Want to get rid of ads in daily Grits email?

So, it has come to my attention that the number of ads on the free service I've used for Grits subscribers for more than a decade has become intolerable, or at least annoying, to some long-time subscribers. For the number of people on the list, the service would charge $320 per year to get rid of them all.

If you're a Grits subscriber and want those ads to go away, use the donation link in the sidebar to contribute toward that goal. If we hit $320 in some reasonable period of time following this request, I'll switch it over. (Any excess, as always, will go toward this blog's ongoing newspaper subscription expenses.)

And if you're somebody who dropped off the list because you didn't like the ads, maybe we can rectify that in the near future. Even faster if you donate! As always, the form to sign up for Grits' daily email of the prior days' headlines is in the right-hand column, just below the link to writer bios.

Thanks folks! And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

See mo Grits, hear mo Grits: Two speaking gigs this week

The Lord blessed your correspondent with a face made for radio and a voice made for print, Grits has often observed (the missus once ruefully added, "and opinions best reserved for solitary reflection"). But apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea I should speak in public and, as fate would have it, Grits has a couple of speaking gigs this week in Austin about which I thought I'd make readers aware:

On Wednesday at the Deadliners Club, a local journalist's gathering, I'll be on an hour-long discussion (7pm - 8pm) on journalism and activism at Rio Rita on 12th and Chicon. Abby Rapaport is moderating, with Forrest Wilder and Jessica Luther also weighing in. The panel will focus on distinctions between opinion, news, and fake news. Grits hasn't practiced professional journalism in a quarter century, but I was apparently invited to expound/defend portions of Grits' Ten Maxims for Making Journalism Relevant in the 21st Century, which I'm always pleased to do.

On Friday morning, first thing, your correspondent will be on a panel about misdemeanor arrestees that Rebecca Bernhardt mentioned earlier at the UT Law School, sponsored by the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights.

Both are free but registration is required for the UT event. I'm looking forward to them. These are both among Grits' favorite topics.

On white people's role in addressing race and police violence

A Dallas Morning News staff editorial last week touted blogger Awesomely Luvvie's platitudinous clickbait suggestions for what white people should do to address racism and police brutality in America. Part of her post I very much agreed with, but not particularly the parts they quoted. For example:

White people, I’m talking to you. THIS. IS. YOUR. PROBLEM. TO. FIX. Y’all got some work to do, because this system that y’all keep on privileging from, you’ve got to help us dismantle it. Because those of us who are Black and Brown. We have tried. You created this robot, and it is yours to deactivate. My skinfolk don’t have the passcode. This is your monster to slay.

Bingo! That's exactly right. We can't expect poor, disenfranchised people, the formerly incarcerated, the victims of systemic discrimination, to by themselves overturn a system based on discrimination against them unless we expect it to be done through violent revolution, a prospect which seems as unwise as its success seems unlikely.

This stuff only changes if white folks pitch in and do some heavy lifting, which is why I couldn't disagree more with the DMN's very first suggestion, paraphrasing Ms. Luvvie: "Hear how black people feel and do not debate it."

Really? Just, white people shut up?  How's that going to help, given that the only white folks who will comply with that demand are allies, not critics? It's certainly not reflective of a dialogue. And in fairness, that overstates what the blogger said by omitting the preceding sentence: "Take some time to listen to what Black people are saying. Hear how we feel, and do not debate it." She's not saying never engage in conversation, just that white folks should listen and think for "some time" before speaking. Another item references moments "When you don’t have the words to speak up," but that implies speaking up may still be appropriate when the words arrive.

Regardless, this suggestion brings to mind three contrarian thoughts. First, as far as I'm concerned, the most respectful sort of listening is active listening which engages the discussion as a participant. People generally don't learn as much from lectures by others as we do from conversations with them.

Second, if I'm being asked not to debate your "feelings," that's one thing. You're after all entitled to them. If you're sad, I can't convince you you're happy and it'd be pointless to try. But if your feelings stray into the public policy realm - for instance, on the question of "what's the best way to reduce police violence against unarmed citizens?" - what you say rightly may be debated, regardless of one's feelings. That's supposedly how the democratic system ferrets out error, which Thomas Jefferson said may be tolerated because reason remains free to combat it. Anyway, since when do newspapers call for less debate?!

