Try Living Outside Your Comfort Zone Lisa Falkenberg

Regarding "Offering up a bit of thanks — with more spice, less sappiness" (Sunday City & State), Lisa Falkenberg offered up a laundry list of talking points heavy on pointing out the flaws of conservatives and Christians, pretty much devoid of anything critical of liberals.

She summed up the article by declaring that she was "thankful that.....there are still people who pay money to be exposed daily to diverse facts and perspectives, which may provoke surprise and discomfort."

On behalf of those surprised and discomforted readers - who are overwhelmingly conservative and Christian - let me just say "you're welcome".  And as a reward for our loyalty, we have a simple request in the new year: more diversity of facts and perspectives, and definitely more surprises and discomfort for your liberal readers. 

Oh, and one other thing: we could do with a little less gratuitous snark.  Six weeks after the story died, the only people flogging the red Starbucks coffee cup for deeper meaning are liberals intent on using it to demean Christians at Christmas.

Behave.

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX 

Embrace Stupid Politics At Your Own Risk

Regarding "Before the next vote, pro-HERO folks need their own slogan" (Sunday City & State), a sure sign that you've lost the argument is to explain away the defeat of the HERO ordinance by rationalizing, and columnist Lisa Falkenberg's article is a textbook example.  According to Falkenberg, Mayor Parker's initiative to codify civil rights protections for various groups failed - in part - because only 27 percent of registered Houston voters cast ballots. It failed because social conservatives waged a campaign of lies about men being allowed into women's restrooms.  It failed because pro-HERO group Houston Unites didn’t have enough time to rally its base. 

The problem is that when you're done blaming opponents, proponents and the electorate, you've pretty much run out of people to blame, and you still haven't explained the colossal margins by which HERO was defeated.  HERO failed because it was badly written and way too ambitious, but rather than change anything, HERO proponents tried to bully it past Houston voters and got their hats handed to them.

If proponents of HERO want to understand why it was defeated, they should take a look in the mirror.  And if they want civil rights legislation to pass, they need to offer sensible, well written legislation.  They also need to engage voters and the opposition rather than lecture and demonize them.  

Pete Smith 

Cypress, TX 

Don't Let The Door Hit You In Your Dangerously Large Ass

Regarding "Why so down? Reasons abound for 2-5 Texans" (Sunday Front Page), the primary reason the defense is under-performing is clear: for every play involving nose tackle Vince Wilfork, the Texans have only ten men on the field.  Former All-Pro safety Rodney Harrison was charitable when he said that Wilfork "has no impact".  In point of fact, his presence on the field actually benefits the opposing team.

Not only is the off-season acquisition from the Patriots routinely moved out of the running lane by but a single offensive lineman, opposing team running backs are actually using his large body as a "pick" to obstruct Texan linebackers.  "Wilfork Left" and "Wilfork Right" are the two bread and butter plays for every team that plays the Texans.

This should come as no surprise.  Wilfork came to Houston extremely overweight and out of shape, and then proceeded to do nothing about it.  As an ostensibly "elite" NFL player, he barely broke a sweat in training camp, and played in no preseason games.  In fact, his most memorable moment on the HBO series "Hard Knocks" was to talk about how much barbecue he could eat at one sitting.  That mindset and his lack of conditioning shows on the field.

Wilfork disrespected the Texans and their fans by making no effort to get into football shape, but he disrespected himself too.  He should retire, save himself and the Texan's any further embarrassment, and allow the Texans to check in with the standard eleven players on every play.

Pete Smith
Cypress, TX

Regarding "McNair rescinds anti-HERO donation" (Saturday B2),  the Houston Texans owner may have succumbed to pressure from HERO supporters, but he hasn't rescinded his opposition to what has come to be known as the "bathroom ordinance."

That is because HERO supporters refuse to acknowledge that the law - despite its overall good intentions - does precisely what opponents claim: it allows all men - regardless of their sexual orientation - the right to enter women's restrooms and locker rooms.  It also allows them to disrobe in the presence of women, and the only way to restrict their access is to determine ahead of time a clearly criminal intent.

I understand why this distinction is lost on HERO activists, but I don't understand why it is lost on the public officials entrusted with protecting the women and girls of Houston from harassment - or worse - when they are so vulnerable.  

This is political correctness run amok, and Bob McNair is right: the HERO ordinance is sorely in need of "a thoughtful rewrite." 

Pete Smith 

Houston, TX 

Hall Pass For Sexual Predators

Regarding "HERO debate goes off-topic" (Friday front page), proponents of the HERO ordinance insist that it "would in no way protect predators" because we already have a city law that "bars someone from entering a restroom of the opposite sex with the intent to 'cause a disturbance'."

The question boils down to the word "intent."  Before HERO, store managers and the police could deny everybody - including sexual predators - access to the bathrooms of the opposite sex.  After HERO, store managers and the police must be able to magically determine intent to commit a crime before they can deny access.

Bottom line: male sexual predators have unrestricted access to the same restroom as your daughter, and can remain there until they "cause a disturbance."


