The Janet Malone case: why I despise the IRS

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Taxman-The Beatles
My problem with many federal regulatory agencies in general and the IRS in particular is that they tend to operate under Lavrentiy Beria's proscription of "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime". When both by regulation and by law the list of crimes ever expands then everyone, innocent or not, can be found guilty of something. I have read (and experienced?) that if a police officer really wants to stop you he can find a esoteric traffic violation of some sort before you've driven three blocks. The IRS operates under the same principle. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This society is supposed to endorse the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The IRS doesn't really operate under those rules. For too long Congress has given the IRS a free hand to seize people's assets and property before any sort of proceeding has really established guilt. I believe in paying the taxes that I owe and following the law. But I don't believe that Congress (which is to say we the people) should be giving the IRS and other regulatory or law enforcement agencies wide swaths of poorly defined authority, particularly when it comes to putting people in jail and taking their money. Too often such authority is wielded with a vengeance against relatively powerless individuals who don't have the connections or funds to fight back. It's rare that we hear about a banker or other financial big shot going to prison for money laundering in drug or arms dealing crimes. Such banks and individuals are often thought to be too big to fail. No one has gone to prison for the mortgage meltdown that almost destroyed the US economy.
To combat tax evasion, drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, and other crimes, the IRS requires your bank or other financial institution to report to the IRS any deposits you make that are over $10,000. 

Once that rule became public knowledge, anyone with a working brain who was engaged in nefarious activities who still nonetheless needed access to the banking system would make deposits that did not exceed the $10,000 threshold and keep it moving. Maybe Monday they would deposit $2000 at ten different branches. Maybe Tuesday five different newly incorporated Bahamian based companies would make thirty deposits at twenty different banks. And so on. Apparently feeling a bit stupid at being so easily foiled Congress/The IRS also made it a crime to break up transactions below the $10,000 threshold. Theoretically this would allow them to go after those supposed super smart bad guys who had learned to count. The problem is this rule also made technical criminals out of virtually everyone else who used the banking system. So if you deposited $5000 today and $5000 next week because you're a small widget company owner who gets paid irregularly, or deposited $3500 in the morning and $6500 in the afternoon because you're a realtor who attended two closings, or deposited $5800 today and $9000 tomorrow because you're a widow who is closing the estate of your late husband the IRS could take your money and threaten to put you in prison.

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa widow is charged with a crime and had nearly $19,000 seized from her bank after depositing her late husband's legally earned money in a way that evaded federal reporting requirements. Janet Malone, 68, of Dubuque, is facing civil and criminal proceedings under a law intended to help investigators track large sums of cash tied to criminal activity such as drug trafficking and terrorism. 

At issue is a law requiring banks to report deposits of more than $10,000 cash to the federal government. Anyone who breaks deposits into increments below that level to avoid the requirement is committing a crime known as "structuring" — whether their money is legal or not. 

Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, criticized the government's case against Malone given its declared shift in practice. "This is shocking because it demonstrates that prosecutors are not taking seriously the IRS' alleged policy change not to prosecute legal source structuring," he said. After the policy change, federal prosecutors in Iowa agreed to return money the IRS seized from two people accused of structuring, including a restaurant owner who had $33,000 taken and a doctor who fought to get back $344,000 in earnings from his medical practice. But prosecutors declined to drop the civil forfeiture case over $18,775 the IRS seized from Malone.

Instead, they added a misdemeanor criminal charge last week alleging she willfully violated the law, after her husband had been warned about the practice four years ago. Malone is expected to plead guilty next week and let the government keep the money, under a plea agreement filed Monday. The charge carries up to one year in jail and a $250,000 fine.

Shortly before his death in October 2011, Ronald Malone told his wife about a briefcase containing $180,000 cash from his job as a publishing executive, gambling winnings and investment income. She deposited some of it in increments between $5,800 and $9,000. The IRS obtained a warrant to seize it based on suspicion that the transactions were meant to avoid reporting requirements.

LINK

I see this as nothing more than pure bullying. I have more respect for the Mafia thug who forces you to join his local "business association" or the hoodlum who carjacks you. Such criminals are honest at least. Here the government has taken money from an elderly widow and threatened to jail her simply because she deposited her money in her bank. There is no proof of criminal behavior. The same government that can't figure out how to make corporations pay taxes can bring down the hammer on an old woman. Such brave people they are. This kind of Kafkaesque exercise of authority needs to be halted. 