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the main thing the blogger wants white people to hear about is black folks' fear: "Because there is a trauma that goes from your head to your toes that cannot be explained but it is there. We carry it with us everyday. The way our heart quickens when we see a cop, even if they’re just walking by us. The way it feels when we watch our men and boys leave the house, unsure of whether they will walk through that door at the end of the day."

I'm willing to listen to fearful folks but that doesn't mean their requests must be honored until their fears are resolved, just as a police officer's fears at a traffic stop can't be completely determinative. Indeed, it was crime victims' fear, including black crime victims, which drove mass incarceration, the drug war, militarization of police, and all of the tuff-on-crime policies the Black Lives Matter movement today decries. Grits sees few prospects for a long-term, stable outcome on these questions if the public is only ever offered competing fear-based ideologies with so little room for compromise, especially when they're presented as things which cannot be debated.

Yes, these are difficult problems. But they're not insoluble. And they're not so painful they cannot be discussed nor debated. In the end, to find solutions will require everyone involved to face their fears, not just reflexively seek to enshrine them into statute.

Vicissitudes: Leaving IPOT

Well, I suppose Grits must rip off the band aid: Your correspondent submitted his resignation as Executive Director of the Innocence Project of Texas recently and will leave the organization at the end of the month.

People all around the Texas criminal justice system have been incredibly kind and supportive in the short time I held the job, but things didn't work out.

Bottom line: This wasn't a good fit and I wasn't happy. C'est la vie. Grits' life will improve as a result.

No telling where I'll land yet but I'm looking forward, not back. Thanks for your support, folks. Grits isn't going anywhere. I was at all this reform work for a decade before anybody paid me a dime. It'll take more than an abrupt bout of unemployment to roust this particular hobo off of this particular train.

Subscribe to Grits on your phone

More than 1,800 readers already subscribe to Grits' daily email of headlines via the signup form in the right column. My service just created the ability to subscribe on your phone. Text 79553 to 781.262.3877 to get a link to a sign-up form.

Grits needs to memorize that number, it'll be useful at speaking events or just whenever folks ask how to sign up; people can pull out their phone and send a text right then.

Grits' obligatory ten-year anniversary post: Why are we here?

Today is the tenth anniversary of the first blog post on Grits for Breakfast, which itself subsumed a website on similar themes (hand-coded in HTML) that I'd operated since 1997. From Oct. 6, 2004 until now, Grits has published 7,975 blog posts which garnered 4.9 million visitors, 7.7 million page views and hosted upwards of 89,600 comments. More than 1,700 of you receive a daily email with links to the previous day's headlines (and if you don't, you can sign up in the right-hand column). So first things first, thanks for reading.

That said, at this milestone I should iterate exactly what this blog is and why I do it. In truth, Grits for Breakfast isn't really here for your benefit but mine. or it wouldn't still exist. Moreover, it would almost certainly exist whether it gets 2,000 readers per day or 20.

This blog serves two purposes for me as an advocate that justify maintaining it and neither of them involve maximizing readership or public-education goals. Instead, I use the blog as a clip file and a platform for developing and honing arguments for later use in policy making settings.

The clip file aspect was a life changer: Ten years ago, the office I'm writing in was lined with four-drawer filing cabinets filled with years' worth of clip files and stacks of newspapers waiting to be recycled. Today, my newspaper subscriptions are all online, reimbursed by this blog's contributors (thanks for that, btw). But every morning throughout the '90s and through the turn of the century I'd get up and retrieve four or more newspapers from the driveway, clipping out articles relevant to the issues I was working on (criminal-justice or otherwise), pasting them onto a piece of paper and scrawling a few notes by hand about what I thought was important to remind me why I'd saved that particular article.