Pete Smith
13906 Crow Ridge Ct
Cypress, TX

Intent To Injure

Regarding "L.A.’s rally breaks Tejada’s leg" (Sports C11), why does Major League Baseball tolerate the attempts of players to injure the opposition?  In the Angels/Yankees game yesterday, it was LA Dodgers Chase Utley running out of the basepath to take out the Mets Ruben Tejada at second base, breaking Tejada's leg in the process.  Utley never even attempted to touch the base until after he had untangled from Tejada.

Last Tuesday, the Yankees Didi Gregorius did exactly the same thing to Astro's superstar Jose Altuve, passing the base and taking out Altuve's knee and only afterwards reaching back to touch the bag with his hand.  By the grace of God, the Astro's second baseman was not injured.  MLB players and coaches all defend this brutality, saying things like "that's baseball", or "he didn't mean to hurt him", and my personal favorite as paraphrased by Utley's manager Don Mattingly: "that's just the way the game is played".  That doesn't make it any less a crime.  

Sliding into second basemen with cleats up has been happening since before Ty Cobb perfected the practice a century ago.  What is new - and more outrageous by the day - is base runners who literally stop playing baseball in order to collide with and disable opposing team infielders.

I don't understand why this practice is tolerated.  I also don't understand why people who do this are not in jail.  Workplace violence is no more acceptable because it happens on a baseball field.

Pete Smith
Cypress, TX

LTE: Focus on play

Regarding "Wilfork knows how to win, and it starts with consistency" (Friday Sports C6), former New England Patriot Vince Wilfork sounded off on his new team, the Houston Texans, complaining of "missed opportunities", "how inconsistent we were" and that "we didn't come to play".  He also declared himself "frustrated" and "disappointed".

Perhaps before Wilfork gets down on the Texans, he might look in the mirror.  In two games to date he has zero sacks, zero passes defensed, and zero quarterback hits.  His contribution is a measly two assists.

Coming from a Superbowl champion does not entitle you to an opinion.  We learned that with the disastrous Ed Reed experiment two years ago.  Pehaps Wilfork should make a contribution with his play before he expresses any more.

Pete Smith
Cypress, TX

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Saturday-letters-The-Alamo-Vince-Wilfork-6530637.php

Because It Looks Like A Bomb

Regarding "Muslims: Police, school not at fault in clock alarm" (Friday B3), a boy brings to school a device that has circuit boards, wiring harnesses, loose wires, batteries and a device that looks like a timer, all housed in a briefcase; in other words, a device that in all of its particulars looks exactly like a bomb, and nothing like a clock.  He is briefly taken into custody while the device is investigated, then released.

In response, local Muslim leaders blame un-named political leaders for "espousing inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric and creating a “climate of fear.”

I don't get their argument.  The child brought something that looked like a bomb to school, he was not mistreated by authorities and the matter was resolved.  So unless these leaders are asserting the right of students to bring devices that look like bombs to school, I don't see that they have any complaints, much less the right to sow mistrust by playing the blame game.

Pete Smith
Houston, TX

LTE: Bats On Display

Regarding "A little myth busting helps separate bat fact from bat fiction" (Page E1, Saturday), thanks for this informative and entertaining article on bats. It's amazing to think that an amazing ecosystem - a veritable explosion of wildlife - could evolve in a span of just a few years in the heart of a large American city. It is also gratifying that public policy had evolved to the point in Houston where it was ever allowed to happen. The bat colony under the Waugh bridge enriches us all.

Pete Smith, Houston

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1424518256957440211#editor/target=post;postID=3112709387148231511

Judge Starstruck, Brady Is Still A Weasel

"Judge discredits NFL findings, lifts Brady’s 4-game suspension" (Friday Sports) reads the title of one article on Deflategate.  "Has NFL boss done more harm than good?" reads the title of another.  Based on the reportage, sports fans might believe that New England quarterback Tom Brady has been completely exonerated of the NFL charges that he conspired to have his footballs under-inflated, and that commission Roger Goodell trumped up the charges against him, but that is far from the truth.

For starters, federal judge Richard M. Berman comes across more as a Brady Fan Boy than he does a judge.  His black and white ruling concludes that the NFL was wrong, and that they victimized Brady by denying him his rights as a defendant, citing "several significant legal deficiencies” in the league’s handling of the controversy, including no advance notice of potential penalties", and "a refusal to produce a key witness."  The problem with Berman's conclusions is that Brady was accused of workplace misconduct, not a crime, so he was not entitled to the same protections. 

And it is anybody's guess what kind of Pandora's box Berman opened for HR departments across the land with his assertion that Brady was entitled to "advance notice of potential penalties".  If the NFL was required to advertise a schedule of punishments for the 1001 potential ways that players could alter a football, their uniforms, the playing surface or any other aspect of the sport, it's safe to assume that everything about employee misconduct can now be litigated, endlessly.  

What is most startling to me, though, is Berman's complete lack of curiosity about the facts that the NFL did provide regarding Brady's culpability, including the text messages between the trainers discussing their conversations with Brady, the suspicious destruction of 10,000 messages on his cell phone, and his general stone-walling.  Judge Berman presides over a court of law.  Wasn't he required to consider the incredible assertions of Brady as vigorously as he challenged the credible assertions of the NFL? 

