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.