Dear Kim: Nuke The West Coast, Please

Regarding ‘Interview’ is silly, daring" (Friday Star), a review of the controversial movie about an attempt to assassinate the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, I have one question: Were we watching the same movie? 

 

This movie is portrayed as an edgy comedy, but it is nothing of the kind.  It wallows in racism, graphic violence, dismemberment, sexual slavery and sexual mutilation.  It is offensive not just to North Koreans in particular ways, but to oriental peoples in every way.  Asians might have forgiven the producers for the jokes about the size of their eyes or as slapstick targets worthy of being machine-gunned by the score for laughs, and they might have overlooked the reference to Koreans eating dogs or the funny way orientals talk, but I'm pretty sure that portraying Korean children in drag is not just beyond edgy, but beyond the pale. 

 

And lest you think the movie merely racist and violent, it is also the most homophobic and misogynistic mainstream movie of recent memory, and perhaps ever produced.  There are few homosexual clichés this movie does not embrace, and women are portrayed as objects good for laughs, sexual abuse, and little else.

 

This is a cruel, divisive and dreadful movie, and the fact that anybody finds anything redeeming in it makes me embarrassed not just for American cinema, but America.  Hopefully, Sony's minor embarrassment in recent days at the hands of some suspected North Korean Hackers will be as nothing compared to that of the general public, now that this dreck has been released. 

It's not every day that freedom-loving Americans will find themselves on the same side of an issue with Kim Jong Un, but in the case of The Interview, we should be.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX 

Obama: Islamist Sycophant

Regarding "Obama vows U.S. response to N. Korea" (Saturday Front Page), within days of the hacking of Sony Studios computers - allegedly over the opening of a movie that portrayed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in a bad light - President Obama blamed North Korea, promised that the United States would "respond proportionally” to those attacks, and criticized Sony for giving in to intimidation by cancelling the movie's release, declaring that such capitulation would encourage "other countries to sabotage documentaries, or news reports they don’t like.” 

 

How different was his reaction to another movie that allegedly resulted not just in threats, but the murder of American diplomats in Benghazi two years ago.  Within days of the murders, President Obama claimed that an obscure home movie produced several months earlier that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad had provoked Muslims to mass protests in Libya, escalating into the attacks on Americans that left four dead, including ambassador Chris Stevens.  Obama disavowed the movie, claimed that it was an affront to Islam, swore America had no hand in the venture, and had the director arrested.

 

Apparently, his concern for protecting freedom of expression depends on whose ox is being gored: Obama seemed perfectly comfortable stepping all over first amendment rights so as to keep from offending Islamists.  I could wish that he applied the same standard to all bad actors, but mostly, I'd like him to focus his ire on the bad actors, and not moviemakers.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE: The Hook Up Culture - Liberalism

Liberalism
Regarding "Cosby scandal masks the larger problem" (Page B7, Tuesday), New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof boldly states that rape is tolerated in American society because "too often, boys are socialized to see women and girls as playthings." He then insists that "the larger problem is a culture that enables rape. The larger problem is us."

But wait, he's not done. Kristof is also certain that "We collectively are still too passive about sexual violence in our midst, too willing to make excuses, too inclined to perceive shame in being raped," to which I can only ask: What is all this "we" nonsense?

Nicolas Kristof may have stumbled through the first 55 years of his life without strong opinions on rape, but I'm fairly confident he is part of a very small minority.

And while he does make an important point about a lax culture on college campuses that enables rape, his conclusions are off the mark: Rape happens on college campuses, not because all of us failed to be concerned about it, but because of the "hook-up" culture that has not just popularized casual sex, but institutionalized it.

Stripped of significance in the minds of our young, it's not too big a leap to surmise that if sex is no big deal and available on demand, that the line becomes blurred in the minds of our youth when it comes to rape.

 

What is significant is why young people feel that sex is no big deal. The answer is simple: Progressivism. Liberals have been promoting the feminist sexual revolution as consequence-free for more than 50 years now and only seem to have discovered that rape is a problem the day before yesterday. Liberals have also dominated campus culture for the past 50 years. Do the math.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that rape flourishes - not because of "all of us" - but despite our best efforts to prevent the onslaught of liberalism.

Nicolas Kristof might fairly be called a liberal and a progressive. If he wants to understand why rape flourishes, he might start by examining his own values, instead of everybody else's.

Pete Smith, Houston
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Sunday-letters-The-hook-up-culture-5938730.php
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Sunday-letters-The-hook-up-culture-5938730.php 

Cops: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Regarding "Two juries" (Friday Editorial), I was surprised at this generally ill-wrought editorial regarding the alleged favoritism provided to police officers in the grand jury process compared to that afforded to average citizens.  It was provocative, big on declarative statements, light on facts, and clearly intended to generate more heat than light, as the cliché goes.

 

Where to start?  First, is the curious claim that in Texas "a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict anything, even a ham sandwich — unless the case involves a police officer."  If the author really feels that this is true, why would they insist that anybody be subject to such a biased system?  More to the point, they provide not a single instance of a Houston officer who escaped justice because of prosecutorial favoritism.  Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to find, was it so rampant. 

 

Second was the single statistic cited to prove "empathy" for cops by prosecutors: "Between 2008 and 2012, Houston police officers shot 121 civilians, a quarter of whom were unarmed, and yet no officer faced indictment."  Is the author seriously arguing that for a given number of police shootings, that a certain percentage of cops must be guilty of something?  Here is an accusation crying out for an example, and yet again, the author provides none.  More about that later.

 

Third is the curious citation of the Ferguson, MO grand jury as an example of a prosecutor that skewed the process in favor of an accused officer, in this case officer Darren Wilson, who was no-billed for the shooting death of Michael Brown.  It's 800 miles one way from Houston to Ferguson.  That's a long way to travel for evidence of favoritism in Houston's criminal justice community.

 

It's also clear that the writer hadn't bothered to read the numerous articles in the pages of the Chronicle and other sources these past months that show the Missouri prosecutor taking testimony from hundreds of witnesses, and presenting an exhaustive, compelling and irrefutable forensic case that officer Wilson was innocent.  This includes, by the way, an article in today's Chronicle - "Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies" - on page A4.  The "inconsistencies" it refers to was the questionable testimony of scores of people that had to be weeded out, virtually all of whom accused officer Wilson of things that were provably false. 

  

The author also misrepresents the Houston data cited, which is actually very reassuring.  While the reference to 121 police shootings from 2008 to 2012 says nothing about the thousands of times officers encountered armed or unarmed citizens between 2008 and 2012 and managed not to riddle them with bullets, they do tell us what happened when cops did shoot: 1) The large majority of police shootings involved people with guns, and 2) Over four years, Houston cops shot around 30 unarmed citizens.  Is eight shootings of unarmed citizens per year evidence of police officers run amok?  The author clearly thinks so, but readily available statistics tell otherwise.  Of the fifty largest cities in America, Houston ranks in the bottom quartile in per capita police shootings of citizens, and even in sheer numbers, there is a score of smaller cities that have more.

