Thanks for all the well-wishes, everyone! And thanks to Bev and Koshcat for filling in earlier in the week! I am getting back to normal and we should have a regular schedule again next week. We'll also have T-Rav's article tomorrow and a film review at the film site... the very unfunny Ted. In the meantime, here are a couple thoughts I've had watching the news this week.
● The Martin Case I: There is a belief, which is particularly prevalent in conservative circles, that we can always trust cops and prosecutors. In fact, I've seen this go so far that a great many conservatives actually believe that if someone is arrested, then they must be guilty. This is wrong, as the Martin case shows again. With lots of nasty things now being revealed about the prosecutor, it should be clear that not all prosecutors are good people. This woman is an unethical liar who slanders people, abuses her office to get anyone who crosses her, politicized her agency by firing anyone who wasn't a brown-noser, overcharges suspects, and withholds evidence. Sadly, she is not unique. There are many prosecutors who are just as rotten and just as political. That is why rule of law matters and why we cannot simply trust the people in the system to not trample on people's rights. You would think conservatives, who innately mistrust government, would realize this and demand greater protections for defendants, stronger rights for all persons, and narrower criminal laws. But not all of them do. Remember this the next time some politician tells you they are "tough on crime." Are they really or are they just tough on the accused?
● The Martin Case II: The response to the Martin case has been both encouraging and depressing. For encouraging, look at the public... in response to the verdict, there have been a handful of protest marches nationwide, typically involving a few hundred people in the biggest cities. Except for a couple of thugs (mainly in Oakland), they've been peaceful. Denied their story of outrage, the news networks have moved on, as have most of the pundits. Even liberal talking-head attorneys now are saying the jury got the law right. Jimmy "the ass" Carter and Obama both said the same thing as well. That's all very rational and very muted. That should make America pretty proud of itself. That is encouraging.
On the other hand, a lot of celebrities are exploiting this to gain publicity. That's disgraceful. It's twisted and cynical. Go back to rehab folks. A couple of dinosaur-age race baiters are out there too trying to regain their relevance. That's a fancy young girlfriend you got there Mr. Sharpton. Anyway, that's disgraceful too.
Unfortunately, there's another group too that needs to be mentioned. If you visited Drudge over the past couple days, you would think the country was in the grips of a civil war. He reported the most fringy comments as if they were widely-believed official administration positions. He had headlines about people in hiding, about roving gangs attacking whites. He's been reporting rumors and conspiracy theories as facts, linking to places like InfoWars, trying to connect unrelated murders and muggings to "the response to the verdict" to make you think there are riots everywhere, and doing so under headlines that basically scream: "BLACK PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU!!" It's Al-Sharpton-esque. Several radio talkers are doing the same thing, even as they ironically claim they are only warning you that liberals are obsessed with race. One host this afternoon actually cautioned people to watch for gangs "looking for whitey."
Right now, there are two groups of people pushing identity politics: the extreme left and the extreme right, and I think the right is pushing harder than the left. But as we showed in that poll last week, few people see blacks, whites or anyone else as inherently racist, i.e. few are obsessed with race -- only about two in ten. So don't let these people push you into thinking the world is like the nightmare vision they are selling. It's not... not even close.
● The Summer of Flops: Finally, the summer of flops continues with three new ones likely joining the list: Pacific Rim is officially a flop, Turbo is being seen as a likely flop, and R.I.P.D. looks like a megaflop. I was kind of looking forward to R.I.P.D.. In any event, it sounds like it's time to service the Plot-o-matic 3000.
● The Martin Case I: There is a belief, which is particularly prevalent in conservative circles, that we can always trust cops and prosecutors. In fact, I've seen this go so far that a great many conservatives actually believe that if someone is arrested, then they must be guilty. This is wrong, as the Martin case shows again. With lots of nasty things now being revealed about the prosecutor, it should be clear that not all prosecutors are good people. This woman is an unethical liar who slanders people, abuses her office to get anyone who crosses her, politicized her agency by firing anyone who wasn't a brown-noser, overcharges suspects, and withholds evidence. Sadly, she is not unique. There are many prosecutors who are just as rotten and just as political. That is why rule of law matters and why we cannot simply trust the people in the system to not trample on people's rights. You would think conservatives, who innately mistrust government, would realize this and demand greater protections for defendants, stronger rights for all persons, and narrower criminal laws. But not all of them do. Remember this the next time some politician tells you they are "tough on crime." Are they really or are they just tough on the accused?
