Facebook Threat Posts: Pebbles and Bam Bam

Every time someone goes on a shooting rampage the people who knew the assailant are either shocked and heartbroken (usually the assailant's parents) or they are not surprised at all. The people who weren't surprised only wonder why the assailant took so long to crack. These folks are often seen on television interviews smugly declaring they knew so-n-so wasn't right in the head, and never felt safe or at ease around him. Folks who fall into the second category are often the assailant's co-workers, spouse or significant other, or anyone else who is able to evaluate the person without looking through the rosy lens of motherhood or fatherhood. A challenge that we have in a supposedly free society is that we want to protect ourselves and everyone else from crime or violence without arresting and convicting people for what they might do. Our idea of justice normally includes the requirement that we only punish people for what they've done. There is a huge gray area/exception to this, obviously. Planning to perform a crime is usually a crime and something for which you can be arrested and charged. If you and your buddies get together every Thursday after work to plan your multi-million dollar bank robbery but are discovered and arrested, it's not much of a defense to say that sure you might have been planning multiple felonies but you never did them. But is talking junk on Facebook or other social media something which is or should be a crime? If I say someone gets on my nerves so much that I could kill them is that hyperbole or an actual threat? Your perception of that depends on your perception of the person making the statement. The average man or woman saying something like that probably doesn't mean it. But there are some people, either through mental instability or actual past criminal or violent history, who make statements like that and must be taken seriously. And there are other people, who while they may have no rap sheet or known psychological issues, say or do things which are so outrageous that they also must be closely watched if not arrested and charged. Former Washtenaw County mental health/disability worker Grady Floyd falls into that last category.

A deleted Facebook post likely saved a man who brought two handguns nicknamed "Pebbles and Bam-Bam" to his Washtenaw County job from facing any criminal charges, a police report shows. Detectives attempted to retrieve any evidence of a threatening post seen by many of Grady Floyd's co-workers at Washtenaw County Community Support and Treatment Services, but since Floyd deleted it, prosecutors declined to authorize charges.

Floyd admitted to police that he wrote a threatening post so colleagues would stop talking bad about him, according to the police report. He also admitted to changing his Facebook profile picture to one of him holding a shotgun and an AK-47 with a grenade launcher to intimidate co-workers. Floyd was in possession of two handguns when he was arrested the morning after his co-workers contacted authorities about the threatening Facebook post, the report says.These, he explained to detectives, were "Pebbles and Bam-Bam," not the long guns.

While prosecutors declined to authorize criminal charges, Floyd still lost his job, something he is contesting in recently filed lawsuits. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office Det. Mark Neumann wrote in the police report that when he looked at the Facebook profile on Feb. 11, the picture was still up, but the message had been deleted.

Co-workers who saw it summarized it thusly, according to the report: "I'm just going to put it out to my so-called co-workers at CSTS. I am not putting up with this (expletive) (expletive) anymore. I am tired of people hating on me. I have two kids named pebbles and bam-bam who can deal it. I am going to shut you up permanently. Once they go off you are done, you are dead. You know you are. I do my (expletive) job. You haters need to leave me alone."

LINK

I can certainly sympathize with someone feeling put upon at their job, overlooked, demeaned, discriminated against, bullied or knowing that they just aren't a good fit. But I don't think it's too much to ask that people who have those feelings leave their job, find a way to deal with the issues, work with the appropriate authorities to resolve the problems, talk it out with mental health professionals or do any number of other things short of going on social media to threaten people. Floyd's threat reads depressingly like any number of other paranoid rantings by other workplace gunmen. I am surprised that the county prosecutor is so far not going to authorize charges but I'm more surprised that Floyd is suing to get his job back. To me Floyd's statement is the very definition of a hostile, unsafe workplace. Think of the worst boss, co-worker or direct report you ever had. And then think of them posting a death threat to you on Facebook. Would you want to come into work the next day? Or would you wake up the next morning and get yourself a gun? I don't see this as a free speech issue.

Should Mr. Floyd be prosecuted?

Should he get his job back?

What's the worst experience you ever had at work?