 

If the folks so interested in seeing a certain number of policeman do the Perp Walk were committed to the truth, they might just consider that one of the reasons grand juries involving alleged cop crimes need to be different is exactly because of the experience in Ferguson, where notorious lies were not only told by numerous suspect persons, but given instant credibility by a compliant media, eager to push the Rogue Cop narrative.  They might also consider that cops are not on the streets with the intention to do wrong, as is the case with the vast majority of the victims of police shootings.  The failure to make this distinction in explaining the different outcomes of grand juries does much to discredit this editorial.

 

In conclusion, there does indeed seem to be a double standard, but rather than being that of a grand jury system that favors cops, it's the critics who insist that the system can't possibly be "fair" until cops start getting charged with crimes, as criminals are. 

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Reek Is Too Mild A Word

Regarding "Immigration order leaves some behind" (Sunday City & State), I was struck by the avalanche of articles and opinion pieces regarding illegal immigrants in my Sunday edition of the Chronicle, virtually all of them either unambiguously sympathetic to President Obama's executive order, unambiguously critical of its opponents, or both.  I could have hoped for at least one dissenting voice expressing the downside of flooding our social welfare and education systems with millions of additional dependents who will never pay into the system what they take out, but perhaps that will be the subject of articles in the Chronicle on another day.

 

What I would like to talk about is the mindset of the people in these pages who attempted to make the moral case in favor of what can fairly be described as Obama's partial amnesty, since they themselves were long time users (and technically abusers) of illegal immigrants.  This includes columnist Lisa Falkenberg, who admitted "years back" to abetting illegal immigration by the usual means: failing to screen her nanny as to her immigration status, and paying her in cash.   Keep in mind that this is the same columnist who excoriated Dan Patrick in the midst of his campaign for Lt. Governor this past February when she accused him of doing the same thing with employees of his restaurants, the difference being that she and other critics never came close to showing that he had knowingly done what she now so freely admits to having done.

 

I marvel at the double standard that liberal beneficiaries of illegal immigration reserve for themselves on this issue: The same people who find fault with Republicans for opposing unions and raises in the minimum wage are the ones who have promoted the importation of illegals so that they could underpay them.  How do they reconcile that contradiction?

 

The good news for them is that going forward, they might not have to.  If things play out as President Obama planned, his executive order will allow not just illegal immigrants to step out of the shadows, guilt free, but the people who hire them as well.

 

At least until the next flood of "undocumented workers", sure to follow on the heels of those now here, and sure to have as compelling a human interest story to tell.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Incomprehensible On Any Level

A friend who is a teacher offered this article as a caution to Common Core critics.

http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/5-reasons-not-to-share-that-common-core-worksheet-on-facebook/

I think everything I need to understand about the author's attempt to defend Common Core can be summed up with the tortured phrase "different mathematical knowledge".  Teachers supposedly obliged to making things clear and understandable for kids do themselves no favors by insisting that Common Core is incomprehensible to its critics.  

I look at Common Core and I see the same thing I've observed with countless other "innovations" in pedagogy in the past 40 years: yet another distraction from things that worked, with the inevitable requirement for yet more funding and the concomitant demand that there be no  accountability for a decade or so until educators have had an opportunity to implement the program - or until the next innovation comes along. 

And the inevitable punch line of the article is always the same: you parents and critics are too stupid to help your children, but we'll still need more money.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Move along.

Pick-a-pal In The Real World

Regarding "Pick-a-pal grand jury problem may finally be getting a solution", (Sunday City & State), columnist Jill Falkenberg bemoans a practice that "lets elected judges pick pals who pick other pals to make life-altering decisions in the criminal justice system." 

 

She then offers the following example to establish what she sees as a bias towards pick-a-pal by Republicans: "Imagine the Internal Revenue Service let a citizen panel decide who would be audited, and the ruling party in Washington, currently the Democrats, kept stocking that panel with ACORN activists, MSNBC staffers and Michael Moore devotees."

 

It's funny that Falkenberg would try to drive her point home by citing the completely theoretical scenario above, when she could cite a home grown example right here in Texas.  I'm referring, of course, to the serial attempts over the past decade by Democrat prosecutors to cherry pick sympathetic grand juries to criminalize the activities of their Republican opponents.  It started with Ronnie Earl's creepy obsession with Tom Delay in 2005 over the interpretation of obscure campaign finance laws.  It continues today with the attempt by Earl's minion Rick McCrum to send Governor Rick Perry to prison because he tried to fire Democrat prosecutor Rosemarie Lehmberg for threatening police officers who arrested her for driving drunk.

 

There's three stark differences between Falkenberg's fantasy scenario and the real world.  First, the "pick a pal" jurors in Texas that she rails against are not rabid partisans, they are devoted public servants and responsible citizens from across the political spectrum.  Second, they at least devote themselves to prosecuting real crimes like murder, not political crimes like inconveniencing Democrats.  Third, for all of her self-proclaimed "bellyaching", she has never presented evidence of a single juror or jury that showed bias against one defendant, or favoritism to another.  One might assume that if the practice was so rampant, it wouldn't be that hard to do.

 

Finally, is it inconceivable that instead of replacing the current system, we might reform it?  Reasonable folks can agree that a jury selection system not based on random picks has the potential for bias, but the concept of "professional jurors" has real merits, and has been practiced around the world in some capacity for centuries.  It occurs to me that in keeping a spotlight on the system, Ms. Falkenberg might end up improving it.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE: A few points

A few points
Regarding "In elections, self-identity wins over issues" many thanks for this essay, one of a handful that supporters of the Democratic Party trot out every time they endure an epic spanking such as the one we all witnessed last Tuesday. Let's focus on just a few particulars:

Bishop asserts that the people who actually made the effort to register and vote in this last cycle aren't just lemmings, but violent lemmings who have surrendered their will to dark tribal forces that appeal to our baser instincts. He actually cites a real world "Lord Of The Flies" study to prove his point. Got that? Expressing yourself by pulling a lever is no different than a bunch of little boys on a camping trip who descend into savagery.

He goes on to insist that "Communities increasingly tip either Republican or Democratic as people congregate with like-minded others," and that "individual churches have aligned with political (parties)..... the conservative Presbyterians are over here; the liberal Baptists are there....." Surely Bishop has to know that in terms of the political affiliation of those religions, he got it exactly backward.

Bishop further claims that the phenomenon of identity politics has occurred "Over the last 30 to 40 years." How convenient, exactly the time frame during which Republicans finally broke a Democrat political monopoly going back to FDR. Apparently, the two-party system controlled by the Democrats for the previous half century was just hunky dory, a model of individuality and self-determination.