● The Martin Case II: The response to the Martin case has been both encouraging and depressing. For encouraging, look at the public... in response to the verdict, there have been a handful of protest marches nationwide, typically involving a few hundred people in the biggest cities. Except for a couple of thugs (mainly in Oakland), they've been peaceful. Denied their story of outrage, the news networks have moved on, as have most of the pundits. Even liberal talking-head attorneys now are saying the jury got the law right. Jimmy "the ass" Carter and Obama both said the same thing as well. That's all very rational and very muted. That should make America pretty proud of itself. That is encouraging.
On the other hand, a lot of celebrities are exploiting this to gain publicity. That's disgraceful. It's twisted and cynical. Go back to rehab folks. A couple of dinosaur-age race baiters are out there too trying to regain their relevance. That's a fancy young girlfriend you got there Mr. Sharpton. Anyway, that's disgraceful too.
Unfortunately, there's another group too that needs to be mentioned. If you visited Drudge over the past couple days, you would think the country was in the grips of a civil war. He reported the most fringy comments as if they were widely-believed official administration positions. He had headlines about people in hiding, about roving gangs attacking whites. He's been reporting rumors and conspiracy theories as facts, linking to places like InfoWars, trying to connect unrelated murders and muggings to "the response to the verdict" to make you think there are riots everywhere, and doing so under headlines that basically scream: "BLACK PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU!!" It's Al-Sharpton-esque. Several radio talkers are doing the same thing, even as they ironically claim they are only warning you that liberals are obsessed with race. One host this afternoon actually cautioned people to watch for gangs "looking for whitey."
Right now, there are two groups of people pushing identity politics: the extreme left and the extreme right, and I think the right is pushing harder than the left. But as we showed in that poll last week, few people see blacks, whites or anyone else as inherently racist, i.e. few are obsessed with race -- only about two in ten. So don't let these people push you into thinking the world is like the nightmare vision they are selling. It's not... not even close.
● The Summer of Flops: Finally, the summer of flops continues with three new ones likely joining the list: Pacific Rim is officially a flop, Turbo is being seen as a likely flop, and R.I.P.D. looks like a megaflop. I was kind of looking forward to R.I.P.D.. In any event, it sounds like it's time to service the Plot-o-matic 3000.
83 comments:
Andrew - for what it's worth, this fiscal conservative/libertarian has never trusted cops and prosecutors to necessarily get it right, but the Florida prosecutor is particularly awful. Don't forget the top govt. justice guy Eric Holder. John Mitchell lives on!
One thing I've noticed. In the age of the internet, extremists from both ends tend to put pressure on people with quasi facts, etc. I try very hard to dismiss the bullshit and look at well reasoned sources.
Hollywood is distressing me to no end. So worthless. I look to indie films which can suck, but sometimes are really good. Plus, I am enjoying to shows currently on t.v. Longmire, about a sheriff in Wyoming is pretty good for a limited series, and Endeavor on PBS about a young whiz cop in Osford England in the 60's is superb. Glad you are feeling better. I am kind of feeling better too.
I am officially coining the term: Flopbuster
Jed, I'm a natural doubter, so I question everything. And in my time in the law, I've seen some amazingly crappy things done by prosecutors. Yet, I keep running into people (typically, older conservatives) who will flat out say things like, "Well, if he wasn't guilty, they wouldn't have arrested him." And they mean it. I've even sometimes heard these same "Well, I'm sure they still did something," even after innocence was proven. WTF?!
That boggles my mind... how can you distrust government for everything except issues of life and death, and there you trust the government blindly? I don't get it.
I think you are right that the internet has really let the extremists/lunatics on each side start driving the debate. They are not bound by truth or a genuine desire to help, so they produce more entertaining "ideas." They are also a key market for things like talk radio because they obsess. Hence, so much these days caters to them and they take full advantage of it. This has paralyzed our politics as "liberal" and "conservative" have been replaced with the screaming of morons and whackos.
On Hollywood, I've been in a Western kick... back when they knew how to make them.
tryanmax, Excellent! Bravo! :D
Andrew...What is this "Martin Case" you refer to?! :-)
I have yet to see a movie in the theaters this summer. Nothing has caught my eye yet (I'm talking about the trailers). Family word of mouth is that Superman has been good, but that's about it.
I wonder if you can tell a movie's enduring popularity, not by ticket sales, but by dvd/download sales over a period of time, say 2 years or so. Do you know if this statistic has been tracked, and if so, which movies didn't do well at the box office yet kicked ass on post-theater sales?