Many blog posts on Grits are little more than went into the clip file - a link, footnote-able citation, an excerpt of money quotes from an article that may not be on the web a year later when I need it, and a few sentences saying why I think it's important, or in some cases, erroneous, linking to related information. I've eliminated four filing cabinets from my office (down to one) and using Google's Blogger software (though I've taken some techie crap for it) makes the platform and long-term storage free. As an added benefit, making my clip file public gives others who work on the issues access to the same resource. If I find it useful, the theory goes, others working on the topic will as well.

The other main use for the blog is developing, vetting, and promoting arguments surrounding criminal justice policy debates, whether aimed at legislative or other settings. Some blog posts amount to the equivalent of a letter to the editor or a constituent letter. I'll voice an opinion in a post then email the link to as many of the involved parties whose addresses I have access: politicians, their staff, agency folk, advocates, the reporter covering a story, whoever are the principals. Or, sometimes opinion leaders help out by passing the link around for me.

Such content may differ little from other letters pols or media types receive, but in their mind's eye they can't help wonder who else is reading it on the blog and its public nature gives the words just a bit more oomph. Plus, commenters help to develop, refine or even refute arguments, at their best serving as sort of an ad hoc focus group. That's one of the reasons over the years that I've become more of a stickler about deleting off-topic comments - they're simply not useful to me for the narrow purposes that motivate this blog. Oppositional comments, by contrast, are incredibly useful and Grits considers pointing out flaws or blind spots in my arguments a mitzvah. Better to confront a strong argument for the first time in a blog comment than later in front of a legislative panel.

To the extent readers find Grits informative, interesting, etc., that's an ancillary benefit. I'm glad you do and it's a happy coincidence that a medium which solved some of my own information gathering and processing needs is helpful to others as well. I'll continue to do it as long as I find it useful and, on the day it isn't, I'll quit.

In the meantime, thanks for stopping by.

Houston Chronicle: 'Too many troubling moments' on DA training video

The Houston Chronicle's editorial board opined today on the training video from the Harris County DA's office recently posted online by GOP blogger Big Jolly (see here and here, and prior Grits coverage). According to the paper:

Texas is now at the forefront of criminal justice reforms, all without sacrificing a tough-on-crime attitude. But the video of the district attorney's ethics training course, acquired by conservative political blog Big Jolly Politics, portrays an office that mocks this important progress, instead embracing an us vs. them mentality.

The hour-and-a-half video, available on YouTube, contains far too many troubling moments to be dismissed as an out-of-context fluke.

The most striking examples are when Anderson and Rob Kepple, the ethics trainer from the Texas District County Attorneys Association, treat the Innocence Project as if it is their enemy rather than a partner in criminal justice. Kepple even brags about "slamming" the group and defends prosecutors who fought against DNA testing. Kepple also mocks efforts to reduce the often budget-busting expense of our criminal justice system.

Read the rest. Kudos to Big Jolly for exposing the video and making it available for all to see. Clearly he wasn't the only one troubled by what he heard. Houston attorneys Paul Kennedy and Murray Newman have offered diametrically opposed views on the video in question. Newman, a former prosecutor, was a strong supporter of just-elected Harris DA Mike Anderson; Kennedy, who said the session reminded him of a "cult," obviously not so much.

TDCJ flak allegedly faced retaliation for treating blogger as 'media'

According to the Back Gate, a prison-guard run website, Michelle Lyons, the long-time chief flak at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's public relations department, has "resigned after enduring retaliation and harassment by agency officials for several months." (She's been unenviably replaced, says TDCJ's website, by understudy Jason Clark.) The Back Gate reported that:

Michelle emailed us this statement [yesterday] morning;

"When I received the email from Duane [Stuart, a Back Gate blogger] on Friday and when I responded to him and everyone who he had originally copied on the message [ed. note: including state Sen. John Whitmire's office], it set in motion a chain of events. Within a couple of hours, my email account was 'frozen' and I was told I was under investigation. Before I was charged with failing to obey an order, I was told that I should not have responded to Duane because he is considered media. At this point, I would note that some time ago, I was tracking down an answer to a question Duane had asked me and I went to Mr. [TDCJ Deputy Executive Director Bryan] Collier. He asked why I was responding to Duane since "he's not media." It's interesting to me that he wasn't 'media' several months ago, but now he is? At the time, I said that while Duane may not meet the definition of media in TDCJ's own media policy, that he is a TDCJ employee and member of the public and that I respond to as many inquiries I can from the public in addition to those I receive from the media. That's exactly what  I did on Friday. I view it as responding to a message from a colleague about possible federal labor law and privacy violations and including on it my union representative and two state lawmakers. Why is that an issue?"