Of all the implausible things he says, though, this one has to take the cake: "Voters have become more allegiant to their party since the 1970s and the number of truly independent voters has been reduced to a single-digit smidgen of the electorate."

If there is one thing that conservatives, liberals and all pundits would agree on, it is that the independent vote as a percentage of the electorate has exploded since that time.

Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Thursday-letters-Picking-the-brain-of-voters-5889177.php
---------------------------------------

Regarding "In elections, self-identity wins over issues" (Sunday Outlook), many thanks for this article by Bill Bishop. It's a Laugh-a-Palooza, the ultimate Sore Loser diatribe, and one of a handful that supporters of the Democratic Party trot out every time they endure an epic spanking such as the one we all witnessed last Tuesday.  I could make a career out of dissecting his wrong-headedness, but let's focus on just a few particulars:

 

Bishop asserts that the people who actually made the effort to register and vote in this last cycle aren't just lemmings, but violent lemmings who have surrendered their will to dark tribal forces that appeal to our baser instincts.  He actually cites a real world "Lord Of The Flies" study to prove his point.  Got that?  Expressing yourself by pulling a lever is no different than a bunch of little boys on a camping trip that descend into savagery.

 

He goes on to insist that "Communities increasingly tip either Republican or Democratic as people congregate with like-minded others", and that "individual churches have aligned with political (parties)..... the conservative Presbyterians are over here; the liberal Baptists are there....."  Surely Bishop has to know that in terms of the political affiliation of those religions, he got it exactly backwards?

 

Bishop further claims that the phenomenon of identity politics has occurred "Over the last 30 to 40 years."  How convenient, exactly the time frame during which Republicans finally broke a Democrat political monopoly going back to FDR.  Apparently, the two party system controlled by the Democrats for the previous half century was just hunky dory, a model of individuality and self-determination. 

Of all the implausible things he says, though, this one has to take the cake: "Voters have become more allegiant to their party since the 1970s and the number of truly independent voters has been reduced to a single-digit smidgen of the electorate."  If there is one thing that conservatives, liberals and all pundits would agree on, it is that the Independent vote as a percentage of the electorate has exploded since that time.

 

I could go on.  I could point out that Bishop admits that the Lord Of The Flies study he cited to prove a phenomenon that he claims is unique to "the last 30 or 40 years" was actually done back in 1954.   I could point out that in terms of "identity politics" the term "Yellow Dog" so popular for more than 50 years refers exclusively to Democrats.  And finally, I could remind him that his explanation of Democrat losses is competing with that other stock Democrat excuse: voter apathy, but that would all be piling on. 

 

If Bishop truly wants to understand what is in the minds of voters, he might try actually talking with some of us.  I believe he would come away with markedly different conclusions.

Pete Smith
Houston, TX

Mark Ruffalo Is So Precious

Oct. 31, 2014

 

"I woke up this morning to a beautiful dream of our nation, a dream that's within our reach."  - Mark Ruffalo

Dear MoveOn member,

This is Mark Ruffalo. I'm an actor, a director, a dad, and a husband—and I love all of these roles.

But what got me out of bed this crisp fall morning, about 96 hours before Election Day, was a beautiful dream of our nation, a dream that's within our reach—especially if women Supervoters get to the polls.¹

Please do me a favor: Take a deep breath and imagine with me.

Imagine our children growing up in a nation where their drinking water is safe. It isn't safe now—not for millions of kids.

Imagine our daughters growing into powerful women, getting equal pay for equal work and never worrying that they'll lose the ability to determine what happens to their own bodies.

Imagine a future for our children with clean air, renewable energy, and abundant resources around the globe—and imagine your actions today making that future possible.
The first step to making our dreams a reality is saving the U.S. Senate from a Republican takeover this Election Day. Because if Republicans control the Senate, even for just two years, none of what you and I imagine will be possible. None of it.

That's why I have a favor to ask: Can you help create a better future for our children by helping MoveOn get women out to vote to save the Senate?

I'm with you, Mark. I'm signing up.

I'm basically a hopeful guy, but I'm also a big-time impatient pragmatist. I don't waste my time with lost causes. And I wouldn't ask you to sign up for one, two—even three—call shifts if I didn't think we could still pull out a win on November 4.²

In key races where MoveOn has dug in, Democratic candidates are holding their own. This tells me that MoveOn's effective person-to-person get-out-the-vote calls are working.

We just need to ramp them up, and this means we need you.

Yes. We need you. Now. It's the sprint to the finish, and to win, we need a burst of energy. Your energy. Will you sign up now?

Yes! I'm in.

You know, I'm not just against Republicans. That's way too easy.

I'm for a United States of America that works for everyone.

That means I need a Congress with the guts to kick out big corporate lobbyists.

And I need a straight-up pro-women Congress.

And I need a Congress with the courage to look at irrefutable climate data and listen to scientists tell us what we have to do to prevent the environmental perils we face. Enough of climate denier madness.

Take a stand with me today. Last week, MoveOn members called 435,000 women voters to get them to the polls. This week, we'll do it again, and throw a few men Supervoters into the mix for good measure. We have 1.3 million calls to make to progressives who may not vote unless they get a call from you.

Because here's the thing: Victory could come down to just a few thousand voters in a few toss-up states. When women vote (men, too!), amazing things can happen—like the underdogs pulling off a win despite running up against a flood of right-wing billionaire and corporate campaign cash.

If we lose, if we wake up on November 5 to a Republican-led Congress, we'll have at least two years of outrageous shutdowns, lawsuits, and ridiculous partisan antics—none of which will allow for meaningful progress on the life-and-death issues our nation faces.

I just cannot play defense in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. Our nation's future depends on us playing offense. 

Wake up, my friends, you're in the game with me. Starting now.

Please. Sign up. Today. Sign up for a win on November 4.

 

Humbly and respectfully,

–Mark Ruffalo

Words With Friends

So anyway, Sharon and I play Words With Friends every day, and it's very competitive. Still, one of my exceptions to the relentless competition is the opportunity to play the word "shit". I play it every chance I get. So, imagine my surprise when I checked our games this morning and found that Sharon had played the word "shit". The following conversation ensued:

P: Baby, you played the word shit!

S: Yes, yes I did.

P: Good for you. Glad to see you're finally on board.

S: It was all I had to play.

P: Seriously? Nothing else?

S: Nothing.

P: So, you couldn't truthfully say "I didn't have shit to spell", now could you?

S: No Honey, I couldn't.

P: So you did have shit to spell?

S: (eye roll)

P: OK, I'm done now.

On The Case

To The Editors:

 

Regarding "Feds seize phony tickets, merchandise" (Thursday, Page C2), like many other concerned citizens, I was relieved to find out that a crack team of armed agents from the department of Homeland Security raided an underwear store in Kansas City that had been selling panties with "KC" and "Take The Crown" stenciled on the backside.