Book Reviews: Off Color, Impaired Judgment

Off Color: The Violent History of Detroit's Purple Gang
by Daniel Waugh

Although the Purple Gang has passed into infamy and is mostly forgotten now, for a brief period of time it was probably the most violent, if not the most powerful or largest, organized crime group in Detroit and the surrounding areas of south east Michigan. The Purple Gang had a spectacular rise and fall from its post WW1 beginnings to its Prohibition ascendancy and its slow decline in the thirties and forties. This decline was helped along by lethal internal squabbling, the growing power of the Detroit Mafia or "Partnership", and the utter inability of some Purple Gang members to adapt to new ways of doing business. The Purple Gang was a very loose knit conglomeration of primarily Jewish gangsters who engaged in various crimes, including but not limited to burglary, auto theft, hijacking, labor racketeering, bootlegging, narcotics importation and trafficking, murder for hire, extortion, and bookmaking among others. In a time before mass transit by airplane Detroit gangsters were uniquely positioned to bring whiskey across the river and lakes from Canada. Organized crime groups in Detroit supplied high quality (and sometimes not so high quality) liquor to their counterparts across the Midwest and East Coast. They had a few violent conflicts with the Detroit Mafia but many more business dealings. The Purple Gang hijacked more whiskey than they made or imported. Off Color details the genesis of the Purple Gang in Detroit's Little Jerusalem neighborhood where members got their start robbing pushcarts and icemen, doing home break-ins and performing assaults or worse for money. Later the nucleus of what would become the original Purple Gang, centered around the four Burnstein brothers (Abe, Joe, Raymond and Izzy), hooked up with gangsters/disreputable businessmen Charles Leiter and Henry Shorr. Shorr and Leiter, among other ventures, supplied sugar for citywide liquor distillation. Their headquarters was the appropriately named Oakland Avenue Sugar House. To an extent Leiter and Shorr were initially the legitimate leaders or at least less violent faces of the Purple Gang. But if they were ever the undisputed bosses, that era ended in 1934 when Shorr went on a ride with some of his gangland friends but never came back. Though the Purple Gang always had a very loose hierarchy with fluid membership, the Burnstein brothers, especially Abe, became the acknowledged first among equals. It wasn't healthy to cross the Burnsteins.

When people think of organized crime cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago come to mind. Well those cities weren't the only places organized crime flourished. Off Color details how different the cultural expectations of the time were, not just in the obvious racial or ethnic conventions and protocols but also the gender ones. For example, shortly after a gangland murder when an infamous Purple Gang hit man is stopped and questioned about fresh bloodstains in his car's backseat, he cavalierly explains the blood away by saying it was nothing serious, he just smacked his girlfriend too hard. The police let him go.
Waugh, a Detroit native, has written an extremely detailed book. It's probably a little bit too detailed at times. Sometimes it reads like a version of Dragnet. On such and such a day at 9:23 AM Hyman shot his former friend Paul twice in the stomach and once in the chest before dropping the .32 revolver and proceeding up Woodward to the Blue Cheer diner where his boss Simon was waiting for a report. And so on. But as a Detroiter who grew up in the general area which was once the Purple Gang's home turf, I enjoyed reading about all the things which happened in neighborhoods or streets with which I was intimately familiar. The Collingwood Massacre, which had the same local impact as the more famous St. Valentine's Day Massacre, occurred within a short walking distance of my home. One of the participants in that crime was arrested on the very next block from where I grew up. Off Color also delves into the relationship between the Purple Gang and several corrupt police officials, judges, politicians and prison officials. When one of their benefactors was threatened by the possibility of a state senator testifying, the Purple Gang murdered that state senator. Off Color gives the lie to the idea that Detroit only became corrupt in the seventies. The entire police department was for sale to people like the Purples. The book is just under 300 pages but it is lavishly detailed with a massive number of footnotes and photographs. It can be somewhat repetitive in that one wonders why the various victims of (occasionally literal) back stabbings and one way rides would ever get into a car with certain people or let other people into their home but to paraphrase Henry Hill, your killers come to you with smiles and hugs. This is a worthwhile historical view of departed time. I didn't know that Shorr's son later became the owner of a noted local electronics audio shop. The smarter Purples (e.g Abe Burnstein) went semi-legitimate or completely straight, parlaying their ill gotten gains into stocks, bonds and businesses. Still others became decidedly secondary associates to the burgeoning Mafia. Most of the other Purples wound up where most criminals do, in prison or murdered by their "friends". 






