion-dollar, ineffectual, and offensivefence that DHS is erecting in the nameof deterring terrorists. Operating as a tyrannicalpolice bureaucracy, department officialsare shoving their fence right through people’shomes and public parks, as well as runningover ordinary civility and common sense.In Brownsville, for example, the fencewould cut a jagged line through University ofTexas-Brownsville, severing 180 acres of theschool from the rest of campus. That’s afourth of its total landmass. This divisionwould put various students on opposite sidesof the barrier, even though all are on the U.S.side of the border.It also cuts off the university’s golf course.Not to worry, though, for the DHS geniusesdesigning this Alice in Wonderland structuresay they’ll leave an opening so students andothers can freely pass through. Hmmm.Wouldn’t “others” possibly include the terroriststhis thing is supposed to keep out?<strong>The</strong>n there’s the fact that this university hasa unique cross-border mission, serving peopleon both sides – people who will now be separatedby armed agents. As the school’s presidentnotes, “To slice off the ‘bi’ part of binationalviolates the essence of this university.”But forget logic and good will. DHS’ autocratsassert that they can build the fencewherever they want, with or without universityconsent, and they are proceeding with condemnationof the land. Tell me: What’s conservative,freedom-loving, and patriotic about that?For more information on Jim Hightower’s work – and to subscribe to his award-winning monthly newsletter,<strong>The</strong> Hightower Lowdown – visit www.jimhightower.com. DODGING A TAXBY DISSING PRINGLESCorporations commonly try to dodge theirtax responsibilities, but it’s unusual for one todis its own product in order to avoid paying.Yet that’s what Procter & Gamble hasdone with Pringles, the salty spud snacksstacked in a tube. When Pringles were introduced,they were pitched as a sort of superpotato chip, touted as superior because thetube prevented the terrible tragedy of chipscrumbling. Personally, I’ve always liked chipcrumbles. But so what? Pringles were a triumphof neatness over nature. And nowthey’ve triumphed over the tax man.England’s tax office claimed that Pringleswere subject to a tax that’s applied to productsmade from potatoes. P&G lawyers, however,scoffed at the idea that a Pringle meritedpotato status. It doesn’t taste like a chip, theyconfessed. It gives no crunchy sensation, theydemurred. It has a shape that “is not found innature,” they conceded. Plus, they revealedthat while the thing contains some potatoflour, it is not made from potato slices.Still, the tax office argued that Pringles area potato “crisp,” the British word for chip.Not so, cried P&G’s lawyers, even though thelabel on tubes of Pringles boldly declares theproduct to be “potato crisps.” Forget whatthe label says, countered the lawyers –labels are designed as consumer come-ons,not as legal proclamations. Look at theingredients, they said – the bulk is corn flour,wheat starch, rice flour, fat, emulsifiers,sugar, monosodium glutamate, and such –not potato. <strong>The</strong>refore, concluded thedefense, it’s more of a biscuit.<strong>The</strong> judge, perhaps taking a bite of thething, agreed, ruling that Pringles were not“made from the potato” as defined by thetax code. Thus, P&G avoided a tax bymaligning the product it advertises so heavilyas potato crisps. One wonders: Will theynow change the label? Nah – that would betoo honest.A BETTER EXPERIENCE LIVES HERE!3 DAYACL PASSESAVAILABLE!472-TIXXTICKETCITY.COM/AUSTINYour One Stop Before New ***All Parts and Labor Warranted for 90 Days! We Pay for Computers, Laptops & Parts*** BurnetRail-Road Tracks183/ResearchCorporateCenterPutnam a u s t i n c h r o n i c l e . c o m AUGUST 1, <strong>2008</strong> T H E A U S T I N C H R O N I C L E 23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!