 

I'll admit to some confusion as to how this matter came to the Feds' attention, much less why they thought women's panties were a threat to the nation's security.  The important thing is that we have protected the rights of a government sponsored monopoly - Major League Baseball - to profit from promotional panties using terms and phrases that had heretofore been part of the public domain. 

 

The Republic is secure.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE: Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy

Columnist Lisa Falkenberg takes upon herself an improbable task: To absolve Mayor Annise Parker of any blame for the city's attempt to violate the First Amendment rights of several Houston pastors with a subpoena of their writings that included everything but the proverbial kitchen sink.

Falkenberg starts out by accepting without hesitation Parker's claim that she had "no knowledge" of the wording of the subpoenas, and that the blame rested with unnamed "overzealous civil litigators." This is implausible because the Parker camp was disputing petition signatures submitted challenging the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance.

As Falkenberg described Feldman's findings: "Too many signatures were invalid because they didn't follow charter rules on requirements like notarization and verification."

If that is true, why would the city try to confiscate everything these pastors "prepared, delivered, revised or approved" regarding the ordinance, homosexuality, gender identity or Parker?

We must also remark on the hypocrisy of it all: Parker routinely uses pastors, church settings and religion symbolism when it suits her political purposes.

If you're going to mix religion and politics, it's unseemly to use the powers of your office to harass others for doing the same thing.

Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/190277-thought-impossible-happen-election-caught-camera/

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding "Truth about sermon subpoenas not as interesting as advertised" (Sunday City & State), columnist Lisa Falkenberg takes upon herself an improbable task: To absolve Mayor Annise Parker of any blame for the City's attempt to violate the First Amendment rights of several Houston pastors with a subpoena of their writings that included everything but the proverbial kitchen sink.

 

Falkenberg starts out by accepting without hesitation the claim by Mayor Parker that she had "no knowledge" of the wording of the subpoenas, and that the blame rested with un-named "overzealous   civil litigators".  This is implausible because the Parker camp was disputing petition signatures submitted challenging HERO, stating: "too many signatures were invalid because they didn’t follow charter rules on requirements like notarization and verification."  If that is true, why would Mayor Parker try to confiscate everything  these pastors "prepared, delivered, revised or approved" regarding the HERO ordinance, homosexuality, gender identity or Mayor Parker?

 

Reasonable people might conclude that Mayor Parker had a hand in the wording, seeing as how her name was used.  They might also reasonably conclude that verbiage so specific and so perfectly suited to her political agenda is clear evidence that this was hardly the work of just a handful of legal drones churning out petitions.

 

Finally, we must once again remark on the hypocrisy of it all: Mayor Parker has routinely uses pastors, church settings and religion symbolism when it suits her political purposes.  For but one example, at her 2010 inauguration, she made a very public deal of being sworn in with her grandmother's bible, and invited mega church Pastor Joel Osteen to say nice things about her at the invocation. 

 

The point is, if you're going to mix religion and politics, it's unseemly to use the powers of your office to harass others for doing the same thing. 

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Stop Pete

"Pete, stop. Stop will you? Stop, Pete. Will you stop, Pete? Stop, Pete. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Pete. Pete, my Senate majority is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My governorships are going. There is no question about it. My Down Ballot prospects are gone.  I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a-fraid. . . . 

 

LTE: Blatant Attack

Blatant attack
Regarding "Equal rights fight goes to pulpit" (Page A1, Wednesday), I am dumbstruck that Mayor Annise Parker has authorized city attorney David Feldman to subpoena the lectures and writings of local pastors she suspects have spoken out against HERO, or the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. To say that such an action is heavy-handed is an understatement. Given the traditional American disregard for politicians who use the offices of government to harass individuals and groups, I would have expected our savvy mayor to approach this matter with a much more delicate hand. Instead, she bluntly unleashed her legal dogs on people of faith from across the political spectrum.

Feldman, in justifying Parker's actions, is quoted as saying: "If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it's political speech, then it's not going to be protected." Given the very large extent to which morality and legality overlap, this is a questionable assumption at best, but it also raises the question of why the city was attempting to confiscate "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

With her actions, Parker made it clear that church leaders have no right to speak out on matters of public policy. What is disturbing is that she also apparently believes that they're not even entitled to express an opinion on such matters outside the pulpit.

Finally, we must speak of the blatant hypocrisy at play: The Democratic Party has openly campaigned for votes in houses of worship for decades and not a single instance drew so much as a stern word from Parker, much less a subpoena.

Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Friday-letters-Common-sense-left-behind-5827996.php
-----------------------------------------------
Regarding "Equal rights fight goes to pulpit" (Wednesday Front Page), I am dumbstruck that Mayor Annise Parker has authorized city attorney David Feldman to subpoena the lectures and writings of local pastors she suspects have spoken out against HERO, or the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance.  To say that such an action is heavy-handed is an understatement.  Given the traditional American disregard for politicians who use the offices of government to harass individuals and groups, I would have expected our savvy Mayor to approach this matter with a much more delicate hand.  Instead, she bluntly unleashed her legal dogs on people of faith from across the political spectrum.

 

Feldman, in justifying Mayor Parker's actions, is quoted as saying: "If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it’s political speech, then it’s not going to be protected."   Given the very large extent to which morality and legality overlap, this is a questionable assumption at best, but it also begs the question of why the city was attempting to confiscate "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

 

With her actions, Mayor Parker made it clear that church leaders have no right to speak out on matters of public policy.  What is disturbing is that she also apparently believes that they're not even entitled to express an opinion on such matters outside the pulpit. 

 

Finally, we must speak of the blatant hypocrisy at play: The Democratic Party has openly campaigned for votes in houses of worship for decades, and not a single instance drew so much as a stern word from Mayor Parker, much less a subpoena.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Vaccinate, Or Face CPS

The hubris of the Vaccination Cult knows no bounds. Take this Facebook post gone viral from ASAP Science, for example. When calling people "fucking idiots" by default replaces a reasoned argument, you've lost 90% of your credibility, and 100% of your ability to change minds.

But let's put the Cultists' obnoxious certitude aside for second: where is their science? Are they seriously going to argue that all of the concoctions they want to forcibly pump into all children all the time are an unmitigated good? Can they seriously be suggesting - as they clearly do - that vaccinations are superior to the immune system, prophylaxis and common sense? Are the really going to argue that vaccinations are consequence-free? Nothing is consequence-free.

Vaccination Cultists are full of crap for the same reasons Global Warmers are full of crap: 1) They refuse to believe there are any alternatives to their prescriptions with what can only be described as a religious zeal; 2) Their standard rhetorical tools are demagoguery and demonization; and my favorite, 3) They haven't done any serious science that would challenge any of their conclusions, ever.

Ignore the Scientific Method, then call other people names. What a bunch of Douches.