Impaired Judgment
by David Compton

Sometimes you can find books in used bookstores that while they aren't exactly the missing Great American Novel, certainly are worth picking up. Impaired Judgment is a political thriller/mystery/legal procedural novel which probably won't make you bounce out of chair in surprise but will keep you turning pages to see what happens next. It's a great book to read while you're waiting to get your hair cut, have work done on your car or pick someone up at the hospital or airport. It was a little over 400 pages but it was a pretty quick read. Although it was written way back in 2001, the characters, especially some of the men, are written such that they could easily fit in today's headlines. Jim Candler is the newly elected President of the United States. He's a Virginia native who has big plans for the country. He's nothing if not a straight shooter. President Candler's wife Paula is a federal judge. Paula, with Jim's fierce support, has declined to resign from her position as judge. She doesn't think women should give up their careers for their husbands, no matter what the husband's job may be. Del Owens is President's Candler's primary political adviser, his Karl Rove, his Valerie Jarrett, his Walsingham all rolled up into one. Del doesn't like the idea of Paula keeping her job. He thinks it sets a bad precedent and makes the President look weak. Del can't really express this to the President any more but still lets Paula know every chance he gets. Del knows where all the bodies are buried. And he always has one eye on the latest polls. Tony Remalli is a fugitive Mafia boss who's wanted for labor racketeering and the murder of a female federal judge. When he's arrested and arraigned most people in law enforcement consider it a forgone conclusion that he will be found guilty and receive the harshest sentence possible. This is even more the case when Judge Candler, not known for being soft, is assigned the trial.

But although Remalli may look like a dumb thug you don't reach his level of power without having more than muscle in your toolkit. Remalli's ace in the hole is the defense attorney Don Russ. Russ may be a "mob lawyer", but he tries to tell himself that he's upholding a more important principle. In any event both Russ and his beautiful investigator Julia Menendez will stop at nothing to win their cases. And they've found some dirt on Judge Candler, something so explosive it could destroy her husband's Presidency before it even has a chance to start. Battle is joined. And some secrets will be revealed. As mentioned, the story moves pretty quickly. This may be fast food but it's good fast food. If you like thrillers or mysteries this is a decent book to have in your library.

Ben Carson is a bigot

Black conservatives often complain that people, by which they mean liberals and/or other black people (and those two groups are not mutually exclusive), try to question their blackness or expel them from the black community because they have conservative views. Well all "blackness" really means in the American context is that you are apparently descended in whole or in part from people who recently originated in what's commonly known as "Black Africa". It's a circular definition. Blackness, however defined, definitely doesn't automatically imply anything about an individual's voting patterns, his views on sexuality, religion, preferred music, stance on economics, feelings about whether nature or nurture are more important in human development, favored sports teams or anything else. So I agree that one shouldn't assume that blackness automatically means you are or should be beholden to a specific political theory, party or way of life. On the other hand, given the black experience in America, which only in the past fifty years has fitfully moved beyond formal exclusion, it is a little jarring to see a black person enthusiastically take up bigoted ideas that were just recently used against him and his. Dr. Ben Carson, famed surgeon, Republican presidential candidate and nutcase extraordinaire, has been providing us a clinic on this sort of dissonance.

Washington (CNN) Ben Carson says the United States should not elect a Muslim president.

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," the retired neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Carson, meanwhile, was asked Sunday whether a president's faith should matter to voters. "I guess it depends on what that faith is," he said. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." Asked whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't -- I do not."

