Arlington has more than enough apartments and temporary residents
It is considering yet another apartment development at the former site of the Randol Mill Nursing and Retirement Villa. To the north along Randol Mill Road are scores of apartments. And they all usually have 'for lease' banners flying.
We do not want or need more apartments in this area. The zoning applicant, Avenue 5 Residential, has nice developments in other parts of Arlington. But it's already received its fair share of our city.
- Deborah Cartwright, Arlington
Will there be a treaty to stop Russia from launching shells and missiles and killing people in Ukraine? President Donald Trump must decide quickly on a swift and certain answer. It appears Russian President Vladimir Putin is calling Trump's bluff, concluding the president won't impose sanctions on Russia.
This is a moment of truth, and the American people better ask ourselves: Will Trump take a firm and decisive stand, or is he using a stalling tactic?
- John Patrick King, Fort Worth
I served on Fort Worth's Redistricting Task Force in 2020 to 2021. Our panel and the City Council respected our city's minorities. We did not reduce the voting strength of any minority to favor any incumbent, challenger or political party.
Any redistricting that dilutes the voting strength of any minority is morally reprehensible and legally wrong. Disenfranchising minorities today will have serious future political consequences for those responsible, their parties and their communities.
Redistricting is best done every 10 years. Tarrant County's process is premature.
- Bill Schur, Fort Worth
Maureen Dowd quotes Glenn Thrush in her column in Monday's Star-Telegram online Edition, 'Tech Bro had to go,' as saying that Donald Trump 'is employing the vast power of his office to redefine criminality to suit his needs — using pardons to inoculate criminals he happens to like, downplaying corruption and fraud as crimes, and seeking to stigmatize political opponents by labeling them criminals.'
In light of recent revelations about Joe Biden's health and the questionable use of an autopen to sign documents, Thrush would do well to substitute 'Biden' for 'Trump' in that sentence.
- Mark Swanson, Mansfield
A high tariff has two purposes: to raise a lot of money for the federal treasury and to protect some American businesses against unfair foreign competition. It also results in a high sales tax for the American purchaser of imported products. Most economists forecast that the tariff wars will cost the American family around $1,000 a year.
That cost is an indirect and variable sales tax that could reach 30% on Chinese materials and products imported under tariffs. Who wins? The U.S. Treasury. Who loses? The American public. Do we really want a sales tax of up to 30%?
Tariffs accounted for the vast majority of federal revenue until the Civil War. Tariffs to protect American businesses from unfair foreign competition began in 1816. But high tariffs have been economic disasters.
- Marshall J. 'Joe' McFarland, Stephenville
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Ukrainians are protesting a law targeting anti-corruption agencies. Here's why
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukrainians are taking to the streets to protest a new law they worry will undermine the work of two key anti-corruption agencies, by eroding the independence of bodies meant to provide a check on power. Discontent over the law led to the first major demonstration against the government in more than three years of war, marking the most serious fracture yet in the national unity that has helped Ukraine resist Russia's invasion. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy defended the law as necessary to remove 'Russian influence' from the fight against corruption, though he didn't provide examples of such interference. The law adds new oversight for anti-corruption agencies Ukraine's parliament passed a bill on Tuesday that brings the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the authority of the prosecutor general, who is a presidential appointee. Zelenskyy signed it into law, even as thousands took to the streets asking him to scrap it. Critics say it could give Zelenskyy's circle greater influence over investigations. It comes after Zelenskyy carried out a reshuffle of his wartime Cabinet, a move also widely viewed as consolidating power with his inner circle. Before the bill was signed, the agencies warned that, if it took effect, 'the head of SAPO will become a nominal figure, while NABU will lose its independence and turn into a subdivision of the prosecutor general's office.' NABU investigates corruption cases involving top officials, while SAPO supervises these investigations and prosecutes cases in court. The law has unleashed criticism of the government Ukraine has a robust tradition of pro-democracy protests, with street demonstrations twice resulting in political upheavals. In fact, the two agencies in question were established after the 2014 Maidan revolution, which ousted then-President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's pro-Moscow leader who was accused of corruption on a massive scale, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the government. His corruption was so vast that ordinary Ukrainians were aghast when they toured the grounds of his lavish mansion and discovered his collection of expensive cars and even a private zoo. Since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, however, rallies have largely focused on the return of prisoners of war or missing people. But Tuesday's demonstrations trained public outrage on the government, with some calling the law a greater blow to morale than even routine Russian drone and missile attacks. A mood of anger and frustration among the war-weary Ukrainians prevailed in the crowd. Some protesters accused Ukraine's leadership of prioritizing loyalty and personal connections over the fight against corruption. 'Ukraine has far fewer resources than Russia in this war,' said Ihor Lachenkov, a blogger and activist who urged people to join the protest through his social media platforms, which reach more than 1.5 million followers. 