Thoughts?

Book Reviews: The Devil's Hatband, The World of Ice and Fire, Gotti's Rules

The Devil's Hatband
by Robert Greer

This was Greer's first novel and the beginning of his C.J. Floyd series which we earlier discussed here. The title refers to the barbed wire that ranchers use. There were lengthy and magnificent descriptions of the great western outdoors in all of its glory. I guess that if you are a person who enjoys being outside all the time then these vivid portrayals might be right up your alley. I found a few of them slightly overdone, like a sweet potato pie left in the oven too long. Speaking of food though I did appreciate the culinary accounts, as they reminded me of many family dishes or other kitchen creations found in traditional African-American restaurants. So there was that. Floyd can't always or at least openly enjoy much of this food as he is on a diet. Or at least he is supposed to be. When you cheat on a diet you're only cheating yourself but Floyd is okay with that.
Although C.J. Floyd is a lowly Denver bail bondsman and occasional bounty hunter he's really effectively a private eye in this story. He's a Vietnam Vet who's done his share and then some of killing. Back in the US, he's inherited his uncle's business. It's not much of a business but it is his. He always makes payroll but rarely has enough left over for profit. One of Floyd's fellow bondsmen is a bigoted white man who works Floyd's nerves but always stops just short of anything that would require fisticuffs. Still given Floyd's internal nationalist critiques I was surprised that there were not more verbal confrontations between Floyd and this man. After all it's not like Floyd works for him. The bond business is color coded. It's rare that Floyd gets the opportunity to work with wealthier or white criminals. Many of the black criminals either try to play on his nascent nationalistic feelings to avoid paying him back or literally just don't have the money. So when two shady black corporate executives enter his office and promise Floyd big money plus expenses and cash up front to find a young woman named Brenda Mathison and the documents she stole from their company, Floyd isn't exactly in a place where he can say no. He hems and haws to make it look like he isn't desperate but we all know, the bills must be paid no matter what.

Brenda is the daughter of a black federal judge. The judge sits on the board of directors of the company from which Brenda stole. The judge wants his daughter and the documents back ASAP and the whole affair kept quiet. The last thing the judge wants is the attention of the media or the police. Brenda has joined with a militant environmentalist movement named PlanetFirst. These are people who want to go way beyond things like spiking trees or suing polluters. Along with two men Brenda leads the group's most extreme faction. Brenda is involved romantically with at least one of the men. Her group's plans have encouraged possibly violent opposition from local ranchers, many of whom are hard men who don't like people messing with their business. But when Floyd finds Brenda strangled to death he has to figure out who killed Brenda and why. There's also someone who's literally gunning for Floyd. There are many suspects, including a particularly nasty gang member with a long memory and a serious grudge against Floyd. Someone might have been trying to set him up for Brenda's murder. There are also subplots about good love gone bad, racist cops, pathological science and the aforementioned beauty of the great outdoors. I was curious about the fact that Floyd chooses to eat in a diner where an ex works. They even have a relatively cordial relationship. I might reach that emotional state many years after the breakup I guess but initially I think I'd absolutely have to find someplace else to eat!!! Otherwise looking at her would bring up too many bad memories. Floyd occasionally has reason to regret his dining location. His former flame reminds him (usually obliquely but occasionally directly) of the reasons why they couldn't make it work. That would just get on my nerves. This was an okay read but I didn't like it as much as Greer's later work. Some plot twists came out of left field to surprise me. Others were very predictable. I don't mean that in a bad way. Maybe a better phrase might be comfortably familiar. The book reminded me of why it's never a good idea to let strangers into your home or place of work.



The World of Ice and Fire
By George R.R. Martin, Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson

Ok. This is not, repeat not, an entry in the series, A Song of Ice and Fire. So if you're expecting that don't get this book. It's not a prequel either. It's not even a mostly definitive "this is what happened" Silmarillion style backstory for the world that Martin has created. However that last description is likely the closest. This is a hardcover lavishly bound coffee table book with high quality paper, great illustrations and plenty of sly comedy within. A Ser Kermit has a son named Ser Elmo. 
This book purports to be the history of Westeros and much of the known world. It's allegedly told by different people who likely have reasons for putting their own spin on past events. So the narrators are quite unreliable. Some people argue that history is not about what happened so much as it is trying to convince or make people in the present day accept a particular interpretation about what happened and why. For example if the Lannisters remain on top and win then certainly their history books will detail Ned's failed northern conspiracy to take the Iron Throne, the Tully treason and the desperate Stannis' ugly lies about his sister-in-law, nephews and nieces. If the North should restart the war and successfully defeat the Boltons and their Lannister overlords then Northern history texts written afterwards will gush about the Stark Restoration led by Queen Sansa or King Rickon. And so on. Anyhow this book details the beliefs and practices of the First Men, the invasions of the Andals and Rhoynish, and ultimately the Valyrian Targaryens. This tome (in some cases exhaustively) lists the various kings(Targaryen and otherwise) who ruled over Westeros or its constituent sub-kingdoms. The book is organized by region so if you just want background on say the Tyrells you can read the section concerned with The Reach and learn all about their rise to power. Different cultural practices are examined and exalted or derided. We learn the story of Robert's Rebellion, the creation of the Wall, why and how Tywin Lannister dealt so sharply with his father's enemies, Targaryen incest, the great deeds of Barristan Selmy, how dragons can be killed and many other historical events that have mostly been only briefly alluded to in the HBO show and only somewhat more so in the previously published books. The World of Ice and Fire also gives some information about Essos and the Free Cities and the Summer Isles. It gives short shrift to eastern continents and an alleged continent to the far south of Essos. The book also points out that there may be unknown lands over the western sea.

This book is obviously going to appeal primarily to Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire hardcore fans. Everyone else might be better off flipping thru this at the library, borrowing it from a hardcore fan you know or just browsing it at your local bookstore. Everyone should enjoy the wonderful elaborate artwork detailing the characters, banners and houses. However to be honest the text drags and becomes repetitive in a few places. There's only so many times that you can read that King so-n-so was a lech or King what's-his-face murdered his mother or King who-shot-John was a transvestite before it all starts to run together. This came out in October for $50 but you can currently pick up a new copy for $25 or less if you're so inclined. Again, this is not a novel. It's a compendium. There aren't "spoilers" for the TV show or the published books. It's very long but then again I suppose it should be. It is very obviously not Martin's writing style throughout--thus the co-authors.




Gotti's Rules: The story of John Alite, Junior Gotti and the Demise of the American Mafia
by George Anastasia

If you're not into mob stories then this is not a book for you. George Anastasia is a notable crime reporter and author who usually writes about organized crime in Philadelphia and the South Jersey area. For this book he heads north to New York City to tell us the life story of one John Alite, a vicious Albanian-American mobster who started out in Queens, befriended Junior Gotti, John Gotti's son, and rose to brief prominence in certain organized crime circles. Obviously things didn't quite work out like Alite planned. Alite ignored cryptic and not so cryptic warnings from Willie Boy Johnson, an Italian-Native American hoodlum who soured on the life and on John Gotti's racist insults. Johnson allegedly said that although it was too late for him Alite had non-criminal talents which he ought to pursue. Of course maybe Alite made this up. We can't ask Johnson because John Gotti had him murdered shortly after he was revealed to be an informant. You might say that as Alite can't physically get to Junior Gotti, whom he hates worse than cancer, and saw the government fail in its numerous attempts to incarcerate Junior Gotti, this book is his attempt to murder Junior Gotti's reputation as well as that of the entire extended Gotti clan. Although organized crime is an equal opportunity employer, the Mafia is most definitely not. Although he and his Italian-American partners, friends, rivals and bosses bond with each other over serious contempt for non-whites, primarily Blacks, as an non-Italian Alite is ineligible to be admitted to the Mafia's inner circle to become "made". That's reserved for Italians only. Alite doesn't mind this at first because he is a better earner and more physically dangerous than some made men. However the Mafia bylaws are clear that in any dispute between a made guy and a non-made guy the made guy is always right. So the enthusiastically violent Alite suffered a humiliating public pistol whipping from a made guy named Carmine Agnello. For Alite to even raise his hands in defense or attempt to seek revenge would have theoretically meant his own death. But all things considered he got off light because we later learn that Alite claimed to have had physical relations with Agnello's wife (and Junior's sister) Victoria Gotti. 