If this thing progresses, inevitably Tom Brady is going to have to put his hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the stakes are going to be a lot higher than a piddling four game suspension.  With his unilateral actions, Berman may have postponed Brady's day of reckoning, but he just upped the consequences by an order of magnitude.  The NFL has no choice but to pursue the matter further, or risk the integrity of their sport, and Brady will finally be forced to testify.

His day of reckoning just got a whole lot darker.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE - Punishment deserved

Regarding "Missouri man who got life sentence on pot charge freed" (Wednesday Nation A2), in this article I learned that convict Jeff Mizanskey was a family man and a victim of America's supposedly unenlightened attitudes towards marijuana, imprisoned for 22 years for possession of pot.  I got to read him complain about how unfair his incarceration was. Heck, I even got to learn that his favorite breakfast was steak and eggs.  

Not until the 12th paragraph did I get to learn that Mizanskey was also a recidivist drug dealer who worked for the drug cartels and was caught with six pounds of dope, enough to roll over 10,000 joints.  

This author of this AP article seems to have gone out of her way to confuse the larger argument about the decriminalization of marijuana possession with the actions of a gangster.  It was the amount that he was trafficking and his association with organized crime that landed him in prison, and that was where he deserved to be.

Pete Smith 

Houston, TX

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

Regarding "Missouri man who got life sentence on pot charge freed" (Page A2, Wednesday), I learned that convict Jeff Mizanskey was a family man and a victim of America's supposedly unenlightened attitudes toward marijuana, imprisoned for 22 years for possession of pot. I got to read him complain about how unfair his incarceration was. Heck, I even got to learn that his favorite breakfast was steak and eggs.

Not until the 12th paragraph did I get to learn that Mizanskey was also a recidivist drug dealer who worked for the drug cartels and was caught with six pounds of dope, enough to roll over 10,000 joints.

The story seems to confuse the larger argument about the decriminalization of marijuana possession with the actions of a gangster. It was the amount that he was trafficking and his association with organized crime that landed him in prison and that was where he deserved to be.

Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Friday-letters-Drug-dealer-voting-6483944.php

Racism Cuts Both Ways

Regarding "Political cartoonist’s message misfired and brought on more pain" (Wednesday City & State), columnist Lisa Falkenberg correctly portrays the cartoon showing a picture of a hearse carrying the body of Sandra Bland being pulled over by "a Texas police officer" as offensive.  Unfortunately, she portrays it only as offensive to African Americans who view this incident as "a modern-day lynching", and apparently consider police behavior towards blacks as irredeemably racist.

Such a portrayal is unreasonable and unfair not only to "Texas police officers" in general, but to white police officers in particular.  There is precious little evidence that any of the deadly encounters of the past few years had anything to do with race, including this one.  In fact, several of the most recent and publicized incidents involved black police officers, and yet, the "racist white police officer" narrative is the only one given any coverage in the press.

Such gross generalizations not only kill meaningful debate, they endanger the lives of civil servants.  Just ask the employees at the Waller County jail who have been deluged with death threats, or the widows of two New York police officers - one Asian and one Latino - who were assassinated by a black man enraged by such unfair characterizations.  

Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles no doubt thinks it clever to portray all Texas cops as violators of black people, and Texans have gotten used to such caricatures by East Coast elitists.  I just wish the Chronicle would start calling out such behavior instead of buying into it.

Pete Smith 

Houston, TX

LTE - The escalation

The escalation

There is nothing ambiguous about the reason for the escalation between officer Brian Encinia and motorist Sandra Bland. I have always been impressed by the calm professionalism of Texas state troopers. Encinia was neither calm nor professional. In a matter of seconds, he turned a routine traffic stop into a physical confrontation. His rage and threats against this woman showed a police officer out of control.

Whatever is discovered about the cause of Ms. Bland's death in her jail cell, what is indisputable is that Encinia's misconduct put her there. The state of Texas needs to explain how such a loose cannon was ever given a badge, much less a gun, and take the appropriate steps to prevent it from happening again.

Pete Smith, Houston

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

"Video of Bland’s arrest shows escalating clash" (Wednesday Front Page) 
http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Friday-letters-Bland-case-debated-6402448.php 

Silly Global Warmers

Regarding "A ‘mini-ice age’ isn’t coming, contrary to viral headlines" (Thursday Nation A7), it appears there's nothing that Climate Changers won't do or say to support their theories, including contradict themselves.  

Take, for example, the unnamed reporter of this Washington Post article.  They refute the notion of a mini-ice age based on unusual sunspot activity, noting that the "research mentions nothing about how (Sunspots) will affect the Earth’s climate."  Then the article goes on to confidently assert that "several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."  

So, the data doesn't support the possibility that sunspot activity might cool the Earth, but it does prove that if it happens, man-made greenhouse gasses will counteract it.  

These people.

Pete Smith 

Houston, TX 

Unitended Consequences

Regarding "Judge hid behind new rules in Waco biker grand jury selection" (Sunday City & State), that's an interesting choice of words that columnist Lisa Falkenberg uses to describe the motives of judge Ralph Strother for not only appointing a Waco police officer as a grand juror to investigate the Banditos shootings, but for making him the foreman. 