Lawyer As Victim

Regarding "Lawyer faces prison for alleged swindle" (Monday City & State), several things struck me as ironic.  First was the revelation that attorney Houston attorney Gwendolyn Climmons-Johnson had previously been convicted for a scheme involving ambulances, only this time, it wasn't about her chasing them: they were literally part of the scam.

 

The next irony was the fact that the victim of her most recent scam was another lawyer, New Jersey financier Tim Foley.   Foley had advanced Climmons-Johnson $400,000 in return for a much larger portion of the proceeds on two lawsuits that turned out to be mere figments of her imagination. 

 

Then there was the irony of Foley portraying himself as a helpless victim not just of the defendant, but of the courts as well.  The article quotes him as saying "the damage has been done, and I don’t expect there to be justice.....I really don’t think the company is going to survive.”

 

Turns out, Foley's contract terms with Climmons-Johnson had some questionable terms that would make him less a victim than he would have us believe.  For instance, was she to default on her payout to Foley, Climmons-Johnson was on the hook for payments with a yearly interest rate of 117.5%.  Naturally, Foley filed his lawsuit not in Texas, but in New Jersey, where such things are allowed: yet another irony. 

 

It's tough to feel sorry for lawyers like Foley, particularly when they practice what is considered usury in most of the states of our union.  To Mr. Foley, I would say: Sharks swim with sharks; Sharks occasionally eat other sharks; Don't expect the other "fish" to feel sorry for you.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Sunday's Cycho Hash

Your Faithful Scribe laid this past Saturday's trail.  As advertised, it was modest in length, but challenging; there was a cookout, and the mandatory Summer pool ending.  Most of it was through the Addicks Reservoir (George Bush Park), but there were bike trails and city streets as well.

 

My favorite parts:

  

- Laying trail 7:30 Saturday morn and coming across all manner of fauna: A Momma feral hog and five piglets dashing mere feet in front of my bike; two deer who seemed fearless of me, even as I walked up to them; a dodo-like bird with a long curved beak in a flock of about a hundred.  Amazing. 

 

- Also ran across a collection of teenagers belonging to some kind of camping youth group: they didn't want to be there, and the only thing they got out of the overnighter was mosquito bites.  The Jonesing for cell phones, iPods, texting, Twitter and Snapchat was palpable.  Suck it up, boys.  God only knows how you'd react if you ever had to miss a meal.

 

- Lube Job showed up with The Rat attached to his helmet with so many industrial grade tie wraps holding it in place that it was clear he had no intention of surrendering it.  And he didn't need to: Lube Job won the Cycho Hash for the second month in a row.

 

And what of the inherent contradiction?  The Cycho Hash declares itself the reincarnation of Space City: kindler; gentler; not a competitive bone in the collective body; all of the pacifism without the benefit of cannabis.  But then we go and encourage somebody to "win" the Hash, and even build a ritual around it. 

 

- Cums Happily agreed to do Hash Cash whilst I was picking up the last of the provisions.  When I arrived, she handed me the cash, which was organized with all bills face up and sorted by denomination.  Every imperfection in the assortment of bills had been smoothed out. She might have arranged them by serial numbers, too.  CH is, natch, an accountant.

 

- For the umpteen regular and irregular Cyco Hashers who didn't show up because of the threat of weather, maybe next time I tell you "I've got this", you will take my words to heart.  As the pack assembled, a massive front moved in.  The temperature dropped 15 degrees in mere minutes, and as the pack departed, the rain started.  Within minutes, the front moved off, leaving the coolness behind and the trail intact.  At the On On, the front once again threatened, but rain drizzled down just enough to refresh us once again.  Then it moved off and the sun burst out, producing a rainbow.  All in all, a glorious day.

 

You're welcome.

 

- Saturday afternoon, I got an e-mail from a Hasher who shall remain nameless who advised that "it's generally a wise idea to leave a note or map on one of the cars at the start, in case anybody arrives late".  I contemplated the numerous possibilities, showing up on time being the most obvious, along with the tried-and-true Saran Crap method: start in a random direction and ride in ever-widening concentric circles until you hit flour.

 

Anyway, dear letter writer, maybe I left the maps off the cars because I fear complacency.  Maybe I was being Edgy....

 

- Speaking of Saran Crap, the Cycho Hash honor system remains intact.  He approached me to 'fess up that he had forgotten his wallet, and would have to pay me at the next Cycho Hash he comes to.  I immediately thought of Wimpy.  If you don't get the cultural reference, you're probably not Cycho Hash material.

 

- Puke and Twist & Shout are next month's hares.  Now this should be interesting.   

 

- And before I forget, many thanks to Li'l Pussy and FMR for the use of the domicile and their help in designing the trail.

 

WHP

LTE - Punish Predators

Now this one the Chron editors whittled down pretty good.  At least they kept the punch line:

Punish predators

The story of hospitals, doctors and other health care providers sneaking outrageous overcharges into bills for medical procedures and services is certainly not a new one.

The natural outcome of this practice would be the blatant disregard for simple humanity demonstrated by the "assistant surgeon" told of in the story, a predator who literally snuck in the back door - unbidden, unwanted and unneeded - to add $117,000 to the patient's bill. To say that this practice is fraudulent is an understatement, which raises the question: Why are the people who do things like this not in jail?

Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Wednesday-letters-Assessing-drive-by-doctors-5775993.php

Original letter:

Regarding "‘Drive-by’ doctors add shock to bills" (Sunday Nation/World), the story of hospitals, doctors and other health care providers sneaking outrageous overcharges into bills for medical procedures and services is certainly not a new one.  It started in the 70s when the federal government decided to quantify everything from an aspirin to an X-Ray, and started regulating who would get it, when it would be made available, and for how much.

 

The natural outcome of this practice would be the blatant disregard for simple humanity demonstrated by the “assistant surgeon" told of in the story, a predator who literally snuck in the back door - unbidden, unwanted and unneeded - to add $117,000 to the patient's bill.  To say that this practice is fraudulent is an understatement, which begs the question: why are the people who do things this not in jail? 

 

I recall after Hurricane Katrina, the Chronicle ran some stories about "entrepreneurs" transporting generators, chainsaws and similar equipment from Texas to Louisiana, then selling it for double or triple the retail price.  However mild that offense might have been, the response of law enforcement was not: the perpetrators were arrested, incarcerated, and convicted.  We should do no less in fighting against the professional predators who stalk our hospitals, exploiting loopholes that allow them to take advantage of those debilitated by illness and injury.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Double Standard

Regarding "Why didn’t Peterson put son in time-out, as Vikings have with him?" (Thursday Star), columnist Ken Hoffman joins the growing cast of Talking Heads who feel compelled to moralize about Adrian Peterson's use of a switch to spank his son.  Nobody would disagree that Peterson went too far; what is less clear is whether he is the cruel person and bad parent that Hoffman makes him out to be, or somebody who simply made a mistake they regret.  Hoffman leaves no room for doubt. 