Andrew -
Just because a movie is forecast to be a flop (R.I.P.D.) doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it! :-)
And Pacific Rim will end up making money - not as much as the filmmakers would've liked but I think it's too early to write it off. Please don't fall prey to the "It must be a failure - it's been out a whole week!" mentality.
Patriot -
The only true test of a film's success is time. It's a Wonderful Life didn't do well when it was released and look at it now.
In other news...
My summer job made the news again!
And my friends are enjoying Orange is the New Black on Netflix, including one friend of mine who is not a fan of women... and he's admitted that it's a testament to the show's writing and acting that he's able to enjoy it. (He's not gay; just divorced and his ex ain't pleasant.) :-)
Aw, so jealous. Digital restoration is one of my favorite Photoshop activities.
tryanmax -
I'm working on Columbia Records' "Puss in Boots" as we speak. :-)
Nyah!
Okay, we knew that something like this was bound to happen, right? what can the court say when this guys defense is that the Vice President of the United States advise us to do it? Thanks, Joe...
LINK
ScottDS - a) you do THE coolest things for jobs!
b) I just watched the entire season of "Orange Is The New Black" and it was great. It's not just some "Girls In Cellblock 7" B-movie. All of the characters (and the actors who play them) are so well-written and multi-dimensional. After the first 3 episodes with the main character Piper, the series begins to explore the back stories of some of the characters. None of them are caricatures at all. It's really compelling. I am particularly surprised by some of the performances like Kate Mulgrew (who is particularly unrecognizable)and Laura Prepon (from That 70's Show - who knew she could really act?!).
BTW, Netflix has been very smart in upgrading their tablet app to automatically advance to the next episode until you stop it. Of course they are also creating a new mental disorder "binge watching". But I'm good with that. It's 100 degrees outside, so what else can I do, right?
Andrew,
I remember during the Duke Lacrosse Case that even after the case had been publicly dismembered you still had people saying "Something happened that night."
Morning, nerds! :P
Patriot, I have never been able to find DVD sales figures... at least legitimate ones. All I ever see are announcements that XXX is the fastest selling film ever, blah blah.
Personally, I think you can judge a movie's popularity in phases -- hype (how much it gets mentioned in non-film places) and box office sales are phase one. Phase two is how often do you see it on television in the next couple years. Phase three is do you still see it on television regularly over the next 10-20 years. And in the final phase, you also get whether or not the film has moved into the culture and references to it start to appear.
Scott, It will make money, but everyone is still calling it a flop because it's well below expectations.
And of course you can still see a film, even if it flops. Some of the best films flop. And I do intend to see RIPD, because it looks unique and kind of funny.
"not a fan of women". Huh. Your friend wouldn't happen to be Rick Santorum, would he? ;P
Bev, If you can't trust Joe Biden to tell you the law straight up, then who can you trust?
With friends like that, who'd need enemas? :-)
No, he's divorced and his ex is of those women who takes advantage of every break she gets. I don't have all the facts so I shouldn't say more.
Bev, So they're promoting binge watching? LOL! Sounds serious. Though, I would never personally do such a thing... again... this week... until at least the weekend.
Kit, There is a real irrationality when it comes to crime. Some people really do assume that only the guilty get grabbed by the cops and the only people who get off do so on "technicalities". The truth is rather different... as they sometimes find out when they get pulled into the system.
I'm also amazed how quick so many people are to judge cases just on the looks of the accused.
Scott, Insert Rick Santorum enema joke here...
... wow there's something twisted about that sentence.
What I find disturbing about the Martin case is the angry thrown at Zimmerman, the jury, or the law itself. It is completely misdirected anger as the prosecuter is who should be vilified. Zimmerman walked because of her incompetence. There are a lot of similarities to the OJ trial. Judge allowed it to become a circus and the prosecution did a poor job. Once he was found not guilty, remember how whites ran out into the streets protesting and beating innocent black people; pulling them from their cars, etc. Oh, wait that didn't happen. Maybe some people understand the idea it is better to let a guilty man go than it is to jail an innocent one.
I wonder if some of the people on the right who believe that the police wouldn't arrest someone if they are guilty are more hoping that is the case. Security and liberty requires faith in the institutions such as the police and DA office that they are always doing the right thing. Losing that faith makes one very paranoid all the time. Then again for many of us we have very little interaction with the police day to day that for someone to get their attention there must be something amiss.
Andrew, you are aware of the neologism that Dan Savage coined using Ricky's surname? Apparently, no matter who you are, thoughts of him all lead to the same place.