 

For Falkenberg, appointing a Waco police officer to - in part - investigate the Waco police department is beyond the pale.  After all, critics of the previous selection system known as Pick-A-Pal - where judges selected from a limited pool of upright citizens - had built their entire case on the notion that corruption was inevitable unless jury selection was random, and critics such as Falkenberg were particularly incensed that cops should ever be able to investigate cops, as attested to by the many articles that she has written on the subject. 

 

But the inevitable result of singling out police departments to be isolated in this manner is that grand juries are more likely to be composed of people that are not just ignorant of policeman and police departments, but actively hostile towards them.  You also end up eliminating Subject Matter Experts, since their very expertise and associations must necessarily disqualify them.  

 

Falkenberg has little faith in civil servants, but she ought to have perhaps a little less faith in her own profession as well.  Clearly she believes that massive wrongdoing has taken place under Pick-A-Pal, but might not a reasonable person ask how this could happen when for decades, the Pick-A-Pal selection process provided reporters the same tiny pool of subjects in each jurisdiction to investigate again and again for any evidence of corruption or favoritism?  Seems to me, the closest critics could ever come was to note an appearance of impropriety based on a juror's associations.  

 

My recommendation is that - rather than comment from the sidelines - she strap on those gumshoes and investigate detective James Head, the jury foreman.  And while she's at it, she might report on how much "random" jurors picked specifically for their ignorance, innocence and gullibility are influenced - not only by sharp tongued attorneys - but a media openly hostile to policemen.

Pete Smith

15610 Cabot Creek Circle

Houston, TX 77070

832-428-0652 

Cops Aren't The Enemy, Lisa Falkenberg

Regarding "Judge hid behind new rules in Waco biker grand jury selection" (Sunday City & State), that's an interesting choice of words that columnist Lisa Falkenberg uses to describe the motives of judge Ralph Strother for not only appointing a Waco police officer as a grand juror to investigate the Banditos shootings, but for making him the foreman. 

For Falkenberg, appointing a Waco police officer to - in part - investigate the Waco police department is beyond the pale.  After all, critics of the previous selection system known as Pick-A-Pal - where judges selected from a limited pool of upright citizens - had built their entire case on the notion that corruption was inevitable unless jury selection was random, and critics such as Falkenberg were particularly incensed that cops should ever be able to investigate cops, as attested to by the many articles that she has written on the subject. 

But the inevitable result of singling out police departments to be isolated in this manner is that grand juries are more likely to be composed of people that are not just ignorant of policeman and police departments, but actively hostile towards them.  You also end up eliminating Subject Matter Experts, since their very expertise and associations must necessarily disqualify them.  

Falkenberg has little faith in civil servants, but she ought to have perhaps a little less faith in her own profession as well.  Clearly she believes that massive wrongdoing has taken place under Pick-A-Pal, but might not a reasonable person ask how could this happen when for decades, the Pick-A-Pal selection process provided reporters the same tiny pool of subjects in each jurisdiction to investigate again and again for any evidence of corruption or favoritism?  Seems to me, the closest critics could ever come was to note an appearance of impropriety based on a juror's associations.

My recommendation is that - rather than comment from the sidelines - she strap on those gumshoes and investigate detective James Head, the jury foreman.  And while she's at it, she might report on how much "random" jurors picked specifically for their ignorance, innocence and gullibility are influenced - not only by sharp tongued attorneys - but a media openly hostile to policemen.

Pete Smith
Houston, TX 

Ode To Dark Beer

A friend did a "search" of the H4 website to scrounge up my epic poem from 2009 and it occurred to me that I should be able to web search this, so I'm giving it it's own blog post.

ODE TO DARK BEER

Why oh why drink beer that's dark?

It leaves a coating on the tongue.

It tastes as if it's made from bark,

and dirt and sweat and lard and dung.

But dark beer drinkers love its savor,

swish it in their mouths, they do,

the fetid, musty, fecal flavor,

From a moldy running shoe.

So hoist a tankard of this vile,

felching, belching bitch's brew,

It must be borne of stomach bile,

shit and used tobacco chew.

The Pot Calls The Kettle Black

Regarding "Astros, Rockets sue over network losses" (Friday Sports C4), given the huge losses of the now-defunct CSN (Comcast Sports Network) it was inevitable that somebody would be suing somebody.

 

What is confusing is why the Astros and Rockets think that their partner Comcast is to blame.  Recall the original plan promoted by all of the partners: Rather than offering their broadcasts as a package that cable consumers would be free to subscribe to, CSN would have bundled the package for all Comcast customers and forced competitors like AT&T to pay a mandatory subscription fee to Comcast as high as $3.40 per household per month.  CSN even enlisted Mayor Anise Parker to strong-arm Comcast's competitors.

 

With 2.2 million television households in the Greater Houston area, this corporate welfare scheme would have grossed CSN tens of millions every year, most of it picked from the pockets of the 95% of television households that could care less about watching Astros and Rockets games on television.  Public opinion was overwhelmingly against this scheme, it died, and CSN collapsed.