Michelle went on to say;

"I know that what I've gone through these last six months is similar to what so many other TDCJ employees have had to endure during their own tenures with the agency. I just really didn't understand until it happened to me. I'll never know exactly what initiated the discriminatory measures they took against me with my demotion and pay cut, but I can pinpoint that the retaliation began as soon as I questioned the way TDCJ requires employees to track their time and how they appear to be circumventing federal labor laws through some policies (although an agency policy obviously shouldn't trump federal law). Within two weeks, Mr. Collier told me 'I should have just fired you,' and it only escalated from there."

Fascinating! Certainly Lyons doesn't deserve to face retaliation over responding to legislators cc'd on an email from a blogger requesting information, if that's really the proximate cause. Whoever has her (former) job must play a dicey balancing game between a variety of competing, powerful interests, and I completely understand why - when they've already been told of the issue by Stuart - she'd see fit to let legislators see sensitive information from her first before it appeared on The Back Gate. Hell, that's PR 101.

Grits finds the institutional attitude toward blogs described in these excerpts quite telling, if regrettable, confirming a dismissive attitude I've sensed in the past. Bryan Collier doesn't consider blogs "media" so Lyons must couch her actions as "responding to a message from a colleague about possible federal labor law and privacy violations and including on it my union representative and two state lawmakers." IMO, though, she needn't contort in such a manner to justify what she did. The definition of "media" has changed in the last decade and The Back Gate surely qualifies. After all, they broke this story.

See more detail and Stuart's commentary at The Back Gate.

New (to me) blogs on criminal justice topics

Grits wanted to point readers to a couple of sites on Texas criminal justice subjects I learned about this week:

• EmPac Texas: Texans for Responsible Government has a number of reform-oriented articles centered in particular around Houston PD.
• Texas Criminal Slip Opinions is a new blog by Court of Criminal Appeals candidate Mark Bennett summarizing Texas criminal law appellate opinions.

Enjoy.

Galveston DA drops politicized prosecution against blogger

The District Attorney in Galveston has dropped online bullying charges after a local blogger was arrested at his home last week for online criticisms of a city council candidate's spouse. This wasn't a spur of the moment charging error but a big, fat public flip flop on a politicized prosecution. "Clear Lake Shores interim police Chief Kenneth Cook said his office worked with the district attorney before charges were filed," reported the Galveston Daily News.

Please take Grits reader survey

Grits is considering a number of possible changes to the blog about which I'd like readers' input, so I sent out a note today to Grits email subscribers asking them to fill out a short reader survey, and thought I'd post the request here as well:

Dear Grits reader,

First, thank you for subscribing to Grits for Breakfast, and I hope you find the content useful. Please take a moment to fill out this reader survey in order to help me make the blog even more useful and interesting to you.

With the justice system ballooning and the number of mainstream reporters declining, there's more and more ground to cover on the issue areas Grits writes about, and fewer people than ever devoted to the task. Key agency boards and legislative committees too often meet in virtual secrecy, as far as the public is concerned, simply because no one shows up to report what they are doing.

I am considering taking this hobby to the next level by devoting myself to performing more actual, ground-level journalism on Grits for Breakfast (as opposed to mainly commenting on stories written by others). But before proceeding, I need to better understand your needs, and whether you would support expanded coverage in key areas. The additional time and expense might even require a paid subscription to access premium, original content, so I want to move carefully and with plenty of input from you.

To that end, it would help me tremendously if you could take a couple of minutes to fill out this brief reader poll to help me decide whether this idea makes sense.