This isn't the first time that Carson has said something stupid and/or offensive. I didn't expect too much intelligent discourse from someone who believes that the theory of evolution was inspired by Satan. I will say that every individual voter can decide on his or her own whether to vote for someone based on any number of reasons or characteristics, be they petty, bigoted or downright silly. You get to decide. Judging by their commentary, jokes, emails, letters, placards, and insults over the past seven years a sizable proportion of conservatives weren't thrilled with having a black man serve as President. No the real problem with Carson's declaration is not just that he reveals his inner bigot. No it's that Carson and his defenders don't seem to understand that Carson's implicit endorsement of a religious test for the office of President is directly contradicted by the United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So that is that. It looks like it's not Islam that is incompatible with the Constitution but Carson. But there are some questions for Carson and those of like mind. If they think the Presidency should be off limits to Muslims shouldn't citizenship also be off limits? Should Muslims have lower expectations for privacy and civil liberties? Should Muslims be deported? And if so where? If Islam isn't compatible with the Constitution, should conversions be banned? And what about interfaith marriages? Shouldn't we stop those as well? We certainly don't want our fair Christian maidens marrying those devious Muslims SOB's. Right?  And if, by contrast, Christianity and Judaism are compatible with the Constitution does Carson think that a Christian President should live by Jesus' directive to resist not evil? I guess we could get rid of the Defense Department and all local police departments. If a Jewish President has a drunk disrespectful son is Carson going to be the first to call for a stoning, as is explicitly ordered in Deuteronomy? Hmm. Or maybe, just maybe Carson recognizes that a Christian or Jewish person is not a mindless automaton who lives by every last single word in their holy book. Or maybe Carson does want to live by the Holy Bible and is projecting his desires onto Muslims.

The Republican Party has relied overmuch on hating the other. It has relied overmuch on wedding itself to a specific type of pugnacious evangelical. No matter how much Carson and his fellow candidates such as Huckabee might wish otherwise, the United States is not a theocracy. Taking gratuitous shots at an entire religion simply alienates members of that religion who might vote for you. And for someone like Carson, who was born before Brown v. Board of Education, when segregation and white supremacy was the law of the land, to engage in religious bigotry to seek favor with people who haven't wholly left behind racial bigotry, is beyond pathetic.

Movie Reviews: Dirty Weekend, Kill The Irishman, Bad Teacher

Dirty Weekend
directed by Neil LaBute

OK judging by this film Matthew Broderick may need to do some running, cut back on the carbs and hit the weight room. But you could say that about a lot of people couldn't you. Father Time eventually catches up with us all.There are very few people in their fifties who look as they did when they were in their twenties. Perhaps I am just a little taken aback at watching an actor I long identified with youth or young adulthood move into AARP eligible status. Oh well. It happens to everyone if we're lucky enough I guess. Alice Eve continues to take quirky roles which downplay her physical attributes and show a gift for snark and comedy. Nevertheless I didn't like this film all that much. There is a much anticipated twist that while it doesn't come out of nowhere (it's all but shouted out in the first twenty minutes) was sufficiently odd enough to put me off the film. YMMV but this wasn't really the movie I was expecting. I kept hoping that the film wasn't going to go where I thought it was going to go but it did just that. If this film were a basketball player it could be said to have faked left and went left. This is a film which occasionally gives the impression both from casting and the cinematography that it was directed by Woody Allen. Of course as it turns out this movie was directed by Neil LaBute, who also directed such films as Your Friends and Neighbors and In the Company of Men. I didn't know Labute directed this film before I started watching it but as soon as you listen to the characters talk it becomes supremely obvious who created this film. LaBute has the ability to produce some incredibly emotionally harsh scenes, something which, at least in the two other movies mentioned above, caused some people to dismiss him as a misogynist and/or misanthrope. That trait is somewhat muted in this movie. Nevertheless Dirty Weekend could still come across as an unpleasant Seinfeld episode or a less restrained Woody Allen film. I did like the introductory 60s style colorful credits with the smooth jazz soundtrack.