 

Bottom line, the Astros and the Rockets are not victims, but willing participants in a scheme that treated the public like a cow to be milked for their profit.  If they want to see the culprits in this deal, they should look in the mirror.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE: An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Obamacare

Regarding "Doctor: This disease is entirely avoidable" (Sunday Health page K2), it was refreshing to read an article about health care that actually talked about the role personal responsibility plays in maintaining good health.  In this age of Obamacare, the narrative has overwhelmingly been about who is entitled to health insurance, and who is to pay for it, with nary a word about the things that really contribute to good health: the choices we make.

Take the epidemic of Type 2 Diabetes: Dr. Victor Simms correctly describes this disease as a self-inflicted wound on the part of its sufferers.  It is but one of many - including heart disease, liver disease and various cancers - where our lifestyle choices determine whether or not we are afflicted.

Health insurance is a piece of paper, an inanimate object.  Not only is it not a panacea, when badly implemented it actually encourages the irresponsible choices that lead to bad health.   So, compliments to the Chronicle for the entire Health section, where literally every article talked about the real sources of good health: prevention, moderation and common sense.  May there be many more editions like this one.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

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

Prevention

Regarding "Doctor: This disease is entirely avoidable" (Sunday Health page K2), it was refreshing to read an article about health care that actually talked about the role personal responsibility plays in maintaining good health.

In this age of Obamacare, the narrative has overwhelmingly been about who is entitled to health insurance and who is to pay for it, with nary a word about the things that really contribute to good health: the choices we make.

Take the epidemic of Type 2 Diabetes: Dr. Victor Simmscorrectly describes this disease as a self-inflicted wound on the part of its sufferers. It is but one of many ailments - including heart disease, liver disease and various cancers - where our lifestyle choices determine whether or not we are afflicted.

Health insurance is a piece of paper, an inanimate object. Not only is it not a panacea, when badly implemented, it actually encourages the irresponsible choices that lead to bad health.

So, compliments to the Chronicle for the entire Health section, where literally every article talked about the real sources of good health: prevention, moderation and common sense.

Pete Smith, Houston

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Wednesday-letters-Health-care-responsibility-6287596.php

The Smith Household

Selling America Down The Tubes

Regarding "Pressure builds to export oil to Mexico" (Saturday Front Page), I have many questions, the first being: why would a country that still imports almost 50% of its oil export any of it?  The second being: Why would the U.S. export oil to a country - Mexico - that itself exports 800,000 barrels of oil per day back to the US ?  The answer to these questions is that the proposed export of US crude would go to Mexican refineries, thus allowing them to increase the export of high profit products such as gasoline, mostly back to the United States.  

But what possible sense does it make to enable the export of crude to Mexican refineries so they can take business from US refineries?  Mexico's corrupt and inefficient oil sector is long overdue for reform, and the last thing it needs is a lifeline from the U.S. at the expense of U.S. businesses.

I believe the simplest explanation is likely the best: once exports are allowed to Mexico to benefit their refineries, the deal will quickly evolve to allow the bulk export of crude through Mexico to voracious overseas markets such as China, the natural end result being soaring prices for a barrel of oil and huge profits for domestic oil producers.  It would also mean the return of $4.00 per gallon gas for American consumers and the further destruction of America's manufacturing sector. 

This deal reeks on every level.  It should be rejected out of hand, and the politicians enabling it should be exposed.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

Ben Affleck: Male Douchebag

Regarding "Affleck ‘still grappling with terrible legacy’" (Thursday Celebrities, A2), actor Ben Affleck was apparently traumatized by the discovery that he had slave owning ancestors during the filming of an episode of the PBS genealogy series “Finding Your Roots”, so much so that he insisted the producers not include that information in the episode, nor ever make it public.  

Not content to leave well enough alone, when the cover-up was exposed, he went on to rationalize his involvement by offering a feeble apology that directed blame away from himself, and onto everyone else, offering some of the most precious qualifiers by a celebrity in recent memory: “I regret my initial thoughts that the issue of slavery not be included in the story. We deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors, and the degree of interest in this story suggests that we are, as a nation, still grappling with the terrible legacy of slavery.”

Except that Affleck didn't just have an "initial thought": he actively promoted a cover-up.  As to the "degree of interest in this story", it is more likely because we are, as a nation, fascinated when celebrity motormouths make hypocrites out of themselves.  Affleck is a legendary liberal scold, regularly reminding America of its shortcomings, but he did get one thing right: on the issue of slavery, we all deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors.  By saying this, I wonder if he realizes the terrible disservice he has done to his scores of friends who so enjoy getting on their high horse, and trying to convince us otherwise?

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

And Harry Reid thinks Obama can pass for white but still speak black if'n he wants to

Regarding the "Three Republican Amigos!" (Page B9, Wednesday) political cartoon, no doubt David Horsey thought it would be amusing and relevant to ridicule Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush for their ethnicity and the ethnicity of their wives and relatives.  I wonder if he stopped to consider that his ridicule is also blatantly racist?  More to the point, did Chronicle editors suffer even a twinge of doubt before publishing it?

Pete Smith
Houston, TX

Chutzpah - Houston Texan Style

Regarding "Who’ll pick up tab to get stadium ready for big game?" (Monday Front Page), it was refreshing to read of a public official finally saying no to a money grab by a professional sports organization, in this case Harris County Commissioner Steve Radack, who declared “I’m not about to vote to spend a single dollar of county money updating these luxury suites.” 