There is a death penalty for seducing or even flirting with any made man's wife or female relative. However people being people this rule is often ignored. Victoria Gotti has steadfastly denied that any such relationship ever took place. A proven affair would have greatly embarrassed Victoria Gotti and forced the hands of the Gotti-Agnello clan. Alite was earning a lot of money for Junior and his father. Alite initially had a healthy respect for the elder Gotti but had increasing disdain for Junior Gotti. Alite thought that Junior was an example of both low intelligence and nepotism. As Alite learned exactly how disposable all the Gottis considered him to be his disillusionment increased exponentially. And so did his dislike for and disrespect of Junior, often called "Urkel" behind his back because of his glasses and poor fashion sense. Alite was quick to take offense to slights. Alite describes ignoring Junior's order to get him an ashtray precisely because Junior "ordered" instead of "asked".

Alite's primary business was drug dealing, under the secret aegis of the Gotti crew. He later branched out into bookmaking, extortion, armed robbery and loan sharking among other things. Although Alite was relatively slight at 5-8 and well under 200 pounds, he was an athlete and boxer with a widely known and well deserved reputation for being extremely quick and equally dangerous with his hands, gun, baseball bat or knife. There were a number of murders and countless beatings or other assaults which Alite committed for Junior, the elder Gotti or for his own reasons. Alite even shot his cousin over a business dispute.
This is yet another book which gives the lie to the whole "Men of Honor" myth. So many of Alite's stories are EXACTLY the same as those you might read from a Hispanic or Black criminal. A thug is a thug regardless of race even though that word has become racialized. People are often shot or otherwise badly hurt not just because of "business" but because someone was drunk or was allegedly seen talking to someone's girlfriend/sister/wife/mother or lost a card game or just because it was the weekend and someone felt like flexing their muscles or bullying someone. There's no gallantry or respect for women. Alite was briefly a pimp; one of Junior Gotti's uncles allegedly raped and murdered a woman. Although Alite glories in pointing out Gotti hypocrisy (he provides proof of a Gotti initiated proffer to the feds) like most of us he overlooks his own nonsense. He claims to have never hurt anyone who wasn't "in the life" but seemingly forgets about the Florida bouncers he shot, beat and terrorized for an extortion racket he ran. The story is told almost entirely from Alite's POV with Anastasia interjecting undisputed facts only rarely. The book was interesting but as more and more mobsters testify against each other there is a nagging "been there, done that" feel to much of this story.

Corporate Tax Deductions for Settlements, Fines and Damages

When you do something wrong and are punished for it by having money taken from you the purpose of that little exercise is to convince you not to break the law or violate the rules again. The size of the fine may vary depending on how serious the offense is, whether the person who is being fined is a first time offender, how much money the person who is being fined has, whether or not the person or institution levying the fine is in a bad mood that day or is looking to make an public example of some schmuck or a million other reasons. But the purpose of the fine remains the same regardless of whether you are an NFL player who doesn't like to talk to the media, an NBA player who publicly questions the integrity of the league or its referees, or a taxpayer who simply doesn't like paying his taxes when the city, state or country says that he must. For example, in my younger days (i.e four years ago) I used to consider posted speed limits on expressways as something more akin to suggestions than hard and fast rules. I certainly wasn't the only motorist inclined to do this. On some local expressways if you aren't doing at least 80 mph you just aren't trying. However, four years ago a friendly police officer stopped me to let me know that no, he for one really did take those speed limits seriously. He thought I should as well. To assist me in reaching this future goal he wrote out a ticket that had a fine which I found to be entirely too high. Well I suppose it had the desired effect. I got a radar detector and kept a closer lookout for cops. Most days I rarely drive more than 3-4 mph over the posted speed limit. I simply don't have the money to give away to a podunk municipality over nonsense like that.
But imagine if instead of having to pay the entire fine myself and wreak havoc in my monthly budget I could come to you and force you to pay a significant portion of that fine. You might protest that you weren't the big dummy who was driving significantly over the speed limit. I would respond with something along the lines of how we were all in this together. I would help you out if it came to it. So suck it up buttercup and hand over some cash. If you were forced to pay part of my penalty not only would you be upset (something I wouldn't care about that much to be honest) but more importantly the fine wouldn't be enough to deter my future behavior. Because the net fine to me would then be much lower I would be less likely to be deterred from speeding. That would be a really good deal for me. It might not be such a great deal for you or for the rest of society. The person who incurred the cost and broke the law/rules is not the one who is paying the cost.