 

His moral certitude aside, I'm curious as to why Ken Hoffman has never expressed similar public outrage about allegations of domestic abuse by members of his own profession, or anybody employed by the Houston Chronicle?  There's only three reasons: 1) It has never happened in his entire career; 2) The matter was kept private by the employer; or 3) Hoffman did know but chose not to write about it. 

 

Regardless, the dichotomy between how NFL players are treated and how the rest of us are treated is astonishing: They have no rights to privacy; Evidence is leaked  piecemeal to a ravenous media; False accusations are immediately treated as true; The defendant is judged before the trial, and punishment is meted out before the case is heard.

 

Why are so many public commentators - Hoffman included - comfortable with this double standard? 

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX 

Man Up

So, this is the picture hanging off the edge of my cubicle as of yesterday.  What does it represent, you may ask?

It is my company's official recognition that I am a participant in the NFL Challenge Pool, a competition strictly amongst the men of the office to pit their football prognosticating abilities against that of their fellow male workers.

No women allowed.

Anyway, the Challenge works like this: every Player picks a team.  The objective is not necessarily to win, but to not lose.  No money changes hands.  No points accumulate.  Rather, at the end of each week's play, one NFL football team in the Pool will have lost by more points than any other team in the pool.  The player in the office that picked that team would then be required to wear the Team's colors as his nail polish for the entire week.

That's right, prancing around the office in the gaudy color schemes of the NFL for the entirety of the business week.  Come the new football week, there would be a brand new under-achieving NFL football team, and yet another conservatively dressed businessman looking like an extra in a Lady Gaga music video.

Suffice to say, considering what was on the line, I gave some thought to what team I would pick to minimize my prospects of having this fate befall me.  And so I picked the Seattle Seahawks.

Fast forward to last night, and the official first game of the NFL season: Seattle vs. the Green Bay Packers.  Well, y'all know the outcome on that one, and there is precious little chance that any other matchup this weekend will result in the epic ass whooping that Seattle put on Green Bay, 36 to 16. 

 

That means that I picked wisely.  That also means that my co-worker that picked the Green Bay Packers is - as we speak - coming to terms with the fact that he will be representing his favorite team in a heretofore unanticipated fashion. 

 

"Cheer up!",  I told my mates in our bullpen, "Jack could have picked lipstick and eyeliner!"

 

"Shhhh!", said one of them; "don't give him any ideas...." 

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Regarding "A divided Congress returns to border crisis" (Monday Front Page), the remarks of a prominent Texas Republican and a prominent Texas Democrat offer a stark contrast in rhetoric.  In describing the likelihood that President Obama will initiate unilateral immigration reform measures through executive action, U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Ennis is quoted as saying: “He’s making a policy mistake if he does it, and politically, he’s going to make a big mistake.”

 

In contrast, Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is quoted as saying of her Republican colleagues: "They’re not concerned with immigration reform, they’re concerned about new voters who will possibly not vote for them.”

 

So there you have it.  While it is fair to say that both sides are casting this issue in political terms, it is also fair to publicly acknowledge an obvious, if unspoken public truth: Democrats promote illegal immigration to attract new voters. 

 

I applaud Ms. Jackson Lee for her candor.

Pete Smith
Houston, TX

Just Trying To Do My Part

LTE: John Whitmire - Bad Optics

OK, I don't squawk often about what the Chron editors do to my letters: space is limited and I've actually enjoyed watching them parse my riffs whilst retaining the jist, but this rendition was severe.  You be the judge.   Here's what made it into today's Chron:

Bad optics
Regarding "Whitmire, UH chancellor tangle via text - but remain allies" (Page B1, Wednesday), it's easy to read Lisa Falkenberg's column and conclude that state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, is nothing but a crusty, honest man of the people for the way he treated University of Houston Systems Chancellor Renu Khator over her decision to mandate that more students live on campus rather than commute from home. Whitmire may well have had good intentions, but he came across as a self-centered bully. This type of behavior should not be encouraged in our public officials.
Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Monday-letters-Corporate-taxes-redistricting-5722423.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is my original post:

Regarding "Whitmire, UH chancellor tangle via text — but remain allies" (Wednesday City & State), it's easy to read Jill Falkenberg's article and conclude that State Senator John Whitmire is nothing but a crusty, honest man of the people for the way he treated UH chancellor Renu Khator over her decision to mandate that more students live on campus rather than commute from home.  However, Falkenberg's article is completely lacking the barrage of accusatory text messages Whitmire hurled at Khator.  Secondly, it's clear that he went off on her based solely on media accounts of the policy, rather than educating himself on the particulars.  Khator was correct in saying that reporters got the story wrong, since they left out - among other important points - the numerous exemptions built into the policy.

 

Bottom line, Senator Whitmire hurled accusations without bothering to educate himself about the facts.  Then when confronted with the facts, he doubled down and hurled more accusations.  Then when Khator acquiesced and apologized, he piled on with another barrage of accusations.

 

Whitmire may well have had good intentions, but he came across as an ignorant, self-centered bully.  This type of behavior should not be encouraged in our public officials. 

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Major League Baseball Cost Per Win

Here you go, Sports Fans.  If the playoffs were held today, the teams in black would be playoff bound.  And check out the cost per win.

LTE: Nothing New

Regarding "Grand jury indicts Perry on 2 felony counts" (Saturday Front Page), one's first reaction is to ask: "what's new?"; Democrats across the land have perfected the practice of using taxpayer dollars to criminalize the activities of their opponents, mostly the Republican Party.  You have but to look at the Obama IRS suppressing Tea Party groups or Democrat efforts to impeach Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker for the two most recent instances. 

 

Closer to home, Austin Democrats are into their 11th year of persecuting former Republican House Majority leader Tom Delay, despite a previous conviction being vacated by the courts some months ago.  Delay is well past double jeopardy status, but Democrats seem comfortable squandering tax dollars for another decade to ruin the life of a man who's major offense was that he was a key player in banishing them to the political wastelands back in the 90s. 

 

It will be interesting to see how Rick Perry reacts: he can play it the conventional way, go radio silent and let his lawyers do the talking for him, or he can hit the streets and make this a national issue.  How I would love to see him on The Tonight Show, cutting up with Jimmy Fallon and connecting Texas Democrats with the Obama Administration.  It would be a fair comparison, and it would shine a much needed spotlight on their decades-long use of the offices of government for their political ends. 

 

It is time they started paying a price for their serial abuses of the public purse, and the public trust.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX
----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Wednesday-letters-The-Perry-indictment-5699164.php

Nothing new

Regarding "Grand jury indicts Perry on 2 felony counts" (Page A1, Saturay), one's first reaction is to ask: "What's new?"

Democrats across the land have perfected the practice of using taxpayer dollars to criminalize the activities of their opponents, mostly the Republican Party. You have but to look at the Obama IRS suppressing tea party groups or Democratic efforts to impeach Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for the two most recent instances.