With gratitude,

Scott Henson
Grits for Breakfast

The idea would be to continue to have link-and-comment type posts on the public part of the blog but to begin featuring more original, in-depth content behind a paywall. Take the survey and let me know what you think of the idea.

Wrongful Convictions Blog

Say "Howdy" to the brand spanking new Wrongful Convictions Blog, run by Mark Godsey who directs the Ohio Innocence Project. Mark's rounded up a terrific stable of writers if he can keep them all producing regularly; they're off to a great start.

Round the Texas legal blogosphere

I thought I'd point readers to several blogs with informative and thought provoking recent posts up:

• Liberty and Justice for Y'all
• Defending People
• The Defense Rests
• Waco Criminal Law Blog
• Supreme Court of Texas Blog 
• Wilco Watchdog

And say "howdy" to blogosphere newbie, Texas Criminal Defender.

Blog glitches remove posts, comments

FYI, Google's Blogger site that hosts Grits went down yesterday taking multiple Grits posts and quite a few comments with it. Supposedly they'll eventually return, but so far, nada. My apologies for any confusion. Grits is still after all these years hosted on a free platform, and I suppose you get what you pay for.

TX Supreme Court says anonymous commenters have stake in release of identifying info

Grits admittedly has a love-hate relationship with anonymous commenters. Over the years, some of the most thoughtful things said in this blog's comment section have come from behind the veil of anonymity, but also nearly all of the most vile, garbage-level personal attacks and smears against me, the subject of blog posts, other commenters, and in too many cases even trashing co-workers, family members, or other non-combatants by name. For a time, Grits actually shut off comments altogether on TYC strings for that reason. (I don't always have time to read every comment on Grits, much less moderate them one by one, so it's pretty much an all-or-nothing deal.) Though I totally understand the decision of those who don't, I allow anonymous comments mainly because Grits gets quite a few government employees posting here anonymously who wouldn't put in their two cents otherwise. Just because I allow the practice, though, doesn't mean I'm required to respect every anonymous commenter (quite a few I don't respect at all), and I understand the frustration at cowards flinging cheap shots who would never put their names on such bilious statements.

That said, at the end of the day I find sufficient value in anonymous speech to favor its protection, so I was heartened to learn of a ruling from the Supreme Court of Texas last month quashing subpoenas to Google for the identities of two anonymous commenters, Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle, at a site called the Southeast Texas Political Review, which has a detailed page including links to filings about the lawsuit. According to the Supreme Court of Texas Blog, "The Court makes clear that, in Texas, a side agreement between the plaintiff and the party holding that information (here, Google) does not excuse the trial court from considering the objections of the person whose personal information is involved." The court didn't say the records couldn't be subpoenaed, but the person whose identifying information is being released has a dog in the fight, not just the requestor and Google.

The blog Internet Cases found it particularly noteworthy that "While many courts have evaluated this kind of question using a first amendment analysis (i.e., is the John Doe’s interest in speaking anonymously outweighed by the plaintiff’s right to seek redress), the [Texas Supreme] court in this case looked to more general concerns of avoiding litigation abuse. Citing to a law review article by Professor [Lonny] Hoffman, the court observed that there is “cause for concern about insufficient judicial attention to petitions to take presuit discovery” and that “judges should maintain an active oversight role to ensure that [such discovery is] not misused.” Don Cruse at the SCOTX Blog agreed, declaring that "Because there are so many other kinds of personal information out there in the world besides anonymous speech, the Court’s holding on this seemingly narrow procedural ground may be even more important than if it had instead based its result on First Amendment grounds."

A few years back the Bexar County probation department tried to secure identities of anonymous commenters who were employee-critics of then-probation chief Bill Fitzgerald, but if memory serves, they backed off before the issue made it up to the appellate courts. Even though I write under my own name, I definitely think anonymous commenters, and everybody else, have a stake in the release of their identifying information and am glad to see the state's high court formally recognize it.