Koshcat, On the anger, anger typically clouds judgment. And in typical mob fashion, these people lash out at whoever their leaders in the MSM tell them is the bad guy... "all white jury"... sleazy defense attorney... "white racist defendant"... a law written by Tea Party types to allow this. There's no thought at all behind this, which is why you can never let mobs make the rules.
On the never arresting innocent people thing, I suspect the source is psychological. I suspect it's a combination of fear and, as you say, guilt. The fear comes from the fact the media pushes the idea of crime to such a degree that people who have never even seen a criminal suspect they are surrounded. So they want someone to save them and they are willing to hand over more and more power to make that happen. This also develops the mentality of "he looks guilty to me" because they're suspicious of everything around them.
At the same time, they want to believe that they aren't sanctioning misbehavior. So it's easier to believe that everyone is guilty rather than admit that maybe the system is doing bad things at times. That develops the "well, he still must have done something" attitude.
I think you're right too that there is this idea that if you keep your head down, then you'll stay out of trouble, so the people who got into trouble "must have done something wrong." This is the same idea as those who say, "I have nothing to hide" about government snooping. Unfortunately, that's simply wrong because wrongly assumes that the government only targets bad people.
tryanmax, I do recall that, and it's pretty darn appropriate if you ask me.
"There is a real irrationality when it comes to crime. Some people really do assume that only the guilty get grabbed by the cops and the only people who get off do so on "technicalities"."
To a certain extent, I blame cop dramas.
Andrew,
Remember this case, about the college girl arrested for resisting arrest:
LINK
Kit, Television has certainly made perception problems worse, but this instinct was around a long time before television. Humans are herd animals and their instincts act accordingly -- that's why advertising is focused on either keeping up with the herd or leading the herd. The impulse to trust those who are imposing order is something that aligns perfectly with that instinct.
On the girl, yep. I recall. I also recall the people I'm talking about above saying, "Well, she shouldn't have run from the cops." Ergo, even though she had done nothing wrong, she did something wrong.
With that sort of mentality (I referring to only "criminals" get arrested), it isn't a big leap from where we are now to totalitarian groups who are arresting those accused of political crimes. Sometimes I am amazed that this country hasn't slipped into that already as both sides try to justify it. Respect for laws and laws to protect minority populations are probably the primary factors.
The only good piece of news out of that situation is that the prosecutor decided not to pursue the case. He probably realized the fact that the girls called 911 (and asked the operator "What should we do?") more or less proves they had no intent to evade the law.
That, and the fact that you had 2 or 3 college-age girls who saw a group of men (the agents were undercover) walking towards them, in the pitch black of night, and one or more of those men drew his firearm.
And fake badges are easy to get.
She had ample reason to fear they might be men with less than honorable intentions.
Well, some more good news: The agency responsible has changed its policy regarding undercover agents. They now require at least one uniformed agent to be present. It was a group of undercover agents acting like they were in a 70s cop show that caused the mess.
LINK
I've seen PSAs and attended talks where law enforcement tell folks to do just about what these girls did. If you are unsure that someone identifying themselves as law enforcement is legit, get somewhere safe and call 911.
I'm of a mind that "resiting arrest" should not even be able to be brought as a charge without another accompanying charge. I'm not aware of any instance where it isn't dropped when brought alone, but the mere possibility that it might not be is disconcerting.
Koshcat, I agree. That is the exact same mentality that justifies totalitarianism. Fortunately for us, our system has been designed in such a way to prevent that by creating competing centers of power and by specifically limiting certain things which are necessary to the centralization of power. Minority rights are one of those, as is the disconnect between the power to spend and the power to execute policies.
Kit, She absolutely had reason to flee. And the claim that she shouldn't have run is idiotic. It is all after-the-fact arm-chair reasoning... "Well, if cops come up to me and want to look at the water I bought, I don't run unless I have something hide."
Yeah, except at the time, you don't know if they are cops or not and you have no idea what they want. So standing there like a good citizen is a great way to find yourself dead.
As for not charging her, I don't see what they can charge her with.
Two of the charges brought against her (and subsequently dropped) were assault b/c apparently her SUV "grazed" two of the agents. Which brings up another point: this is not the first time I've heard of suspects being charged with assaulting an officer because of non-injurious incidental contact made during an arrest. I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it isn't right.
tryanmax, I concur. It makes sense -- if you don't know, then flee. Even on the highways, I've seen the police advise people that if they can't tell if the guy trying to pull them over is a cop, then pull off somewhere safe... don't just pull over.
I agree about the resisting arrest, but it can be a standalone crime. The criminal code is very broadly written to allow all kinds of illogical things.