When a Montana judge ordered Hyundai to pay $73 million in punitive damages last year to the families of two teenagers killed in a car crash, she found that the South Korean automaker had “recklessly” ignored scores of warnings over more than a decade about the steering defect blamed for the accident. But even if Hyundai is eventually forced to pay the full amount of the damages, the punishment could be substantially reduced through a tax loophole that permits the company to save millions of dollars by deducting any court-ordered punitive damages as an ordinary business expense. The result, critics say, is that taxpayers are in effect subsidizing corporate misconduct. 

Carmakers are far from the only companies that can exploit loopholes that allow them to lower their tax bill by deducting fines, forfeitures and other payments related to wrongdoing. Although the tax law forbids deductions for criminal fines and penalties owed to the government, other kinds of payments — to compensate victims or correct damages — are eligible for a tax deduction.  The rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which was accused of helping to cause the financial crisis with its inflated assessments of mortgage investments, is eligible to deduct half of the $1.37 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors it agreed to this week, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-oriented nonprofit. The result would be a roughly $245 million reduction in its tax bill, the research group calculated.  

At least 80 percent of the more than $42 billion that BP has paid out because of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico qualifies for a tax deduction, according to U.S. PIRG. That has saved an estimated $10 billion to $14 billion for the company. The exact amount is uncertain because of the lack of transparency, the group complained.  Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia and author of “Too Big to Jail,” said that BP was “asking taxpayers, in effect, to pay for the victim compensation fund it agreed to set up.”
LINK

So this is an incredibly good deal for companies which have to pay for wrongdoing. Not only do the company officers and owners generally avoid personal damages and/or prison time for misdeeds they even are able to avoid the full impact of the fine by getting the government (i.e. you) to help pay for it. Often they can get the fine or settlement reduced on appeal. It might not be such a great deal for you or for the rest of society. The person who incurred the cost and broke the law/rules is not the one who is paying the cost. That seems to violate basic fairness. This is another example of how our tax code and public perception of welfare leeches. This is why as we recently discussed one has to be careful when one reads about this or that inner-city ghetto or poor trailer park person "cheating" the system out of a few hundred dollars each month. Your disgust or contempt should be saved for the big dog who's crapping on the floor, not the little puppy. Corporations are cheating the government out of BILLIONS. Technically I shouldn't even use the term "cheating" as this is all quite legal. Moral outrage doesn't trump law. The fact that these tax code provisions are still in place proves the amount of power that corporations and their armies of lobbyists and attorneys can bring to bear. A great many of these mega corporations don't pay many, if any income taxes in the first place so this is just par for the course. Until enough people get angry enough to demand changes, these policies will continue. But to demand change you have to know what's going on behind closed doors and out in the open. This is why it's so important to read, inform yourself and get politically active.

Movie Reviews: Predestination, Lucy

Predestination

Directed by Michael and Peter Spierig

This is a science fiction film which involves time travel that goes both forward and backwards depending on your perspective. The initial storyline involves a law enforcement/intelligence agency that operates to stop crime before it starts by going back in time to change just enough in the timeline to prevent the future murder or other atrocity. Although this might immediately put you in mind of Looper or Minority Report, Predestination is a more hauntingly personal and downright weird film with its own musings on life, the choices we make and whether or not things are meant to be. I thought this film seemed strangely familiar. I wasn't too surprised to discover later that it was based on a story by sci-fi giant Robert Heinlein. I'm not sure that I read the source story but I'm not sure I didn't either. In a bit of a paradox, much like the world it envisions, the more ridiculous this film becomes the more it makes you think or in some cases shudder. It is somewhat amazing that any of us are here. What are the odds that your mother and father met and fell in love? And what are the odds that they created you on the day they did? And what are the odds that your grandparents, great grandparents, and on back to antiquity met or created all the people they had to meet or create to become your ancestors and give you your particular set of biological and environmental strengths and weaknesses, quirks and talents that make you you? If anything changed, no matter how small, you might not exist. There are some theories based on quantum physics interpretations which claim that there are an infinite number of universes all based on each individual decision that we all make over our lifetime. Maybe if your mother doesn't leave home exactly when she does she never meets your father. Perhaps if you don't go to the coffee shop at exactly 7:25 AM you don't meet the barista with the nice smile, smooth moves and good looks that you want your children to have. 

Then again maybe everything was always meant to be or from someone else's point of view has already happened. Maybe, like in the movie Prince of Darkness, a future you is desperately trying to warn you against making a critical life altering mistake but s/he can't change the past and you blissfully ignore the nutter with a strange resemblance to you.