'If we misuse them, or worse, allow them to end up in the pockets of thieves, our chances of victory diminish. All our resources must go toward the fight.' The protests have raised questions about the state of democracy in Ukraine — one of the values it is fighting for in the war with Russia. 'When a spectacle is staged and pushed through in 24 hours for everyone to swallow, that is not justice,' former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba wrote on Instagram. The government defends the move In his address Tuesday night, Zelenskyy insisted that the country's anti-corruption infrastructure 'will continue to function' after it is 'cleansed of any Russian influence.' He alleged that some cases had been allowed to languish and the targets of some investigations never brought to justice. 'For years, officials who have fled Ukraine have been casually living abroad for some reason — in very nice countries and without legal consequences — and this is not normal,' he said in a Telegram post. On Wednesday, he gathered the heads of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies and the prosecutor general. He announced that a detailed action plan will be developed within two weeks to ensure the system is more effective and fair. 'We see what people expect from state institutions to ensure justice and the effectiveness of each institution,' he said on Telegram. Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko dismissed concerns about the agencies' independence. 'I can promise that I will not misuse these rights,' he said. 'I could sign this promise in blood, if necessary.' Fighting corruption is crucial to Ukraine's future The Ukrainian branch of Transparency International criticized the law, saying it undermines one of the most significant reforms since the 2014 uprising and that it damages trust with international partners. Fighting entrenched corruption is crucial to Ukraine's bid to join the European Union and maintain access to billions of dollars in Western aid. In a post on X, EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos called the new law 'a serious step back.' The action against the agencies comes only a month after the NABU launched a criminal investigation into then–Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov — one of the highest-profile corruption cases since Zelenskyy took office. Chernyshov has denied the allegations but was removed from his post during last week's government reshuffle. It also follows the arrest of two NABU officials on suspicion of having ties to Russia by Ukraine's Security Service.


The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Democrats can rebuild government by learning from how Trump has destroyed it
We know the tragic effects of President Trump's dismantling of the federal government. Social Security service delivery are in crisis. Calls to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of disaster go unanswered. Rural hospitals brace for a loss of federal support. And now congressional Republicans are surrendering the power of the purse to further hobble core government services by choking off funding. But the truth is, Trump alone didn't break the federal government. He is putting the devastating capstone on a decades-long conservative project of undermining its capacity to function: underfunding agencies, outsourcing expertise, layering on procedural hurdles, stacking courts with partisan allies, and eroding public trust. Long before Trump took office, the result was a government that couldn't move quickly, deliver boldly or meet the needs of the people it was supposed to serve. And when the government is unable to visibly respond to people's discontent and aspirations within the timeframe of an electoral mandate, the legitimacy of democracy itself erodes. If Democrats truly believe in the power of government to improve people's lives, they should be cautious about reverting to pre-Trump institutions. Our time in the Biden-Harris administration taught us that the federal government wasn't meeting the needs of middle- or working-class people long before the 2024 election. What was left of it has now been intentionally sabotaged. If we want to implement a bold policy agenda in the future — one that truly creates agency, power and opportunity for people who don't have it — we have to start planning now to build the basic infrastructure for a government that's much more responsive to and resonant with ordinary Americans, not the monied few. For too long, Democrats have been stuck in a vicious cycle of playing catch-up in a game with existential stakes. Phase one: Republicans dismantle government programs and services and trigger economic crises through their laissez-faire approach to governance. Phase two: Democrats retake power, and then scramble to steer a hobbled system back to the status quo. Phase three: Democrats fail to deliver the visible change the electorate craves, Republicans retake power, and the cycle repeats. What has to change? We need to confront a hard truth: Despite good intentions and tireless efforts from appointees and civil servants alike, the old tools and norms have not worked. Administrative rulemaking has been too slow, fragile, and captured by well-resourced industries to meaningfully serve the public interest. Major policies passed with fanfare took four or more years to show results — long after voters were asked to judge them. Meanwhile, activist courts stacked by the right delayed or dismantled even modest reforms. Agencies were afraid to antagonize the powerful industries they were supposed to oversee, or to take an investment risk and face public failure. Enforcement against corporate lawbreaking was underfunded and slow. Outsourcing of core government functions made private contractors rich even when their performance was shoddy. And far too often, the government was a distant, impenetrable behemoth that piled paperwork on Americans, instead of proactively listening to them to understand their needs and deliver frictionless services in response. We can't win back faith in government with policies that are invisible, delayed or drowned in process. We need a new playbook — one that matches the urgency of the moment and the acuteness of people's needs. One that learns, paradoxically, from the relentlessness of Trump and his allies. What they've demonstrated is that the rules and norms constraining government action aren't fixed laws of nature. They're conventions — and they can be changed. If there's no political cost for ignoring them in the service of corporate power and oligarchic corruption, there should be even less fear about changing them to make government work better for ordinary people. Democrats should take the lesson: Flip the risk profile. Go big or go home. That means reorganizing policymaking around speed, visibility and political resonance. It means building teams around outcome-driven missions — not statutes, institutional bias or risk-averse compliance. It means treating economic, legal, outreach and communications strategy as one integrated campaign, and working much more collaboratively with our state and local government partners and community-based organizations. It means starting work long before Day One with the understanding that we will need to simultaneously build and deliver: pre-drafting policies, mapping authorities, recruiting top-flight talent and identifying the signature priorities for each agency that will show up in people's lives within a single term. These are unified campaign-style operations, not bureaucratic ones. And it means breaking free from the norms that keep the government mired in caution. Abolish or radically retool obsolete veto gates, such as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Limit judicial meddling in economic policy choices made by political leaders accountable to the people, and refocus courts on protecting individual liberties. Make the government great to work for again, and repopulate it with technologists, statisticians, product managers, service designers, community organizers and movement lawyers. Clean out the procedural clutter that saps time and bandwidth. We've seen what gets in the way. Now it's time to start clearing it. Importantly, when we act, we must act boldly. During the last administration, the types of policies that resonated were the big, simple, universal ones: a cap on insulin prices, a ban on junk fees, an end to noncompetes, a free, easy way to file your taxes. These were policies designed to be tangible, memorable and swift — and they addressed economic frustrations that transcend partisan lines. That's not just good economics. It's good politics. It's good democracy. Policies must provide proof that the government can still work for ordinary people, not just large corporations or insiders. For too long, Democrats have tried to govern within a framework designed to thwart them and to protect entrenched interests. Trump simply ignored it. If we want to change that trajectory for government, we need to be just as fearless and bold in building a new framework as Republicans have been in destroying the old one. If Democrats want to lead, the party must demonstrate that the government can — and will — continue to change lives for the better. Let's stop trying to tinker with a broken machine. Let's start building one that actually works.


The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Trump reacts to Tulsi Gabbard reveal: ‘Irrefutable proof of Obama coup'
President Donald Trump is furious with former President Barack Obama, whom he is accusing of participating in a 'coup' against him in 2016. Trump is referring of course to recent disclosures from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has released documents showing it was Obama who encouraged intelligence officials to reach stronger conclusions about Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election. According to Gabbard, the intelligence community was well aware that Russia did not hack voting machines, nor did the country have much impact on the outcome, but Trump's enemies in the Democratic Party wanted to paint him as a Russian collaborator, and so they overreached. The media, of course, followed suit, publishing headline after headline suggesting that Trump was a Russian stooge. Here is President Trump reacting to the latest news: 'We found absolute — this isn't like evidence, this is like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious. That Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton and with all these other people, but Obama headed it up. And, you know, I get a kick when I hear everyone talks about people I never even heard of. […] It was Obama, he headed it up. And it says so right in the papers.' These allegations are extremely serious. Now, it's far too premature to throw around the word treason; in fact, I don't like when anybody, Democrat or Republican, starts accusing their opponents of treason. This reads less like treason to me and more like political weaponization of national intelligence for partisan purposes, which has become a recurring theme. Make no mistake: There was an effort to de-legitimize Trump's election to the presidency, and the argument was made by mainstream media mouthpieces leveraging the expertise of deep-state spymasters. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter both said that Trump was an illegitimate president, in response to media reporting on Russia's meddling. This was the original 'stolen election' theory, and it's only been overshadowed because Trump's false contention that the 2016 election was stolen has subsequently received much more media coverage and much more vigorous pushback. Let me be perfectly clear: Trump should have never claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. But he's in good company: Look at the Democrats who said the same thing about 2016! And their main theory backing that up was Russian malfeasance — something intelligence officials privately discounted, until they went to the White House and had a chat with outgoing President Barack Obama.