kylejack

Honestly, it seems like a pretty bad idea to run a trail down a median.

I am not arguing with you regarding the new ordinance, I didn't even mention the new ordinance.

I don't think [the noise ordinance] is draconian at all. Noise pollution is out of control. If anything it needs to be enforced more, and the fines should go up after numerous occurrences.

Leviticus 19:28:

“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."

But then, Leviticus has a lot of ridiculous religious commands that Christians don't follow today.

Today, the light rail was free because it's black heritage day. How are riders counted that don't pay?

"Bus

Boardings are recorded by automatic passenger counters (APCs) and passenger count cards. METRO has equipped 100% of its fixed-route bus fleet with automatic

passenger counters. The raw data are adjusted for missing data and APC under counting as approved in METRO's NTD alternative sampling methodology. Additionally,

there are several routes for which passenger count cards are used due to the absence of APC equipment in the vehicle (Route 352 Swingle), multiple fares on the same

route (Route 236 Baytown and 244 Monroe), and recording of non-riders (Route 500 Airport Direct, which uses concierge staff to assist with boarding and alighting).

Rail

Boardings are recorded by automatic passenger counters (APCs). METRO has equipped 100% of its fixed-route rail fleet with automatic passenger counters.

The raw data are adjusted for missing data and APC under counting for Special Events as approved in METRO's NTD methodology."

-Metro ridership reports

I'd like to abolish special privileges for the married as well, but in the meanwhile, ending the discrimination will have to suffice.

Rodeo will also boost ridership. It's really quite funny to me to see the train at night, chock full of Cowboys & Cowgirls. It looks like they've been corralled in there. I might just hop on there one evening, just for kicks.

Indeed. This was Saturday.

Personally, I am a social liberal, but a very fiscal conservative....I have no problem whatsoever with gay people wanting equal rights, and having them. However, I do understand the argument made by the "religious right" that gay people should not be allowed to marry....My understanding of the religious objection to gay people marrying is that marriage is considered an extension of the church - that is, that without the church there would be no such thing as marriage.

It has a long history of being a legal and political institution, as well as religious. People would marry to sign a treaty, acquire new land, etc.

However if gay people want to force a church or other religious institution to treat them the same as heterosexuals then I do object to that. I do not think anyone's beliefs should be forced onto another. If the catholic church wants to say that they refuse to marry gay people, they have that right....gay people are welcome to "marry" somewhere else. A church should not be forced to accept another's belief system.

Nobody is going to force the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals. Is the Catholic Church forced to marry Jews or Protestants? No. They marry whoever they want, and giving homosexuals a legal right to marry doesn't force any particular church to hold the ceremony.

Having ridden the rail for several years, it definitely goes way up when gas climbs toward $4.

Justice for one person is injustice for another. Just becuase you believe it's justice for gays to marry or for people to commit abortion doesn't mean it's the right way.

I haven't stated a position on abortion, and of course it's just to extend the right of marriage to all people.

I am not arguing with you regarding the new ordinance, I didn't even mention the new ordinance.

Sure you did. Someone recommended that you use the draconian ordinance (which was recently passed). You said it wasn't draconian.

We had that, it never worked, because very few police officers had the equipment to read it, and even when they did it wasn't calibrated correctly, or so it could be contested in a court of law. If you can hear the noise from inside your home and so can a police officer, then the noise is too loud.

That is not the standard in the new ordinance. Your house has walls, and the new standard relates to noise that can be heard from the sidewalk outside the venue.

If the person who has the loud noise refuses to turn it down, then yes, they should be fined. Everyone is entitled to a peaceful home. Sorry if that offends anyone, just the way I see it.

That is not the nature of the new ordinance. They can be fined (and arrested) regardless of whether they refuse to turn it down.

I don't think it is draconian at all. Noise pollution is out of control. If anything it needs to be enforced more, and the fines should go up after numerous occurrences.

You don't think it is draconian to have a noise ordinance which is not based on any objective decibel standard? How is that fair?

Well, I guess you and I just have different opinions about the appearance of Tranquility. I like the water features and the bridges over them. I love the walls around part of the perimeter. I love that it's visible from across the street at the Hobby Center. I love the continuous park space it creates with Hermann Square (Great for festivals, such as the Bayou City Art Festival). I love that a scene from Reality Bites was filmed there.

Nothing stops me from using those other parks, and when they are appropriate for my purpose, I do. I do agree, though, that it's time to get rid of the Spirit of the Confederacy statue in Sam Houston Park.

Yes, only the people running city hall get to decide.

Well, I like it as well, and make at least monthly use of it.

I believe we can thank gas prices.

Yes.

I think Tranquility is likely to stay much the same. I'm sure that the people running City Hall and the federal detention center across the street like the enhanced visibility a park provides.

So is the first one.

No, homosexuals are literally being killed for being gay in many parts of the world.

Either way, even if it's not being said, it's implied. Even so, by using the term "equal rights", you implied that anyone who opposes that is anti-rights, which would fall into the second category.