The Temporal Agent (Ethan Hawke) is trying to catch the Fizzle Bomber, a masked man who will kill over 10,000 people in a 1975 NYC bombing. He's on the man's trail but is badly burned trying to defuse a bomb. He travels to the future to get healing and reconstructive surgery as well as some advice and warnings from his boss (Noah Taylor). Healed, the Agent travels back to 1970s New York to work as a bartender in an area and time period where he knows the Fizzle Bomber hangs out. There he meets an odd young woman who calls herself The Unmarried Mother (Sarah Snook) who says she has the strangest story to tell which anyone has ever heard. The story she tells is indeed weird and draws in The Temporal Agent. And's lets stop detailing the narrative right there. Even as the film becomes stranger and stranger it also becomes more poignant and gentle in some ways. You will definitely come out with your preconceptions shaken up a bit. The film is just chock full of paradoxes. The filmmakers can't resist leaving some clues as to the nature of the story. Visual and auditory Easter eggs are scattered across the film. Unless you're smarter than the average bear you might have to watch it a second time to pick up on all of them. This is not a movie with big shootouts or tons of crass special effects. The special effects are good but Hawke's and especially Snook's acting are what drive the film and story. Snook's range is just short of astonishing. 

The film looks like an updated film noir with its lighting and shadows, cigarette smoke and heavy overcoats. There were also some art deco architecture and settings which I enjoyed. The pacing was a little off in a few spots but it was otherwise a quiet film that drew you inwards to the story and made you think afterwards about what makes you who you are. I liked the film. So to conclude, if you are willing to let a film warp your brain for a while, check this film out. If you want more conventional fare, check out Lucy.

TRAILER

Lucy

Directed by Luc Besson

Lucy is the movie that Transcendence could have been. Well. For me anyhow part of that is because Scarlett Johansson is far more interesting to watch on screen than Johnny Depp. The fact that for about a third of the film Johansson was running around in a tight t-shirt probably helped with that. But animal instincts aside Lucy is fun and visually involving in a way that Transcendence simply wasn't. Although the premise behind Lucy isn't true (we use more than 10% of our brainpower) and indeed the film becomes increasingly and outrageously ridiculous as the story proceeds it's still more entertaining than Transcendence was, not because Johansson is a better thespian than Depp but because the story doesn't get bogged down into taking itself too seriously for long periods of time. By the time we realize how silly this movie is (and for some of you who are smarter than I that may happen in the first ten minutes) it's easier to just kick back, put your feet up and enjoy the ride. The movie is only about 90 minutes. It maintains a breakneck pace throughout. Transcendence came to mind not only because of the similar themes but because Morgan Freeman basically plays the same character in both films, the comforting wise avuncular scientist who is pleased as punch to help younger people and witness what may be a new frontier in human advancement.

This film has a little something for everyone. There's plenty of action, sadistic violent baddies, the aforementioned cleavage factor, some warped science, and philosophical questions (and answers?) about the nature of life, the universe and everything. That's a lot to pack into ninety minutes and on one actress but Johansson pulls it off. This is a Johannson film through and through. I can't imagine anyone else doing it. In many aspects some of this is a continuation of her roles from the Black Widow parts in the Avenger series. Lucy (Johansson) is a college student and girlfriend of a useless (American?) goofball in Taipei, Taiwan. We know that he's cowardly because he's trying to convince Lucy to do his job and deliver a briefcase to a mysterious Mr. Jang (Choi Min-Sik), his ultimate employer who doesn't tolerate tardiness or mistakes. When Lucy declines to do so her erstwhile boyfriend handcuffs the briefcase to Lucy and forces her into the hotel where Mr. Jang is waiting. Well sometimes you just have a bad day. Jang's employees kill the boyfriend and take Lucy upstairs where she sees they've murdered others as well. It turns out that the briefcase contains packets of very powerful synthetic psychotropic drugs which Jang requires Lucy and other hapless mules to move into Europe. This isn't a request. The drugs are surgically inserted into Lucy and company with a warning from a dapper English translator (Julian Rhind-Tutt) that any attempt to remove the drugs, alert authorities, or deviate from instructions in any way will result in a sudden case of death for their loved ones.

