Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    Your piece on the fire at Texas French Bread failed to mention that Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell turned up unexpectedly during The Rolling Thunder Review tour to play at The Rome Inn.
    It's true! I know because I chased them all that week and never could catch up with them!

Dear Editor,
    First of all, THANK YOU for making Blues a separate category from Soul & R&B. This is as it should be, and it will help shine a light on deserving blues musicians who might not have the public visibility as some of the popular soul & R&B artists. I believe this change helped get the Little Elmore Reed Blues Band nominated for the first time in our 18 year existence.
    Second, are there rules for voting in the AMA poll? I can't find anything anywhere. How many times can one person/email address vote for the same artist in a particular category, etc.?

   Editor Kim Jones responds: One person, one vote! Find out more at vote.austinchronicle.com.

Dear Editor,
    The coverage of Dr. Circo’s study on police staffing and response times sets off several alarm bells. [“New Study's Staffing Model Calls for 108 New Officers,” News, Jan. 21] First, the study has been published without being subject to a peer review process in which experts thoroughly analyze the strengths and weaknesses of its arguments.
    Second, Dr. Circo’s study was commissioned by a police advocacy group with a history of arguing for more police. Studies commissioned by biased advocacy groups have a sordid history in American politics. They were a key component of the deny-and-delay strategy used by the tobacco and oil & gas industries to defend themselves from the burgeoning public realization of their harms. These industries wanted the public to accept a certain favorable conclusion (smoking doesn’t cause cancer; anthropogenic climate change isn’t a threat largely caused by fossil fuels), so they commissioned studies performed by academics to provide a sheen of legitimacy. 
    Third, by relying on machine learning models, Dr. Circo is using a statistical argument methodology that’s easily abused. Recent history provides evidence of this. In the election lawsuit presented to the Supreme Court in December 2020, Ken Paxton et. al included a statistical analysis performed by an economics Ph.D to support their claims of voter fraud. Fortunately, this particular analysis was refutable by anyone with cursory knowledge of statistics, and Paxton’s suit was quickly dismissed. Dr. Circo’s study is much more sophisticated than those bumbling efforts, which isn’t necessarily a point in its favor. Machine learning models are notoriously opaque, even to the experts who create them. Additionally, as critics in your article point out, they often rely on numerous questionable assumptions. It can be very easy for researchers to (intentionally or accidentally) build their preferred conclusion into these assumptions.
    We should be very cautious about how we use this study to inform policy. 

Dear Editor,
    "[I]ntentionally causing harm to the rank-and-file police officers and their local union"? That's what CLEAT President Marvin Ryals of El Paso is accusing the Austin EMS Association of in retaliation for its reasoned opposition to the recently (and soundly) defeated Proposition A, which would have effectively insulated APD from budgetary scrutiny and accountability. This is a pernicious and arrogant overstatement. Rather than making a good-faith effort to work within the system that pays for policing with our money, Ryals instead threatens and tries to punish any who dare to oppose CLEAT and APA. This is not the approach we need at this or any other time.