American Les Moore (Broderick) and British woman Natalie Hamilton (Alice Eve) are sales executives for the Los Angeles branch of an (IIRC) unnamed business conglomerate. Les is the duo's senior member but it's not clear that Natalie actually reports to him, as deference doesn't really inform their relationship at all. The two workers are taking a business trip to Dallas which becomes unavoidably delayed in Albuquerque. Les is a whiny little nebbish who virtually defines the term passive aggressive. Nothing is ever his fault. Self-centered Les tends to see the worst in people. He also has a verbal style that makes you wonder why someone hasn't punched him in the mouth yet. After five minutes with Les, even Gandhi would be looking for some brass knuckles. Les insults people without even thinking about it. Buttoned up Natalie is marginally less irritating but has a superiority complex about American conversation styles in general and in particular about what she sees as Les' cold emotional style and moral hypocrisies. Once they're stranded, Les almost immediately tries to ditch Natalie so that he can go into the city alone. Natalie finds this suspicious both because it is suspicious and because she feels that they need to remain together at the airport to catch the next available flight and arrive in Dallas. Natalie doesn't feel capable of doing the sales presentation by herself even if showing up Les would be a highly beneficial competitive side benefit. So to Les' barely concealed annoyance, Natalie stays close to him. And Natalie notices things about Les. She may not say too much but there's not much she misses.

Neither co-worker knows the other very well but it rapidly becomes apparent that both of them, especially Les, have some secrets which they'd just as soon not share with the other person. And both people initially feel morally superior to the other for what appear to be different reasons. There is something to the old joke that two women can work together for one week and end up knowing each other's detailed personal, romantic and medical histories while two men can work together for one decade and be oblivious to details of each other's lives other than marital status or sports team affiliation. This movie plays with that a bit as Natalie surgically drills down to bring out Les's hidden fears and secrets. From a combination of revenge, self-defense and possible actual interest, Les tries to do the same with Natalie. As with many LaBute films Dirty Weekend feels very stage like. With only a few exceptions the film is very static. Broderick and Eve have almost all of the dialogue. The other characters only speak in order to help us learn something about Les or Natalie. There is often an artificial stilted nature to the verbiage. My issue was that I simply wasn't interested in Les or his problems. Dirty Weekend is not really a light humor sort of film though I suppose for LaBute it may be as close as he cares to come to such fare. I'm leaving aside the trailer as it reveals the film's primary twist. This film may have been more transgressive had it been made two decades ago though I still wouldn't have cared for it all that much. You may feel differently. If you're unfamiliar with LaBute's work I guess this could be a dip into the shallow end of the pool.




Kill The Irishman
directed by Jonathan Hensleigh

Although you would never know it from most Hollywood crime movie output, organized crime existed and thrived outside of cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia or Chicago. The syndicate was nationwide. Everywhere you go there are people who like to gamble, consume illicit substances or buy goods with no sales receipts. And everywhere you go there are people who enjoy hurting people, are too lazy to work for a living or want to lend money at higher rates than the law allows. Kill The Irishman tells the tale of such people in the city of Cleveland during the fifties, sixties and seventies. In particular it tells the real life story of Irish American labor leader/mob leader Danny Greene (Ray Stevenson). Greene, as played by Stevenson, was something of a likable nut. He was a Irish history fanatic who drove a green car, dressed in green clothes, and painted the walls and steps of his union office green. For a mobster he was quite well read, often relaxing by perusing works by famous Irish poets and authors. Even more unusually Greene was a health and fitness enthusiast who eschewed alcohol, tobacco and meat. He regularly jogged and exercised. But of course one doesn't get a street rep in the Cleveland underworld merely by being a well read vegetarian who knows a lot about his ethnic background. Although Greene had a long standing disdain for Italians that probably went back to his experiences being bullied at high school, he nonetheless often worked with them in his loan sharking, extortion, labor racketeering and other criminal ventures. Greene makes a name as someone who is not to be trifled with. Greene gets to know Cleveland Mafioso John Nardi (Vincent D'Ononfrio), a frustrated middle manager who doesn't like the current Mafia hierarchy much more than Greene does. The unlikely duo become close though that doesn't prevent either of them from cracking friendly and sometimes not so friendly slurs about the other's background. When Nardi loses an internal power struggle for leadership of the Italian crime group both he and Greene are upset.