Andrew,
Another problem is overcriminalization and the vagueness of those laws so that just about everyone is guilty of something, bringing to mind the old quote by Lavrenti Beria, head of Stalin's KGB: "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime."
Though, from what I know, this is more of a federal problem than a state one.
Andrew,
Looks like you beat me to it on overcriminalization/vagueness.
tryanmax, That's the overreach in the law. And what law enforcement will tell you is that you need these things to stop people from resisting... "trust us to only use them when they make sense." The law is full of those, and they become routine catch-alls to ensure that you can get the person for something.
Kit, Yep. Most people are currently guilty of any number of crimes, they just don't know it. That's the problem with the "tough on crime" set. They keep adding more and more laws and they keep making them increasingly more vague and more onerous. It's a real problem.
Another aspect of the case: When I try to imagine some ABC Agents charging the car, guns drawn, with one of them jumping onto the hood of the car I have trouble stifling a chuckle -despite the seriousness of it.
You have 2 or 3 college-age girls suspected of buying alcohol underage and these guys are acting like Starsky and Hutch taking down a major coke bust!
Hey guys, I just realized that we are looking at this all wrong. We should be trying to make a socio-political thing out of this. These girls are clearly the victims of profiling. The only thing they are guilty of is buying water while being young and female. And the only thing separating the ABC agents from George Zimmerman is a badge. Clearly the agents involved are a bunch of misogynists who were looking for easy targets. I'm going to paint a sign and march. Who's with me?
Any thoughts on the license plate scanners?
LINK
Kit, It's bad police work. I understand the desire to "control" the situation, but you don't do it with a bum rush like these idiots did. First, you ask yourself how dangerous your target is. In this case, there was zero danger. Two uniformed officers walking up to them would have been enough and would have prevented everything that happened after that.
tryanmax, I'm up for a little looting. I could use a new TV. :)
Kit, Nope, no thoughts. How is this any different than cameras everywhere and snooping on phones and e-mail? WE NEED TO STOP TERRORISTS FROM SPEEDING!!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WHY WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
"Two uniformed officers walking up to them would have been enough and would have prevented everything that happened after that."
The agency responsible, Alcohol Beverage Control, has changed its policy in the wake of the incident: "Virginia’s ABC officials have recently announced reforms requiring a recognizably uniformed agent serve as the contact person in operations like the one that landed Daly in jail. Undercover officers will be involved in surveillance, but not in approaching suspects alone."
<a href="http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/long/2081384-12/beer-bust-reforms.html>LINK</a>
I think the cops in question should be charged with unlawful detention. From the very beginning they didn't have reasonable suspicion. I know that is a soft term but I would suspect most Americans would agree that walking out of a store with groceries would not constitute as reasonable.
ok, walking out of the store is reasonable; being investigated is not
Kit, Makes sense.
Koshcat, I agree. It should have been obvious to them that this wasn't beer in her hand. Not to mention, they could have walked up to her and checked. In terms of charging the cops, however, you would find that virtually impossible because of a doctrine called "Sovereign Immunity."
Sovereign Immunity? Didn't we throw out royalty with a little declaration?
I was talking with my Dad, who lives in Montana. He is concerned about a trend he has seen over the last couple of years there. Previously, cops were involved with a handful of shootings per year in the whole state. Now someone is shot by the police weekly. I asked if he thought if it was due to changes in criminal behavior such as more drug related crimes but he doesn't think so. He believes it has to do with their training and attitude. He was a Sheriff deputy for a short time years ago. The Sheriff hardly ever had his gun. He saw him use it once. Some guys where holed up in a house. He threatened them and he was told to go away. He shot the door handle off with his rifle and they came quietly. His rule is you should only pull it out if you are going to use it and you should never (or hardly ever use it). Now even the game wardens checking fishing licenses are armed to the teeth. It sends the wrong message.
Nope, we just swapped sovereigns.
Sovereign immunity is the idea that "the sovereign" is not subject to the laws without his consent. Thus, federal and state governments cannot be sued or charged criminally unless they expressly provide such a right. That immunity floats down to agents and employees of the sovereign when acting in their sovereign capacity.
Thus, for example, if a cop runs you over while on duty, you can't sue him or the state unless the state has passed a law allowing it. Most states have such laws, but they are limited in scope. And criminal charges against state employees acting in their capacity as state employees are really rare.
On the issue you raise in Montana, there is one factor that I suspect has really driven that issue: SWAT. Because of the war on drugs, the feds have been funding SWAT teams in cities all over the country no matter how small the town. Part of that training involves a heavy-use-of-force, military-tactics emphasis. This changes the mindset of officers and you start to see a lot of invasion-style arrests rather than just serving warrants.