His reaction certainly reflects public sentiment, and that no doubt explains the stark difference in the way the NFL and Texans' owner Bob McNair are speaking now, as opposed to the past couple months.  In February, NFL representatives were bluntly demanding the improvements, and in March, McNair went so far as to suggest NRG Stadium might go the route of the Astrodome unless taxpayers ponied up. 

This go-round, NFL representatives are making polite suggestions, while Mr. McNair is mostly silent.  How to explain the change in tone?  I'm not sure, but it likely has something to do with the backlash from fans who recall former Oilers owner Bud Adams making similar threats regarding the Astrodome, getting similar payoffs, and leaving Houston in the lurch anyway.  Not a good role model to emulate.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

How About A Little Love For Our Astros?

Regarding "Aiken’s Tommy John operation doesn’t make club right or wrong" (Saturday Sports C9), sports writer Evan Drellich seems to go out of his way to deny the Astros any closure for the way they handled negotiations with their number one draft choice last year, pitcher Brady Aitken.

Drellich speculates endlessly about the reason that the Astros didn't sign Aitken, including the actual condition of Aitken's elbow, the outcome of his recent Tommy John surgery, what he was thinking, what his agent was thinking, what the Astros were thinking, ad infinitum.

But his mighty labors seem to have only one purpose: to deny giving the Astros any credit for their decision to reduce the signing bonus that killed the deal.  Last year before all the facts were known, this was the hot topic, and the players union and national sports press made Jim Crane and the Astros out to be bad guys for reducing their offer.  There was nary a sportswriter in Houston that defended them.  

The fact is that the Astros thought Aitken was damaged goods, events proved them to be correct, and there are 29 other MLB teams that think likewise.  It's time to give the Astros props for not just being good negotiators, but stand up guys.

It's also time for Houston sportswriters to unclutter their narrative and say that.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

LTE chron.com: Internet Control

Regarding "Challenges loom over rules for net neutrality" (Friday Business), with this effort by the Obama administration to take over the Internet by declaring it a public utility, one must ask: is there any limit on the ambitions of the Democrats to regulate everything?  The answer, I believe in this case, is yes.  Unlike, say, America's health care system, the Internet is a transnational colossus that inconveniently spills far beyond America's borders, much less its influence.

I'm looking forward to the first attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to dictate to China precisely how much bandwidth will be allocated by one of its providers to American consumers, or by an American provider to Chinese consumers, much less the hundreds of other sovereign nations that currently host the Internet.  

Our bureaucrats are way overdue for some comeuppance.  This will be it.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

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

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1424518256957440211#editor/target=post;postID=1742354614805871550

Internet control

Regarding "Challenges loom over rules for net neutrality" (Page D1, Friday), with this effort by the Obama administration to take over the Internet by declaring it a public utility, one must ask: Is there any limit on the ambitions of the Democrats to regulate everything? The answer, I believe in this case, is: Yes. Unlike, say, America's health care system, the Internet is a transnational colossus that inconveniently spills far beyond America's borders, much less its influence.

I'm looking forward to the first attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to dictate to China precisely how much bandwidth will be allocated by one of its providers to U.S. consumers, or by an American provider to Chinese consumers, much less the hundreds of other sovereign nations that currently host the Internet. Our bureaucrats are way overdue for some comeuppance. This will be it.

Pete Smith, Houston

Dr. Tim and Bjork

Regarding "He mind-melds with Björk" (Sunday pg G3), at first I couldn't decide if the article was parody or not.  After all, a story about a self-absorbed university professor communing with the the biggest flake in pop music so as to achieve a higher state of consciousness just cries out for parody.

Take the opening sentence: "The first time I met Rice University professor Timothy Morton, we were in a party of 50 or so, consuming blue-green algae water and sardine skeleton chips during artist Marina Zurkow’s conceptual dinner “Outside the Work: A Tasting of Hydrocarbons and Geologic Time.”"

Is there anything about this passage that is not precious?  Without reading further, all I wanted to do was bundle writer Molly Glentzer, Dr. Tim, Bjork and as many conceptual dinner throwers as could fit into my seaweed-fueled Volkswagen micro bus for a trip to either a hermetically sealed bubble where they could sustain the vibe indefinitely, or directly onto the "Further", Ken Kesey's bus of slightly larger dimensions so that they, Ken and the Merry Pranksters could expand the Eco-Babble vocabulary, courtesy of the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

Decisions, decisions.

In the end, I decided to simply flog my way through the rest of the article, and it was some tough sledding.  Professor Tim - holder of the Rita Shea Guffey Chair in English at Rice University - turned out be nothing but an existential celebrity Fan Boy, and a near-incoherent one at that, leaving one to wonder exactly what Rita Shea Guffey could possibly have been thinking.  The rest of the article was a melange of references to hip parties and obscure concepts that none of us will ever be invited to or take the time to Google.  