If people are against equal rights for homosexuals, they're a problem.

It is hard to have any middle ground on these types of these things.

Anything less than granting equal rights to homosexuals is not "middle ground." There can be no compromise between injustice and justice. It's wrong that a gay person cannot marry the person they love. Wrong.

I once suggested at a forum that abortion should probably be legal, but without government funding. I was surprised (then) at the flak I got for that.

That issue has nothing to do with gay rights.

They did another recently: http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/02-14-12-movie-magic-finally-returns-to-the-majestic-metro-an-exclusive-tour-of-the-downtown-movie-theater-treasure/

On an aside, have I ever said how I wish there was a larger middle ground between the extremist "Homosexuals are evil and must be destroyed" and equally extremist "Homosexuals are good and if you disagree with anything about them you're a hateful bigot"?

Well, the latter is a strawman as I don't know of anyone who has ever said that. I'm sure homosexuals don't really care too much what bigots think of them personally once they're given their equal rights.

It is the fact that the police jump when the media tells them to....its not like we have a string of burglaries or arsons here. This is a fender bender and failure to leave his contact information. This is one of the most unimportant things the police could be dealing with....a single officer could have given a report. Not every hit and run is prosecuted, even when they know who it was....Why is the bouncer so intent on prosecution?

He isn't. He got his check and is no longer pushing for charges to be filed. As to the detectives assigned, internal affairs detectives don't investigate arsons or robberies, they investigate when things don't seem to be working right in the police department.

Is he really that mad or could it be the bouncer has an agenda as well?

His agenda is he has $1800 of damage that came out of his own pocket and he wanted his money back.

I think if he got in the wreck then he should be treated the same as anyone else. The media is out of control on the topic, and the knee jerk reaction of the police force is to assign eight new police officers/detectives to investigate this class B misdemeanor so the media stops running stories about him getting special treatment...what happened - now he is getting special treatment, but not the type he wants, obviously.

Having more detectives investigate your case is not some crime against humanity. They're just fact-finders. Michael Berry is not being abused because more people are assigned to the case now. They're simply trying to get to the bottom of what happened that night, and during the investigation. I have been very impressed with HPD accountability under Annise Parker and Chief McClelland. When there is police misconduct, they've opened investigations and got to the bottom of what happened and tried to make it right. There was the Chad Holley beating incident, the instance of HPD officers covering their nametags with tape at an Occupy protest, and various other things.

Police officers seemed to be brushing this under the rug, so Chief McClelland wants to know what is going on. That's why he opened the internal affairs investigation (that and the media attention).

If this were not MB, its likely the cops would have done exactly the same thing - not pursue it - and nothing more would ever have come from it...the bouncer was free to call his insurance company and tell them he knew exactly who hit him...

You aren't clear on the facts of the case. He knew what the person looked like and had the license plate from the car. He waited six days to call the police. Perhaps he was hoping the person who hit him would come back and make it right. It probably never would have hit media, in that case. He didn't know the person's name was Michael Berry. The police ran the plate and showed him a picture of Michael Berry, at which time he confirmed that it was the guy.

he did not - probably because he wanted attention, and also because he was angry and saw an opportunity to trounce someone whose political views he probably disagrees with.

Michael Berry allegedly hit his car, ran, and never returned to make it right. Why are you calling the victim of a crime an attention whore for reporting a crime against him to the police?! He didn't call the media until the police started dragging their feet in the investigation.

The investigation was expanded because it was looking like some officers were about to close the case with no charges. If Berry left the scene after an accident with the owner present, he committed a Class B Misdemeanor. The proper remedy for the hypocrisy you're claiming is to charge Berry and to also charge this drunk who was all over the road, not to charge neither.

I'm just saying that we don't yet know what other charges they might come up with. Early in the investigation, police inspected his car and found damage. Then it looked like he was headed toward not being charged with anything. Was it a coordinated coverup, or did Berry just lie to investigators about the damage? There's plenty of potential here.

Though of course, IANAL.

We know he had a beer - you can see that on the video.

At least two beers at T.C.'s.

But that does not matter. You can not prove that he was intoxicated, therefore the only CRIMINAL charge pending will be the hit and run. There is zero ability to prove that he was intoxicated at this point in time.

Which might be precisely the purpose of his hit and run. Or maybe he was worried people would find out he went to a gay bar. Who knows.

To my knowledge there is no video of the accident or the backwards driving, or the circling the block, all of that is just a witness statement, from the person whose car was hit.

Well excuse me for giving more credibility to the eyewitness story than the story of the man who ran. And in fact, he hasn't even told his story yet, so we have nothing to weigh the eyewitness statement against.

I'm not saying he was not three sheets to the wind drunk, but since that is impossible to prove at this point in time, all this "investigation" can come up with charge wise is a hit and run.

If you're not running the investigation, how would you know what charges they can come up with? You haven't taken the statements and wouldn't know how much evidence they can find that he was drunk.