Oh, btw, Detroit just filed Chapter 9 bankruptcy...
There goes the Commentarama Pension Plan. :(
Rats! Detroit looked so solvent from the air when I had a layover at their airport a few weeks ago...
Ahhhh, it's good to be the King!
Pissboy! Bring me the bucket.
"This changes the mindset of officers and you start to see a lot of invasion-style arrests rather than just serving warrants."
You mean like in the Gibson Guitar case?
Koschat,
It is good to be da king!
OK, since we're doing true confessions today, I have to admit that I have traditionally been in the "cops and prosecutors only go after bad guys" camp. But instead of rehashing the same points already mentioned, I tried to think of another reason for that position. And I think I have it.
I've worked with people who absolutely hate all cops. Not coincidentally, several were also the types who believe Obama is some sort of guardian angel sent by, uh, I don't know...the spirits of Marx, Engels, etc.? (Now, THERE'S a contradiction!) Anyway, I dismissed these people as being self-righteous victims for the cause of the day. Adding to that, they never evaluated cases on evidence; they always evaluated cases on whether or not they identified with the (supposed) victim(s).
And there's why I think that's why so many conservatives side with police and prosecutors. A lot of them see the accused (in most cases), as an angry, self-declared victims who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Conservatives then see law enforcement as doing the job the parents of the accused should have long ago- put them in their place and teach them that actions have consequences.
In the case of Zimmerman, I think conservatives saw the victims' mentality in Martin's supporters, were quickly turned off, and sided with Zimmerman. (They then saw the evidence afterwards.)
Of course, as Andrew has stated, we shouldn't be quick to canonize law enforcement. I think someone noted in a past thread that the profession naturally attracts people who want power and like to abuse authority. I'm not saying all cops and barristers are like that, but it's definitely something to watch out for.
On the other hand, as Koshcat noted, being eternally paranoid about law enforcement only leads to cynicism and that isn't healthy. (Again, see the Martin supporters.) So, I think we, as conservatives, have to call a draw on this one: respect law enforcement- cops and the DA's office- but keep them on a tight leash. we may not always like them, but they serve a necessary role in society. ("If human beings could live without government, they would have been doing so for centuries." -Thomas Jefferson)
Well, there's my rant. Any thoughts?
Bev, Detroit looked solvent from the air. LOL! Nice. :)
Koshcat, Yep. It's always good to be the king except then you need to deal with the peasants and they stink on ice.
Kit, one example among many.
Also, I mentioned last weekend that my brothers practically dragged me to see 'Pacific Rim' I'm ashamed to admit that I went in with such low expectations, because it is, IMHO, a really good summer movie. It promises fights featuring giant robots versus giant monsters and delivers. Although I was groaning and silently MST3K-ing my way through the start, I quickly grew to like the action, the crazy scientists, and the over-the-top performance by Ron Pearlman. (At the end of one fight, I was so into it, I mumbled "FINISH HIM!")
It's too bad that it's tanking. However, I think there's a good reason. I just watched RLM's review on their site. They concluded that everyone is burned by big movies like this (see Michael Bay's Transformers films and last year's Battleship) and that the public just looked at it like, "ah, not this again." So, it appears that burnout has ruined what should've been a perfectly good summertime film. Nuts.
Rustbelt, It's confessional Thursday? I didn't realize that. LOL!
On your point, what you describe as the conservative position is actually intellectually identical to the liberal position you describe, only it uses a different set of prejudices.
I think the right answer - the only good answer actually - is to put aside all of our prejudices entirely and examine each action on its own merits:
1) Did this defendant do anything wrong under the law?
2) Did this cop or prosecutor do their duty or fail to do their duty and did they become abusive?
3) Will this law as written lead to justice or just more power?
That's the only way the system will work and the only way to avoid the paranoia mentioned above. Once you start judging a system based on the results your own prejudices want to achieve, the system will never make sense and will always seem unfair.
To me, the only real solution is to remind people of the law, of the innocent until proven guilty standard, and to call out those (left and right and other) who use prejudices to judge these matters.
That could well be about Pacific Rim. I have heard that it's much better than expected, but people don't seem to be going. It's probably Transformer-burnout.
Rustbelt, I would probably tend to agree with you. Most of the time when the police have been attack about being too harsh on a person, when you got to know who this guy was I sometimes wondered how the police were able to hold back for so long. But, they are professionals and they all should be held to a high standard. Most cops aren't power hungry and I have gotten to know many from my town. Most are very nice and have kids going to the same school, etc.