I began to despair as to whether Molly Glentzer would be able to tie it all together, when towards the end she told the story of Dr. Tim complimenting Bjork over some aspect of the show, and Bjork's reply: “Yeah, it’s a bit ‘Thousand Plateaus,’ isn’t it?”  Dr. Tim's mind was blown by Bjork's ability to reference an obscure "philosophy concept from the 1970s".  Mine was blown by the fact that a university professor could transform himself so completely from a respected academic to a gushing teenage girl, and still call it scholarship.

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

It's A Clear-cut Case Of Open & Shut

Regarding: "Report: UT chief broke no rules" (Friday Front Page), I can only say: what nonsense.  The report - commissioned by regents to determine whether University of Texas president Bill Powers peddled college admissions to alumni and politicians for donations and political favors - is so fraught with contradictions, rationalizations and tortured conclusions as to be laughable.  

 

The Kroll consulting firm admits that under Powers "up to 300 applicants per year" that otherwise would not qualify for admission were given special consideration, "mostly at the request of legislators or regents", but excuses the behavior by concluding that "colleges and universities across the country must weigh and balance competing factors, which sometimes include relationships with donors, legislators and others.”  

The report also states that Powers and his chief of staff, Nancy Brazzil "misled the inquiry", and "failed to speak with the candor and forthrightness expected of people in their respective positions of trust and leadership".  All that aside, the Kroll report grandly concludes that Powers "broke no rules."  And yet, as the article points out, "Texas law prohibits legacy admissions".  

President Powers can "weigh and balance" until the cows come home; it doesn't change the fact that if he granted even one favor, he broke the law.  As to his prevarications, his actions by any other name are perjury.  Luckily for Powers, this investigation was not a legal proceeding, but that is a technicality that should give him no comfort.

Ironically, the Kroll report - so obsessed with excusing Powers' behavior - provides all the justification needed for a formal criminal investigation.  It also exonerates regent Wallace Hall, the whistle-blower who brought Powers' wrong-doing to light, and the attempts by establishment goons to criminalize Hall's activities on behalf of Texas should themselves be the subject of the same investigation. 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

The Green Thing

Classic from  the Internet:

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.  The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

The older lady said that she was right -- our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain:
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then.
We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.

Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a r azor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the"green thing." We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Dear Democrats: Volume 3

Dear Democrat Party: Well, it's been another four days, and once again I am obliged to respond to the continuing flood of awesome personalized e-mails that you send to me.  So once again, I figured I would catch up with you all at once.  Here goes:

Dear DNC HQ: You say this is the "Last Call" to meet POTUS, but I feel like you are playing with me.  Relationships are built on trust, DNC HQ, even those between regular folks like me, and inanimate objects like buildings.  I've half a mind to call Barack personally.

Dear Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Every time you write, I feel like I am ready to take our relationship to the next level, but what do you do?  You talk politics.  Yes, I'm excited to hear that the Dems have picked Philadelphia for the convention, but relationships require a little intimacy.  I need you to try harder, DWS.

Dear Barack: Thanks very much for the personal invite!  I look forward to the opportunity for you to thank me in person, particularly after all of the advice I've provided you over the years, but how will I get to DC?  Flights to DC don't grow on trees.

Dear DNC HQ: Do I know you or what?  Must say I'm a little disappointed you didn't offer me the flight last time, and I'm sorry I had to drag POTUS into this.  Please set me up First Class with just a carry-on; next Thursday is open.

Dear Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You know what you can do for me you temptress, and it's not setting up a flight.  Already got that taken care of.  I'm in town next Thursday to meet with Barack.  Clear your calendar.

Dear DNC HQ: Now we're talking.  Please book me into the Watergate; I'm big on irony, ha ha! Also, since you're springing for the hotel, change my airplane reservation to include checked baggage.  Looks like this is the time DWS and I are finally going to get it on.

Dear DNC War Room: "War Room" is a little intense, don't you think?  Not exactly a politically correct term for the Party obsessed with political correctness.  As to the Impeachment talk you flog all the time, 'fess up: that's more than just a little wishful thinking now, isn't it?

Dear Emily Gottschalk-Marconi: The only thing sexier than a Democrat woman with plaited hair from the Queens is a Democrat woman rocking the Axis Powers with a hyphen.  You and I need to get to know each other better.  I would dump DWS in a minute if you cursed at me in Italian mit a German accent.

Dear Joe: You are so forceful and decisive in this e-mail.  What happened to the eternally Goofy equivocator we have come to know and love?

Dear Lawrence: Don't even bother showing me Al Franken in a video unless it's a German Scheisse with Jon Stewart.  Will also settle for him getting Punked, literally.

Dear Eric and Meg: Lists, cards, membership: It all sounds very tempting, but if I did join the Democrat Party, what next?  Would you still write?  Would you still fill me Inbox with strident messages?  See, you Democrats have commitment issues; don't deny it, just ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once again a no-show.  So disappointing.

LTE: Tip Creep On The Move

Regarding "As payment options rise, so does tip creep" (Sunday Nation), many thanks for this timely article.  May it be the first of many to shine a much needed spotlight on an Entitlement culture that is so out of control that it is now fashionable to not only impose on the legendary good will and generosity of the American people, but to be obnoxious about it to boot. 