Later on, a lower ranking bad guy, bent on a little "fun" which Lucy rejects, gives her a beating which causes some of the drugs to leak into her bloodstream. That was a mistake. For him. The drugs rework and rewire Lucy's brain. They turn her into something that is growing beyond homo sapiens. This all happens in the first 10-15 minutes. The film's balance is concerned with Jang's attempt to get his drugs back, Lucy's attempt to understand and deal with what's happening to her and Professor Samuel Norman's (Morgan Freeman) attempt to explain things to the audience and to Lucy. Much like with Neo in The Matrix or the Superman reboot, if someone has powers beyond the human, we had better hope that they maintain some sort of moral control and human connection. Because if they don't we're all in a lot of trouble. The action showdowns are really just the fluff to get you into the meat of the film. Where did we come from? How far back does it all go? What's the meaning of life?  The film often looks good while asking the questions. But if you realize that the premise is nonsense you may not be able to take anything else seriously. Besson is also less interested in what Lucy can do than what this all means for mankind. It's an uneven film but Johansson puts it on her back and carries it into the end zone. You may laugh and cringe at places that weren't meant for either. After her dosage with the drugs, Lucy often speaks in a distracting near monotone.

TRAILER

HBO Game of Thrones: Season Five Trailer

If it's Saturday there must be another Season Five Game of Thrones trailer to share. I mentioned last time that I didn't see myself being quite as interested in upcoming Season Five as I had been in the previous seasons. This is because I don't think the remaining currently published source material was quite as strong as the previously depicted books and because I am going to be working a new schedule at my day job that may interfere a bit with writing Monday reviews/recaps. Snicker. But looking at this latest trailer for the new season I may have to rethink some things. I said before that because of the inexorable pace of the television series, the different requirements of the medium and especially because some characters have already neared or reached the end of their published storylines, that I thought all of us, book readers and show watchers alike, would probably be seeing more surprises this season. Judging by this trailer there might be something to this hypothesis. It could be hit or miss. Sometimes the show writers have scored home runs with the material they've invented ( the frank and blunt conversation between Robert and Cersei about their marriage, Arya and Tywin's interactions) and sometimes they've struck out (the Jaime-Cersei "rape" scene or the endless harping on Pod's hidden bedroom talents). Anyway check this out below the jump. Of course trailers are edited to mislead and excite interest simultaneously. But there's little here which is immediately obvious to a book reader though it's been a minute since I read the books. So this could presage the best season ever or..not. Time will tell. I do know I will be surprised either way. Jaime in Dorne is something different. And is that Grey Worm and Missandei together??

Religious exceptionalism and the law

I am not religious but many people I deeply care about are. Even if everyone I loved, admired or respected were an atheist I would still think that common courtesy means that generally I am not going to go out of my way to insult someone's religious beliefs. For other personal and political reasons I even occasionally have some sympathy for religious people who feel that they are set upon by a government which is determined to drive all religion out of the public square or force religious business owners or individuals between a rock and a hard place where they must choose to violate religious beliefs or pay exorbitant fines. But I said some sympathy not a lot. As religious people, usually on the right, have fought back against what they see as government overreach by claiming religious exceptions to generally applicable laws, they have generally done so by citing Christian or occasionally Jewish doctrines. That's all well and good but this is a big country with lots of different religious traditions. What may be profoundly silly to someone of a Christian faith tradition may be a matter of serious import to someone of a non-Christian faith tradition. Many of the right-wing Christians who are seeking or have won religious exemptions to such things as birth control provisions or wish to allow government judges, magistrates and mayors to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples or who have the bright idea to limit marriage to religious people alone should remember that they aren't the only people to have religious objections to something that seems pretty cut and dry otherwise.

Case in point: in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn Heights, a woman named Malak Kazan was caught driving on a suspended license and then subsequently arrested. But when she was taken to booking things got interesting.
Before reading further you should know that the tri-country area of SE Michigan has the United States' largest grouping of people of Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian descent. It is not all odd to see women wearing hijab or to drive down the streets of certain neighborhoods and see Arabic script on billboards or storefronts. The population of Dearborn and Dearborn Heights is at least 1/3 or more of Middle Eastern descent, something that has caused some right-wing bigots commentators to refer to the general area as "Dearbornistan". It's also important to know that not every local person of Middle Eastern descent is Muslim. There are a lot of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Maronites and so on. Anyhow Kazan was of the opinion that to remove her hair covering in the presence of an unrelated man was not only demeaning and degrading but unconstitutional. When she was forced to remove her hair covering she filed a federal lawsuit.

