LETTERS

Insurance Against Inflation



I take strong exception to the remarks made by Rowland Stiteler in Up Front (“Lawyers Want New Rules for Insurance Game,” September). Mr. Stiteler states that the insurance companies go before the State Insurance Board in a semi-annual ritual in order to get rate increases. He is primarily talking about private passenger automobile insurance, which has not had a rate increase since October 1976.

Where has Mr. Stiteler been, and is he not aware of inflation? The insurance companies are paying for two things in particular that far outstrip the normal rate of inflation – medical costs and crash parts for automobiles. Where was Mr. Stiteler in 1975 and 1976, when all the companies were losing their shirts in the automobile market?

I strongly suggest that he do a little more investigating before he listens to the trial lawyers and their tales of woe. There would certainly be a large saving to the insurance-buying public if there were a limit placed on the amount of money that could be paid to an attorney to settle a case.

Roger F. Murphy/Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Companies/Dallas



Cavil from KVIL



The August Up Front suggested that among those interested in a news anchor position at Channel 4 was “Ron Chapman of KVIL.”

The fact is that I’m not interested in any position other than the one I enjoy right now. Not only was I not interested, the subject was never discussed by me or with me, in any form. I never even had the chance to say no.

Ron Chapman/Program Director, KVIL Radio/Dallas

(D Magazine regrets the error.)



The Baby Factory



Joan Rapfogel’s article, The Baby Factory (September), cited some happenings in delivering babies that were also occurring 20 years ago; it was depressing to learn that they still exist.

Perhaps this article will illuminate thereason why many women believe that, ifmales gave birth or endured a pregnancy,the entire procedure would be drasticallychanged. Nancy Chapel/Dallas



Chili Reception



Last year your publication referred to “the quintessential chili con carne” at my downtown cafe. Now, in your September issue, your writer complains that my chili is too mild for “the Terlingua crowd.” Now why do all those regular judges and other fixtures at the world championship in Arriba Terlingua gather at my down-town place regularly for meetings of the second Dallas Pod of the Chili Appreciation Society International? They certainly go for the cafe’s chili.

Your September reviewer didn’t mention that at the Oak Lawn parlor I cook son-of-a-bitch stew when the materials, such as marrow gut, are available. This is the working cowboys’ favorite, and I usually have the entree on Thursdays. Your September reviewer said I am prejudiced against beans in chili. This isn’t true. I’m only against cooking the beans and the meat in one pot. The chemistry is wrong. We serve pintos.

Frank Tolberl, Sr./Dallas



A Case of Rape



Whatever happened to Willard Jackson, the man convicted of the rape of two Dallas women (“A Case of Rape,” October 1977)? It would be a miscarriage of justice if he and his wife weren’t able to salvage something and rebuild, forgetting the events that you so graphically recorded.

Mary J. Rogers/Dallas



(Willard Bishop Jackson was immediately eligible for parole after pleading guilty last September. Jackson had already spent six years in prison during the two trials, the appeals, and the reversals of his case; he had also compiled considerable “good behavior” time.

The process of parole, however, has served Jackson with no more swiftness or certainty than the trial process did. Mis-lakes in his records at the Texas Department of Corrections, red tape, and general judicial bungling delayed his first parole hearing until last spring – seven months after he became eligible. When his application was heard in May, it was summarily denied on two grounds: “seriousness of offense” and the fact that a firearm had been used in the commission of the crime.

Though many legal observers considered Jackson eminently parolable because of his exemplary prison record and the questions that continue to surround his conviction, the parole board obviously weighed other factors more heavily in making its decision. For one thing, the victims of the crimes in question remain “aggravated” – they are not willing to forgive and forget, and they have expressed that to the parole board in no uncertain terms. Second, the victims still live in Dallas, where Jackson will presumably return if and when he is freed. In crimes of violence, the parole board will often consider the proximity of the paroled felon to the victims in making its decision. It is not clear when Jackson will be considered again for parole. Theoretically, he should be able to apply again this fall. But at last word, Jackson’s case was not scheduled to be heard again until spring, 1979.)



Erratum



Because of a typesetting error, the advertisement for Graciela’s in the Restaurant andGourmet Guide (September) stated thatthe restaurant was closed on Saturdays.In fact, the restaurant is open on Saturdays, closed on Sundays.