I do worry about the SWAT trend and I don't know how to rein it in. I think it has gotten out of hand. Personally, for most day to day issues I think cops should keep their guns in the trunk and the glove box. Every time they bring it out, they should have to log it and the results should be available to the public when asked.
It's "to protect and to serve" not "to shoot and to ask questions later"
Koshcat, I've met a lot of cops and most of them are truly fantastic people. Unfortunately, as with any profession, there are bad ones and they are the ones who cause the problems that people focus on.
On the SWAT stuff, Congress is even starting to look at this issue because people like Rand Paul are raising it. The problem is they often jam the issue in with drug legalization, which turns people off fast.
"Once you start judging a system based on the results your own prejudices want to achieve, the system will never make sense and will always seem unfair."
And ultimately, to understand the system, you must be a part of it. Getting yourself arrested is one way, but I don't advise it. However, taking jury service as a duty of citizenship is a very good way to understand it. What happens in the jury room is a mystery and should be, but I have never been in a deliberation that was not thoughtful in weighing all of the facts presented. I amazes me that a disparate group of strangers can come to an informed decision.
That ends my commercial for jury duty...
And serving on a criminal grand jury is even more enlightening...
Okay, now I'm really done.
Bev, It's amazing how the system really works compared to how people think it does. Television, movies, and politicians have really created a distorted perception. They focus on the rarest of incidents, which is often overturned on appeal and they spin real events into fantasy. Then they treat these rare/phantom incidents as common so that people end up thinking the system is out of control: If you follow liberals, then you think the system is racist and vindictive. If you follow conservatives, then you think the system loves criminals and lets everyone go.
That's not real. The reality is that the system works 95% of the time. The other 5% needs to be fixed, but it needs to be fixed with a rational eye. And flaws work in both direction -- too hard on defendants and too soft on defendants, too much discretion and not enough discretion, etc.
Andrew, I think you managed to straighten out what I was trying to say in roundabout fashion. One group aligns with one side for whatever reason, and the other aligns against. Both just hope to see the other side lose. I think it speaks to how polarized this country is. However, I don't think we can blame Obama for it. (Just think of the OJ trial.)
Your solution of just teaching the law is certainly the best one. However, we need to find a better (easier?)way of teaching it. Law (and I type this as a layman), tends to be complex and, at times, labyrinthian. That just doesn't seem to sit well with people who want simple- often emtional- answers for everything.
I tried explaining some of these complexities to the people I mentioned above, and they would have none of it. You see, "THEY KNEW..!" (God, I am sick of variations of that phrase) what happened and, "because I didn't understand," I would have to hear the 'truth' from someone who knew how to put themselves in the victims' shoes. Frustrating.
Koshcat, I was trying not to stereotype officers in that post, but I guess I went overboard. Truth is, I've met several officers in my life and they have done nothing but help out me and my family. This is why I often dismiss knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents where officers use questionable tactics. I'm often concerned that such reactionary measures will go too far and handicap officers when something really bad happens.
Bev, good commercial for jury duty. Now if I could just get called. Yes, I want to get called and I never have.
The world is full of idiots.
Of course dried blood soaked leather gloves wouldn't fit your hands OJ.
I'm sure I caught a glimpse of the real killers by the sand trap.
Oops wrong trial.
Rustbelt, These problems definitely pre-date Obama. In fact, exploiting trials has been an old trick of politicians as far back as I can recall. History is full of manufactured outrage surrounding trials.
Unfortunately, there is no good way to explain the law to people who unwilling to undertake the complexity of understanding it. So I don't think anything will ever really change because it's easy to work people like that up.
As an aside, the "THEY KNEW" crowd are the last people who should ever open their mouths -- willfully ignorant jerks.
tryanmax, If you want to serve, don't tell them you want to serve. You always kick off people who want to be on juries because you never know what their real motives are.
Here they use drivers license rolls to make the selections, so I've been called a couple times each time I got my license updated.
Max, That was a mess and that one was the judge's fault for letting things get out of control. The judge let the defense turn it into a circus and basically swamp the jury with too much garbage for the facts to mean anything.
Tryanmax - Seriously? I used to get called regularly. However since I served on the criminal grand jury in over 6 years ago, I haven't been called. I can actually say I love do it. I have served on 2 criminal juries in Texas and one civil, one criminal and grand jury in NY. I am proud to say I have only been excused from one panel during jury selection and it was a med/mal case. Since most of the people in my family are doctors or nurses, I guess I can understand why. And for whatever reason, I have never had to wait in the jury pool room for very long. Maybe it's my last name, but my family has served on many juries too.