But when the Cleveland Mob tries to take over all of Nardi's and Greene's businesses the two friends resist violently, kicking off a mob war that will have far reaching and permanent repercussions for all sorts of different people. This should have been a better movie. The casting is pretty good, with the exception of Val Kilmer's wrong turn as a police captain who attended school with Greene all those years ago. You will recognize a great many character actors and big name actors who often show up in mob movies, including but not limited to Paul Sorvino, Christopher Walken, Mike Starr, Tony LoBianco, Steve Schirripa (Tony Soprano's hapless brother-in-law), Robert Davi, and Vinnie Jones. Linda Cardellini and Laura Ramsay are Greene's wife and girlfriend, who get to see a more tender side of him. Fionnula Flanagan is Greene's crusty old widow neighbor who initially dismisses him as a dumb thug but later gives him a religious token and urges him to remember their Irish ancestors. This movie wants to be Goodfellas so badly but it can't. And it can't because the budget, special effects and ultimately writing fail to support a more than decent cast. Because the Cleveland Mob war was fought with bombs as much as with bullets the low budget really detracts from the story. And although I loved his work in Tombstone, in this movie Val Kilmer is charisma free. His intrusive voiceover detracts from the film. I wish someone would remake this movie with about 4 or 5 times the budget and do it right. There were a few too many times this looked like a made for TV film. Stevenson did really good work here. He plays Greene with a real twinkle in his eye. He's a tough guy but is rarely depicted as a mean guy. Greene showers the neighborhood with food and gifts at Christmas and Thanksgiving. He is kindly and chivalrous to women. Greene goes on television after a failed attempt on his life to give his enemies his address and dare them to try again (this happened in real life). Stevenson's Greene is a real man's man. He enjoys loyalty unto death from his friends and love from his women (well one woman anyway). Fun fact: much if not all of this movie was shot in Detroit because present day Cleveland had changed too much from the sixties and seventies to be believable in a movie depicting that time. Walken's minimalist offbeat acting style is a delight to watch here although he could probably do roles like this in his sleep. This was an okay film but not necessarily one you should seek out unless you're a genre fanatic. Obviously there is violence but the camera glides over such scenes quickly. There is no close up lingering over bloodshed.
TRAILER






Bad Teacher
directed by Jake Kasdan

This movie was thoroughly predictable but in a good way. It was funny. It's a reverse Cinderella. Instead of a poor but honest girl being mistreated by maleficent female rivals and winning the heart of a prince the movie imagines a foul mouthed lazy golddigger middle school teacher Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) whose first, last and only goal is to marry a man who earns more money than she can spend. If you're not a man who fits that criteria the only thing you can do for her is tell her which way that rich man went. And if you are a remotely attractive single woman then you just need to stay out of her way. Plain or ugly women can hang around her as long as they realize that it's Elizabeth's world. They're just living in it. Elizabeth can be very nasty to rivals and unconsciously patronizing to just about everyone else. Having failed to snare a NBA player for marriage or failing that child support (she's foiled by their assiduous practice of birth control) Elizabeth thinks she's finally hit the big time with upcoming nuptials to a rich heir. But in a theme that's repeated throughout the film women are a little quicker to see through Elizabeth than men are. Elizabeth's would be mother-in-law demonstrates to her son that Elizabeth cares nothing about him, only his money. Elizabeth doesn't even know her future husband's birthday. Well that ends that relationship. Elizabeth must go back to her day job as a middle school teacher. She had just recently ostentatiously quit the job. She's a horrible teacher. Saying she doesn't care about her students gives her too much credit. If she's not sleeping in class she's giving the students movies to watch instead of doing any teaching at all. Elizabeth is not a motivated or dedicated teacher. Another teacher, Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch), who is quite motivated and dedicated, starts to become more and more annoyed by Elizabeth's open lack of professionalism and crass behavior. This dislike erupts into outright hostility when both women try to put the moves on the new substitute teacher, Scott (Justin Timberlake), who just happens to be from a very rich family. It doesn't help matters that Scott apparently likes top heavy women, which Amy definitely is and Elizabeth is definitely not.