A Muslim woman filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing Dearborn Heights police of violating her constitutional rights by making her remove her Islamic head scarf after they arrested her for driving on a suspended license. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Detroit, asks for Dearborn Heights to "modify its current policy" so that Muslim women can wear Islamic head scarves during booking procedures. Malak Kazan of Dearborn Heights was pulled over by police in July on a traffic violation and then taken into custody on a traffic misdemeanor because of her suspended license, according to the lawsuit.

The male police officer then asked Kazan to remove her head scarf to take her booking photo, which usually requires no head coverings or hats. Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.

LINK
Initially I was a little torn on this. There are people in prison who have successfully won the right to kosher or halal food or access to the religious books of their choice. There are Orthodox mohels who use their mouth to draw blood from newly circumcised baby boys. There are a handful of religious exemptions to PPACA. And so on. So what was the big deal right?

Now there are lawyers around this blog who could quote you all the relevant case history and Supreme Court decisions. Perhaps they will drop by and leave some more knowledge. But my interest was less with the legal specifics and more with common sense. After some more thought I don't see it as a horrible violation to have to remove a hair covering for a booking photo. The point of the booking photo is identification. It's not to humiliate you. It's something that anyone who is arrested will have to do. So, if everyone who's arrested has to remove head/hair coverings that could interfere with their identification I would not be in support of Kazan's lawsuit. There are however some people who see situations like these and look jealously at existing exemptions or special treatment given to other religions and ask, why should we assimilate. This case reminded me a little bit of another Muslim woman, one Sultana Freeman, who wanted to have her driver's license photo show her in a veil with only her eyes showing. Some things just won't work. I don't think we can chase all religion out of the public square. I doubt we can come up with bright line rules that automatically make the answers obvious whenever someone raises a religious objection to secular law. But I also think that there are some generally applicable laws and rules that must apply to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs. You get arrested; you take off your hair covering. You want a driver's license; you show your face. And if you're a state justice of the peace or magistrate and a same sex couple wants to get married, you marry them.

How do you see all of this?

Marshawn Lynch speaks to the media

As most of you know the Super Bowl is this Sunday. I am betting (not literally of course since I don't make enough money to lose any) that the Seattle Seahawks will defeat the New England Patriots. If Seattle does win there's no doubt that their starting running back Marshawn Lynch will be key to their victory. If Seattle loses or gets blown out (assuming New England didn't cheat) there's a pretty good chance that Marshawn Lynch either didn't have a good game, was hurt, or otherwise removed from the game plan. He's that dominant. Known as Beast Mode, Lynch has a very aggressive commanding running style. There's a few times I've seen him dragging defenders down the field, simply refusing to be tackled. He's a very exciting player in a time where the passing game has tended to outshine the running game. But Mr. Lynch has become just as well known for his dislike for talking in public, or rather, his dislike for talking in public to reporters. His teammates have consistently said that he's a great guy. One of the most extroverted and verbally demonstrative Seahawks, cornerback Richard Sherman, has said (paraphrasing) that asking Lynch to go out and answer interview questions and/or verbally banter with reporters is akin to asking a reporter to play linebacker and tackle Adrian Peterson. Nonetheless, the NFL is adamant about ensuring that the media has access to star players. The NFL has fined players, including Marshawn Lynch, for avoiding interviews or cutting them short. Although I suppose a $10,000 fine won't hurt someone who's making millions those fines can add up. 

So Lynch stopped skipping interviews. Though he attended interviews he limited himself STRICTLY to what the NFL required. He answered reporters' questions but used the exact same phrase over and over ("Thank you for asking") no matter what. The NFL said he had to answer questions for at least five minutes so he set an alarm on his phone and "answered" questions for exactly five minutes and not one second longer. You would think people would get the hint but this just continued a game of "Let's ask Lynch a question today just because" and showed the limits of the NFL's or the media's power to compel someone to engage verbally. On sports radio shows arguments have raged about whether the NFL is right to attempt to make star players speak (it's good for business and was apparently negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement) or if this is just a pushy, entitled and uncaring NFL/media complex trying to force an individual to do something he's not good at and has no interest in doing. As someone who is introverted and generally only opens up verbally to people I know very well or like a great deal I tend to support Lynch. On the other hand he's paid a lot of money so what is so bad about answering some, admittedly mostly silly, questions. Well yesterday Lynch did have a little more to say besides "Have a blessed day" or "That's a great question". Check it out below and share your thoughts.