I would love to serve on a Federal jury. I've never been called though.
Bev, The Feds put on a mean spread when it comes to trial hospitality. I've been very happy with every federal court I've ever dealt with. Can't say the same about state courts.
I'm not sure what they use here. I've been told voter roles, but since I vote in every election, including the minor ones, and I know several people who've been called multiple times who just vote haphazardly, I don't believe it.
I've never even been called up, so I haven't had the chance to say I want to be on a jury. But I'd never offer that and, if asked, I'd only say I'm interested in seeing the process, which is the truth.
Sadly, I don't know how to help you. It does seem to come in clumps though. In fact three members of my family were all called in the same county this last Spring.
True confession (since it's Confession Thursday!) When I served on the one civil jury, well, let's just say civil trials can be kinda' boring. Insurance dispute. We, the jury members got kinda' stir crazy from coming in and out of the jury box because of attorney hi-jinks, okay? So we decided as a group that the next time we lined up to go back into the jury box, we'd go in by height rather than by our assigned seat number. Yes, jury hi-jinx ensued...don't tell the judge. Hey, it was many years ago.
Confessional Thursday, eh? Let's see... I'm not really an alcoholic; I'm just here for the donuts.
Bev, You rebel! LOL!
tryanmax, That's why I'm here too! What a coincidence! :P
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 18, 1914 (99 years ago today…)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov returns to St. Petersburg and is met at the train station by his chief of staff, Baron Schilling. En route to Chorister’s Bridge, Schilling gets his boss up-to-date in order to prepare for his meeting with Austrian Ambassador Count Friedrich Szapary. They go over Ambassador Shebeko’s dispatch, the discussion with Italian Ambassador Carlotti, and the intercepted cables. Schilling later records that Sazonov seems troubled by the news.
When the two ambassadors meet, very little is actually accomplished while they play a game of diplomatic cat-and-mouse. Szapary has been forbidden by Berchtold from so much as mentioning the ultimatum to Serbia. At first, Sazonov doesn’t bring up Serbia directly; he only states that some news from Vienna is beginning to concern him. Szapary ignores the bait. Sazonov then carefully states that Vienna won’t be able to connect the archduke’s murder to anyone in Serbia. Szapary replies that the investigation is still ongoing. The meeting ends in a draw, with neither side prying anything from the other. Sazonov later says that Szapary was “docile as a lamb.” Szapary, for his part, tells Vienna that Sazonov “gave no impression” of having a firm policy on the Serbian dilemma. (Also, whether Berchtold ordered Szapary to meet with Sazonov to find out what the Russians knew or just to give the Russians a false sense of security is unclear.)
Later that day, Sazonov meets with British Ambassador to Russia, Sir George Buchanan. Sazonov says he is worried about Austria’s attitude towards Serbia. Buchanan, however, has no idea what Sazonov is talking about. (At almost the same time in London, German Ambassador Lichnowsky tries to warn Russian Ambassador Alexander Benckendorff about the growing problem in the Balkans. It’s uncertain if he was taken seriously.)
On the subject of juries, I've only been called out once. I went to the offices of our county seat and took my number. Unfortunately, the classroom where all potential jurors were sitting was full. So, they did the natural thing. They stuck me and the remaining potential jurors in the closet. Okay, it wasn't actually a closet. It was a side room with extra chairs, some coat racks, board games, some benches, and a table. Still, we felt like a can of sardines. Everyone was bummed. Even a pep talk from a judge (himself a former sheriff) barely lightened the mood.
The good news? After only 2 hours, we were relived of duty. Lucky break on my part. I live outside Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is located). My co-workers who lived in Allegheny spent the previous week telling me the horror stories of waiting 9, 10 hours in the cold, barren waiting room of the City-County Building. At least one of them said my experience alone was reason enough to move across county lines. (The 10% tax on poured drinks at bars was another.)
Also, did anyone see that a scratched witness in the Whitey Bulger trial turned up dead? Cops say it's suspicious.
Rustbelt, I cannot imagine anything suspicious happening to a witness against the mob.
Our jury experience here is rather different -- it's actually been different everywhere I've lived. Here they call in around 600 people and put them in a large room with movies and reading material and whatnot. It's like waiting at an airport. Then they start calling random numbers. So the attorney have no way of knowing who will be in their jury pool until they are called from downstairs.
In West Virginia, we knew who would be in our pool about a week in advance.
Post a Comment