Given that culture, it is no surprise that we are overwhelmed with demands for tips at every turn, nor that technology is being employed to get ever deeper in our pockets.  It is also completely not a surprise that coffee shops would lead the charge in making a tip up to 100% of the price of the product the norm.  These are the places, after all, that take fifteen cents worth of ingredients, heat them up, and then increase the price twenty fold.  The folks that run these places who are promoting Tip Creep clearly failed their Ethics class in high school, or more likely never had one in the first place.  

As for Tippers, a bit of advice: If you walk up to a counter and stand in line, there is no need to tip, ever.  Tipping a Barista makes as much sense as tipping the cashier at your local hardware store.  If you sit down at a table and people actually serve you, it is OK, but not mandatory to tip, in whatever amount you want.  

This is a war that must be won, and the only way we as consumers bring the Tip Creeps to their knees is by using the same tactics they use.  If an establishment is rude enough to demand a tip or to insist on a certain rate, ask them to explain exactly what service was provided that deserves a tip?  If the answer is not satisfactory, ask to speak to a manager and insist on an explanation.   

Tip Creep is all about merchants lining their own pockets, period, so if the restaurant or establishment serving you doesn't like your tipping practices, take your business - and your money - to a place that does.  

Pete Smith

Houston, TX

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

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Saturday-letters-Tip-creep-on-the-move-6067418.php

Gratuities

Regarding "As payment options rise, so does tip creep" (Page A18, Feb. 1), many thanks for this timely article. May it be the first of many to shine a much-needed spotlight on an entitlement culture that is so out of control that it is now fashionable to not only impose on the good will and generosity of the American people, but to be obnoxious about it, to boot.

Given that culture, it is no surprise that we are overwhelmed with demands for tips at every turn, nor that technology is being deployed to get ever deeper in our pockets. It is also completely not a surprise that coffee shops would lead the charge in making a tip up to 100 percent of the price of the product the norm. These are the places, after all, that take 15 cents' worth of ingredients, heat them up and then increase the price 20-fold.

As for tippers, a bit of advice: If you walk up to a counter and stand in line, there is no need to tip, ever. Tipping a barista makes as much sense as tipping the cashier at your local hardware store. If you sit down at a table and people actually serve you, it is OK, but not mandatory to tip, in whatever amount you want.

The only way we as consumers bring the Tip Creeps to their knees is by using the same tactics they use. If an establishment is rude enough to demand a tip or to insist on a certain rate, ask them to explain exactly what service was provided that deserves a tip. If the answer is not satisfactory, ask to speak to a manager and insist on an explanation.

Tip Creep is all about merchants lining their own pockets, period, so if the restaurant or establishment serving you doesn't like your tipping practices, take your business - and your money - to a place that does.

Pete Smith, Houston

Dear Democrats - Volume Two

Dear Democrat Party: What can I say?  I have been remiss lo this past four days, but it has been a crazy week and I just have not had the time to respond to the continuing flood of awesome personalized e-mails that you send to me.  So, to save time, I figured I would catch up with you all at once.  Here goes:

Dear Debbie Wasserman Schultz: I hope you are just kidding me about the Last Call thing after all we've meant to each other.  On a related note, don't you listen to those naysayers about your hair.  I think it's fine.

Dear DNC Membership: To Be Or Not To Be A Card Carrying Democrat.  It's a tempting, but I'm waiting for a better offer, preferably from a certified Hottie of the Democrat Party.

Dear Debbie: Bam.  You had me at "Pete".  I'm in.

Dear Barack: You are welcome, assuming you're talking about all the constructive criticism I have directed your way these past six years.  And that rogue drone on the White House lawn?  Not me.

Dear Joe: You are welcome too.  Please tell me you're not going anywhere, and that your health is good.  The Party would not be the same without you, and I mean that.

Dear Barack: Enough with the thanks already.  When I say that I could have done more, I'm really not kidding.

Dear DNC HQ: Loath as I generally am to dialogue with buildings and other non-corporeal entities, I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that you can definitely count on me, and that I will definitely vote.  Not entirely sure you'll be happy with the outcome, but hey.

Dear ScarJo: Forgive the familiarity, but I feel as if we've connected on some deeper level, particularly since you starred in "Lucy".  I am here to tell you that there is nothing wrong with a SciFi movie that showcases your breasts, and truth be told, they were a welcome distraction from the movie, which was one Hot Mess.

Dear Joan Jett: I share your outrage, whoever the Hell "they" are.  By the way, you peaked with The Runaways.

Dear Amy: Easy Girl!  Yes, the Repubs are blocking a minimum wage increase, but frankly, you ought to be setting your sights higher.

Dear DNC HQ: Don't take it personally.  The last time I contributed you promised me an all expenses paid trip to the White House, one night in the Lincoln Bedroom, and some alone time with Michelle.  You did not come through, so you'll forgive me for being a little stingy this last election cycle.

Dear Mark: One man's beautiful dream is another man's nightmare.  For instance, "Foxcatcher" has grossed $11 Million since Thanksgiving, and you took your salary in points.  That has got to sting. Anyway, while I am generally loath to offer advice to strangers, before you next get all squishy about MoveOn.Org, you might be interested to know that it was created solely as a means to distract attention from the numerous women sexually abused by Bill Clinton.

Thus the whole "Move On" thing.