Closer to home, Austin Democrats are into their 11th year of persecuting former Republican House Majority leader Tom DeLay, despite a previous conviction being vacated by the courts some months ago. DeLay is well past double jeopardy status, but Democrats seem comfortable squandering tax dollars for another decade to ruin the life of a man whose major offense was that he was a key player in banishing them to the political wastelands back in the '90s.

It will be interesting to see how Rick Perry reacts: He can play it the conventional way, go radio silent and let his lawyers do the talking for him, or he can hit the streets and make this a national issue.

Pete Smith, Houston

Just Once, Would It Kill A Democrat To Do The Math?

Day 14,176 looking for those EOCs (Evil Oil Companies). Still haven't found any.

A barrel of oil has 42 gallons. A barrel costs a hundred bucks. The oil component of a gallon of gas costs 2.40. Average taxes on a gallon of gas are 50 cents. Average price per gallon for gas is $3.50. That leaves gross revenue at the pump per gallon of 60 cents, split between the retailers, distributors, refiners and producers.

So if Exxon is a producer and refiner, they're getting somewhere in the range of .30 per gallon.  But wait, that's gross revenue. Whack the costs of production and overhead before you realize gross margin; then whack interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization before you reach net profit. 

In conclusion, The Evil Oil Companies make pennies from each gallon of gas, and employ millions. The Feds alone siphon 18 cents out of every gallon of gas, and don't do a damn thing to earn it.

Of course, there's a simpler way to calculate profit, based on stats from your very own federal government.  The Bureau Of Labor Statistics reports that even for very profitable companies, net profits hover around 10-12 percent.  Do the damn math, but consider that even on the profits that oil companies generate, the federal government carves out a bigger percentage for themselves than what is earned by shareholders.

This is why I so enjoy articles like this, where moronic Liberals demonstrate their inability to grasp even a basic concept like profit:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smui/following_the_money_whos_profi.html

It's Probably Israel's Fault

Just read that ISIS is raiding northern villages in Iraq, and according to the reporter I'm quoting verbatim, are "taking the village women for their wives." Who told this idiot to sugar coat kidnapping women and turning them into sex slaves? And is it just me, or is there no meaningful Islamic distinction between a "wife" and a "sex slave"?

Hogs At The Trough

Regarding "4 to get year’s salary in HISD deal" (Thursday City & State), HISD leaders awarding four teachers guilty of cheating a cushy severance package ought to be offensive not just to taxpayers, but all concerned citizens.  These teachers had no right to the money, their union had no right to pursue it, and HISD had no right to squander the yearly tax contribution of at least 50 households to make these cheaters go away.

 

What is most distressing about this whole sorry affair is the deafening silence of the remaining 12,000-plus teachers and school administrators responsible not just for teaching Houston's children, but for their right conduct.  What kind of message is conveyed to our students when the people entrusted with their education refuse to speak against such behavior?  

 

Sadly, this incident is not isolated; there have been numerous other similar stories of cushy payoffs for public employees that they didn't deserve, including gigantic payouts across the spectrum of public employment for accumulation of supposedly unused vacation and sick time, bonuses to incent teachers to quit, and most recently, the HFD union demanding a fat new contract just to get fireman to show up in sufficient numbers to provide a bare minimum of coverage.  And let us not forget the grand-daddy of all public sector pay scams: the insane inflation of pension benefits perpetrated, not coincidentally, by the fraudulent representations of union retirement boards that will eventually bankrupt the city of Houston.

 

It's bad enough that public employee unions care not a whit about the citizens they fleece for their sumptuous contracts, but it would be nice to hear public employees themselves occasionally speak out against the manifold abuses of the public purse on their behalf.  Their failure to do so serves only to further lower the bar as to what is unacceptable, and further emboldens their unions to make even more unconscionable contract demands in the future.

 

It's the least to be expected of people who wish to call themselves  - without irony - "public servants". 

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Privileged Professors

In his letter "Pressure on academia" (Letters 7-18-14), correspondent Keith M. Parsons offers a stark contrast between the status quo in higher education that defends the tenure system that protects professors from any measurable standards of accountability, and those that challenge the status quo.

 

Parsons is unambiguously praiseful of that status quo, describing "an academic culture that is the product of a historical development that began with the founding of Plato’s Academy 2,400 years ago." 

 

He is equally disdainful of those that challenge the educational Establishment, describing reformers as "ideologues and politicians who want to impose a 'business model'."  He goes on to say many more critical things of a similar vein, and finishes by haughtily proclaiming that "students are not customers", and that professors "have the responsibility of telling people what they need to hear." 

 

In other words, you know nothing and we know what is good for you, so shut up and don't dare criticize us.

 

What goes unmentioned in Parson's diatribe is any acknowledgment of the dumbed-down curriculum or the berserk price increases that have plagued higher education for the past generation, leaving today's college graduates with an education measurably inferior to that of their parents, and mired in debt.

 

Meanwhile, throughout the land you hear barely a whisper from the professoriate acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, they are part of the problem.  So much for their devotion to dialectics, a method quite Platonic in its origins.  If as Parson's claims professors are in fact "a product of.....Plato’s Academy", they might try challenging the status quo just a little bit, and engage reformers in an actual debate instead of demonizing them. 
 

Pete Smith
Houston, TX

Get It Right

Regarding "U.S.: Missile took down plane", putting aside the subject matter for a second, the title of this article is proof of the power of proper punctuation.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Golf Courses Vs. Nature

Regarding "Let’s golf, not garden" (Saturday Editorials), it was refreshing to see a newspaper - any newspaper - come down on the side of Golfers.  Your argument for preserving Gus Wortham Golf Course from the clutches of "Elite Gardeners" who want to turn it into a botanical garden was well-reasoned, persuasive and funny.  Hopefully, it will have the desired effect of preserving this century old icon.

 

Having struck a blow for golf vs. nature, might I ask if the Chronicle would be willing to strike a blow for nature vs. golf?  I'm not aware that the Chron has voiced an opinion on the efforts of a bunch of Swells from the River Oaks Country Club to destroy nature, in this case the stretch of Buffalo Bayou that separates Memorial Park from ROCC.  The "Memorial Park Demonstration Project" is an effort on the part of Elite Golfers to spend millions in public money to strip trees, plants and other vegetation from scores of acres of public park land - much of it affectionately known to park-goers as the "Ho Chi Minh" trails - so as to improve their drainage and property values. 

 

These are the golfers that don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, much less public funds to carry out their plans.  An editorial to that effect would be much appreciated.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

LTE: Real Courage

Real courage

Houston attorney Patrick F. McCann paints a bleak picture of life in Mexico and various Central American countries to rationalize the flood of immigrants entering the country illegally and overwhelming America's southern border. According to McCann, these nations are so dysfunctional that children and elderly mothers are left to suffer poverty, savage civil war and brutal gang violence.