So the film's balance concerns the romantic rivalry between the two teachers, Elizabeth's inappropriate teaching methods, a crush that a gym teacher (Jason Segel) has on Elizabeth and growth by Elizabeth and Amy, who discover that in some aspects they might be mirror images of each other. Neither woman is happy to learn this. You can see something ugly in Amy's personality pushing its way to the surface via Punch's nervous expressions and crazy eyes when she's sharing a scene with Diaz. Good stuff. There's a fair amount of slapstick comedy. I love that stuff. Don't look for deep musings about the meaning of life or thoughtful writing. This is pure low comedy. It doesn't try to be too much more than that. And it works. Punch is British but you wouldn't know it here because her American accent is pretty good. John Higgins is the harried school principal who just wants everyone to leave him alone. Diaz does a great job portraying Elizabeth's initial indifference to and even horror at the idea that other people can make demands on her time and her feelings. If you need to relax and laugh without needing to concentrate too much this is a good movie to watch.
TRAILER

Illegal Search or Unreasonable Citizen: California Family

Below the break you will see a video of a family declining a vehicle search by some sort of California Agriculture inspector. They are later pulled over by California State Police and arrested. The proximate cause of the arrest was the driver's (Brad Feinman) refusal to accept a ticket or provide identification. Of course once the police broke the vehicle window and hauled the family out, they searched the vehicle anyway. This video was hard to believe. Not because of the escalation of force by police officers. That part was easy to believe, especially the part where the Caucasian-American police officers did not immediately shoot or beat or tase the Caucasian-American citizens. No what I didn't know is that apparently the State of California has taken the power upon itself to search, excuse me, inspect vehicles entering the state. This appears to me to be an end run around the Fourth Amendment. It's being done under the bailiwick of the Agricultural Inspection station but to me it doesn't really matter why it's being done or under what supposed authority it's being done. I think it's wrong and should not be tolerated. What sort of country are we living in if government authorities can just search your vehicle without warrant or probable cause anytime they want to do so. Now there are smarter people than I and people who know the law much better than I who read this blog. I would be interested in knowing what they thought of this. But ultimately it doesn't matter does it. If someone is asserting authority to search your vehicle merely because you're entering the state and/or look suspicious it seems to me that California is giving a huge middle finger to the Fourth Amendment and associated civil liberties. This, among other reasons, is why I think the security apparatus that has grown up around airline travel post 9-11 is so pernicious. There really is no reason why such (VIPER) procedures can't be put into place for travel by train, bus or as we saw here, automobile. 

The idea that the search is "voluntary" because you don't have to enter into California seems to me nonsensical. Why not just get rid of the Fourth Amendment entirely? After all, imagine how much crime the state could deter or prosecute if police officers could enter your house any time they wanted to search it. Would I have done what this man did?  Would you have? I don't like needless confrontation, but I hope that I would have the stones to stand up. But is it my right to endanger a wife and child? I'm positive that a higher level of state violence would have been used against me and mine MUCH earlier in the process. I'm as sure of that as I am that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. So who can say what I would have done. As the song says you have to know when to hold them AND know when to fold them. I think that the citizen decided not to comply with any of the requests because consent at any point would seem to reduce his chances of fighting it later in court. But again I am not a lawyer. Maybe my fears and irritation are unwarranted and these "inspections" are just fine legally and constitutionally. If so then we need to change the laws and the constitution. Anyway, check out the long video below and share your thoughts. You may think that the man is a jerk or a zealot. You may think that he's playing with fire. I don't say no to that. But something is wrong if any state or federal agent is asserting a right to search your car without some sort of probable cause. And it seems to me that's what's happening. The video starts in real time roughly at 1:32.