In-house mystery: The case of the disappearing comments

Just a housekeeping note: For some reason, Grits' comment spam filter has lately been capturing and diverting a larger portion of legitimate comments in addition to the dozens of spam comments captured every day. I just went through and published about 10 legitimate comments from the last week or so that the system had for some reason identified as spam. A couple of them were anonymous writers who were highly critical of me, so I wanted to emphasize in this post that I have not been and do not plan to pre-vet comments based on their content. If your recent comment didn't show up, please don't assume some conspiracy or personal animus. It was a technical glitch for which you have Grits' sincere apologies.

Regrettably, the one thing I cannot do in response is turn off the comment spam filter, or Grits would immediately fill up with a bunch of garbage from people buying and selling gold, Ugg boots, Asian porn, etc.. Even with the settings where they are, quite a bit of spam gets through, much to my dismay; I delete them by hand when I find them. So I apologize to anyone to whom that's happened. Please forgive any perceived snub if your comment didn't appear after you'd written it.

Grits hits 3 million visitor mark

Just to have mentioned it: This morning around 11 a.m. Grits hit the 3 million visitor mark (with around 4.9 million page views). I don't know whether that's a lot or a little compared to others, but it took six and a half years to get there. This is the 5,874th post since Grits launched in October 2004, and lately the blog has been averaging 15-16,000 visitors per week. Let's take the opportunity to perform a little housekeeping:

It's been awhile since I've promoted Grits' email subscription option, but as of today, 1,017 readers get Grits posts via daily email subscription. If you'd like to join them:

Enter Your Email to Git Yer Daily Grits!

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

You'll need to respond to an email that shows up in your box to activate the subscription. Or, if you use a Google or Yahoo reader or other RSS feed aggregator, here is the link to Grits' site feed. No Grits app yet for your I-Phone, sorry. ;)

Thanks for reading, folks!

Watch This Space

Thanks to Brandi Grissom for the shout out to Grits in the New York Times, which began to show up on my referral logs this morning. Texas Tribune writers did a collective overview of the upcoming 82nd Texas Legislature for the Times as part of their budding journalistic for-profit/non-profit partnership, and after each policy issue covered is a blurb with a subhed, "WHO TO WATCH."

Most of the other designated watchees are legislators (Sen. Steve Ogden on the budget, Sen. Troy Fraser on energy, Rep. Debbie Riddle on immigration, etc.) or various state officials, with one exception. On criminal justice, Grissom wrote, "WHO TO WATCH Scott Henson, a very knowledgeable blogger, who writes about all things criminal justice at gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com." Flattery, Brandi, will get you everywhere!

Grits 2010 traffic data

Since we're looking back at 2010, here's some data on Grits' traffic over the last year:

That's an average of 51,861 visitors per month. Much more important, though, than how many people came to this blog is WHO visited Grits: You. Thanks for dropping by. This blog only matters because of readers who take the information on this site and use it to press for reform out in the world. I hope that's what you're here for, and if not, have fun visiting, anyway.

Happy New Year, everyone!

News and Views from the Land of Dairy Queen

After he'd commented on the last Grits post, I checked in for the first time in a while at Wise County lawyer Barry Green's blog, Liberally Lean in the Land of Dairy Queen, and noticed these interesting tidbits:

• "Years ago I was doing an oral argument in front of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals when Justice Dauphinot suddenly interrupted me and tersely asked, "Who wrote this brief?" I paused and meekly said, "I did." She paused, too, before saying, "Thank you. It will be very helpful." She was just screwing with me."

• "The state prosecutor organization, TDCAA, provides all the forms a prosecutor needs to create a Vampire Weekend program -- including press releases and "talking points".  Hello, big brother."

• Barry pointed out this story about the recent arrest for DWI of a Fort Worth police officer (see especially the bulleted list at the end of recent incidents), declaring "The wheels are off the Fort Worth PD."

• And speaking of wheels, Barry pointed to this story I hadn't noticed from Christmas Day about a North Texas cop hit by his own patrol car as a suspect drove away in it at a traffic stop.

• From Dec. 20, "There's was a guy in an armed standoff with cops at a downtown Dallas restaurant this morning. It got even odder when it was learned that it was the same guy that stole a cop car while handcuffed last week."

Lots of other fun stuff at LLITLODQ, particularly if you're a fan of women's breasts. (SFW, barely.)