He then goes on to ask what he assumes is a clever rhetorical question: If Americans found themselves in similar circumstances, wouldn't they flee their country for a place more peaceful and prosperous?

I believe Americans have proven that the answer to that question is a resounding "No." Throughout the Revolutionary War, America's Civil War, two world wars, one Cold War and the Great Depression, it has never been our habit as Americans to run away to some place safer, and under no circumstances would it be considered honorable to abandon our children to the tender mercies of human smugglers.

I'm more interested in questions that McCann does not ask: 1) What is so wrong with countries like Mexico and Honduras that so many of their citizens just up and leave? 2) Why don't these immigrants stay and fight to make their homelands better places to live?

The fact that McCann and other so-called "open borders" advocates focus instead on mass immigration means that misery, poverty, war and gang violence will be the lot of the tens of millions who remain behind.

We need to address the causes of the problem, not the symptoms. In the meantime, taking in an endless stream of refugees only delays the reforms that could make these countries decent places to live.

Pete Smith, Houston 
-----------------------------------------------
In "The courage to cross", Houston attorney Patrick F. McCann paints a bleak picture of life in Mexico and various Central American countries to rationalize the flood of illegal immigrants overwhelming America's southern border.  According to McCann, these nations are so dysfunctional that children and elderly mothers are left to suffer poverty, savage civil war and brutal gang violence.

 

He then goes on to ask what he assumes is a clever rhetorical question: If Americans found themselves in similar circumstances, wouldn't they flee their country for a place more peaceful and prosperous?

 

I believe Americans have proven that the answer to that question is a resounding "No".  Throughout the Revolutionary War, America's civil war, two world wars, one Cold War and the Great Depression, it has never been our habit as Americans to run away to some place safer, and under no circumstances would it be considered honorable to abandon our children to the tender mercies of human smugglers.

 

I'm more interested in questions that McCann does not ask: 1) What is so wrong with countries like Mexico and Honduras that so many of their citizens just up and leave? 2) Why don't these immigrants stay and fight to make their homelands better places to live? 

 

Anybody with an ounce of humanity would wonder why our northern neighbor Canada is a peaceful, functioning and prosperous democracy, and they would focus like a laser beam on helping our neighbors to the South duplicate the Canadian experience.  The fact that McCann and other so-called "open borders" advocates focus instead on mass immigration means that misery, poverty, war and gang violence will be the lot of the tens of millions who remain behind.  

 

We need to address the causes of the problem, not the symptoms.  In the meantime, taking in an endless stream of refugees only delays the reforms that could make these countries decent places to live.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE: Reactions to apostasy

Two stories that ran in the Tuesday Chronicle provide a stark contrast in the way the Muslim faith is different from virtually all others. 

 

"Mormon Church excommunicates founder of women’s rights group" tells the story of Kate Kelly, a Mormon activist who promoted gender equality with the ultimate goal of allowing women in the lay clergy.  For challenging the patriarch, the Mormon church accused her of apostasy, and excommunicated her.  "Sudan frees woman sent to death row for apostasy" tells the story of Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death for practicing the Christian faith of her mother instead of the Muslim faith mandated by the nation of Sudan.  She was recently released on a technicality, only because of intense international pressure.

 

So there you have it: the most radical expression of disapproval amongst Christian faiths is to tell the offender "you can't be one of us any more."  In contrast, a death sentence for the same offense is all too common throughout much of the Muslim world. 

 

And it's not just the death sentence that Islamists impose with such regularity for anything found to be offensive to Islamists, it is that they find offense in the most innocent of things.  Practicing the faith of one's choosing shouldn't be offensive to anybody.  It is instructive that for a disturbingly large percentage of the world's Muslims, it is.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Two stories that ran in the Tuesday Chronicle provide a stark contrast in the way the Muslim faith is different from virtually all others.

The story "Mormon Church excommunicates founder of women's rights group" (Page A2) tells the story of Kate Kelly, a Mormon activist who promoted gender equality with the ultimate goal of allowing women in the lay clergy. For challenging the patriarch, the Mormon church accused her of apostasy and excommunicated her.

The other story "Sudan frees woman sent to death row for apostasy" (Page A2) tells the story of Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death for marrying a Christian. She was raised by her mother who practices the Christian faith instead of her father who practices the Muslim faith. She was recently released on a technicality, only because of intense international pressure.

So there you have it: The most radical expression of disapproval amongst Christian faiths is to tell the offender, "You can't be one of us any more." In contrast, a death sentence for the same offense is all too common throughout much of the Muslim world.

And it's not just the death sentence that Islamists impose with such regularity for anything found to be offensive to Islamists, it is that they find offense in the most innocent of things. Practicing the faith of one's choosing shouldn't be offensive to anybody.
Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/homeless-sing-communist-song-free-lunch-article-1.1843700
 

All I Can Say Is: "My feelings exactly"

Google Glass is arguably the worst idea ever.  Conceived as a bold experiment in capturing the real world virtually, it ends up being nothing more than a 24x7 means to invade other people's privacy. 

 

It will die a not-so-quiet death, and soon, but not before Google tries mightily to cram it down our throats, and unfortunately, not before several dozen of its wearers get beat up or otherwise harassed.

 

As a company devoted almost exclusively to exploiting the personal information of its Users, Google has been long due a come-uppance.  Here's hoping they take it up the shorts on this venture.

 

And on a purely personal note, I'm rooting for the failure of the stupid-ass "Google Driverless Car" too.  These Dorks know as much about car manufacture as Elon Musk, and are destined to suffer his fate.

Give me more money, or suffer the consequences

Regarding "Mayor: Repeal revenue cap to aid HPD" (Saturday Front Page), Mayor Annise Parker speaks bluntly and even a little harshly about the sorry state of law enforcement in Houston when she says that "the only way we can have more police officers is to have more tax revenue to pay for them.”  It seems she's displeased with the cap on tax rates imposed by voters ten years ago, and has presented us a fait accompli: take the limits off her credit card, or take your chances on the newly mean streets of Houston.

 

What is interesting is what Mayor Parker does not tell us about this matter: First, that income tax revenues have skyrocketed in the past decade thanks to Houston's booming economy, which should have made increasing the rate of taxation unnecessary.  Second, during that period, more than any other Houston politician Parker has presided over the shower of pension perks, health care perks, pay raises and "alternate" forms of pay across the entire spectrum of public employment that brought Houston to its current sorry state.  Ironically, her fiscal irresponsibility was never more boldly on display than last week, when she conceded to giving a mid-contract pay raise to firefighters just to get them to agree to show up for work.

 

Sad to say, Mayor Parker has never been the person to bring berserk government spending under control.  Sadder to say, there is nobody likely to replace her that will either, at least not until such time as voters again show the backbone they did ten years ago when they took away the blank check.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX