To the Editor:
Among Americans of every political persuasion, there has been overwhelming support for Ukraine and against its invasion by Russia, which has engaged in war crimes in its bombing of medical facilities and targeting civilians. Columnist Dana Milbank’s recently explained which US corporations have pulled out of Russia in solidarity with Ukraine and which have continued to support the Russian economy and war machine. Refusing to do business with those corporations that are continuing to prop up Russia is one way Americans can support Ukraine.
Milbank notes that the Hilton corporation (which operates the Embassy Suites Hotel at the San Marcos Hotel & Conference Center) is one of those corporations continuing to support Russia. Other well-known U.S. brands, whose corporate masters are continuing to support Russia are General Mills, Cinnabon (or Carvel ice cream, Schlotzsky’s sandwich or Auntie Anne’s pretzel), Subway, Truvia, Diamond Crystal salt (Cargill), Avon cosmetics (Natura), LG appliances, ASUS laptops, Mission tortillas (Gruma), Pirelli tires, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Dunkin Donuts, General Mills, Mondelez (Oreos and other Nabisco products), candymaker Mars, Procter & Gamble, Yum Brands (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), Hyatt, and Marriott.
Other corporations supporting Russia include Koch Industries, the people who make Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Quilted Northern toilet paper, Vanity Fair napkins, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Authentic Brands Group, which also owns Aeropostale, Eddie Bauer, Brooks Brothers and Nine West, among others, are in what Milbank terms “the hall of shame.”
Americans should know who is enabling Russia. Perhaps this exposure will influence these companies to cease support for a brutal despot and war criminal like Putin.
Lamar W. Hankins
San Marcos
Editor,
ENGINEERED POSSIBLE COLLISION (EPC) is my name for the situation which exists when two or more road users are following the “rules” and yet can collide. This situation is common when bicycle lanes are involved, especially at intersections.
Bicycle lanes are not inherently dangerous nor are they the solution to the many complications inherent in the integration of different types of locomotion on the same roadways.
Since the bicyclist is likely to sustain personal injury when a car/bike collision occurs, it is to the cyclist’s advantage to be aware of the potential hazards when riding with motorized traffic present. I have three quick suggestions which may help the cyclist determine the least risky course of action.
1. No-one should attempt to ride a bicycle with motorized traffic present if the cyclist does not have either a driver’s license or at least a working knowledge of traffic rules, practices and patterns.
2. SAME ROADS, SAME RIGHTS, SAME RULES is shorthand for best vehicular cycling.
3. Be VISIBLE, be PREDICTABLE and be AWARE
*the writer assumes that the cyclist has the ability to control the bicycle.
There are locations where bicyclists are REQUIRED to ride in a bicycle lane if there is one. Fortunately, San Marcos does not, at this writing, require cyclists to use bicycle lanes
The cyclist is well advised to consider carefully whether or not to use bicycle lanes.
Gordon Sabin
Former League Cycling Instructor for the League of American Bicyclists
Former bicycle instructor Texas State University.
Former instructor for State of Texas SUPER CYCLIST program.