NYPD Assaults James Blake

As you may have heard former tennis star James Blake was wrongly detained by the NYPD when he was mistaken for a suspect in an identity theft ring. That in and of itself is not a big issue. Police and witnesses make mistakes all the time. No the big problem was that rather than being questioned first and THEN detained or arrested by a uniformed or otherwise identifiable NYPD police officer (which could have cleared up any misunderstanding immediately) James Blake was rushed by undercover police officer James Frascatore, grabbed by the neck, assaulted and forced to the ground. The officer did not identify himself. I'm not aware of the exact particulars of self-defense laws in NYC but presumably if strange men assault you in public you do have the right to defend yourself. If Blake had tried to defend himself of course the officer would have shot him and felt piously justified in doing so. Plenty of people, some with good intentions, many more with bad ones, give advice to black men on how to avoid unnecessary confrontations with police. Some of that advice is worthwhile. Most of it is utterly worthless. Here we have Blake literally minding his own business in Gotham before being assaulted by a public servant (who apparently has a track record of violent and abusive policing). There is nothing that Blake should or could have done differently to minimize his chances of being attacked. He was a black man and that was sufficient. Of course it's not just race. It's also class. Can you imagine anyone accusing a Caucasian American business owner or lawyer or other perceived/actual paid up member of the 1% of a non-violent crime and having the police execute a violent takedown? Of course not. Heck, even Mafia bosses with platoons of killers on call don't get treated like James Blake was treated. To add insult to injury the person who police thought was the initial suspect wasn't involved in the alleged crime of identity theft. The NYPD commissioner issued a mush mouthed apology but the union is defending Officer Frascatore. Just another day in the US. It is surreal. Once again, I must admit that Cliven Bundy and his supporters weren't wrong about everything. If the people tasked to enforce the law routinely brutalize people under protection of the law, what recourse does a citizen have?








James Blake Statement:

Just before noon on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, while I was standing on a sidewalk outside my hotel in midtown Manhattan waiting for a car to take me to the U.S. Open, a plainclothes New York City Police officer tackled me to the ground, handcuffed me, paraded me down a crowded sidewalk, and detained me for ten minutes before he and his four colleagues realized they had the wrong man.

The officer, who was apparently investigating a case of credit card fraud, did not identify himself as a member of law enforcement, ask my name, read me my rights, or in any way afford me the dignity and respect due every person who walks the streets of this country. And while I continue to believe the vast majority of our police officers are dedicated public servants who conduct themselves appropriately, I know that what happened to me is not uncommon. 

When this incident was reported in the news media, Mayor de Blasio and Commissioner Bratton both called me to extend their personal apologies, and I greatly appreciate those gestures. But extending courtesy to a public figure mistreated by the police is not enough.As I told the Commissioner, I am determined to use my voice to turn this unfortunate incident into a catalyst for change in the relationship between the police and the public they serve. For that reason, I am calling upon the City of New York to make a significant financial commitment to improving that relationship, particularly in those neighborhoods where incidents of the type I experienced occur all too frequently. The Commissioner has agreed to meet with my representatives and me to discuss our ideas in that regard, and we very much look forward to that meeting.
Frascatore's History

Who is a girl: Lila Perry, Tolerance and Acceptance

I don't really care how a person chooses to live their life. That's their business, not mine. I tend to be a live and let live kind of person. I don't know what happens after we die but I figure that you're the best person to decide what is right for you just as I am the best person to decide what is right for me, within certain limits. But it's that last little disclaimer where so much that is controversial can be found. What are the limits? Where are they? Most people would agree that the limits would be where some form of harm occurs. When you impact someone else's life, liberty or safety negatively is where your rights to live freely stop, or at the very least must be weighed against other considerations. One of the reasons that the American gay marriage or to use proponents' preferred terminology, marriage equality, movement was so successful in such a short period of time was because it was extremely difficult if not impossible for opponents to argue that they would suffer any serious harm as a result of gay marriage being legalized. This was especially the case in a social milieu in which marriage itself was roundly derided by many as being little more than a paper and in which ever increasing numbers of children are born to unmarried parents. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person was a blunt but effective rejoinder to most of the objections raised. In a framework that recognizes individual rights and the above theory of harm there simply wasn't the language available to counter that idea. However there are places where just because something is tolerated or even legal doesn't mean it must be accepted. We've discussed some of those instances before. Dragooning photographers or caterers or bakers to provide their services for gay weddings may be legal or constitutional but it is also something that starts to make me a bit uneasy. 

And the next step sought by the "T" membership of the "LGBT" coalition is something where I think I would jump off the acceptance bus entirely.  Almost 200 high school students in Missouri walked out of their classes to protest one a transgender student in senior year being allowed in the girls' bathroom. Members of the Hillsboro High School in Hillsboro, Missouri, ditched two hours of lessons to object to Lila Perry, a 17-year-old senior, being granted access to female bathrooms. Perry, who started identifying as transgender earlier this year, was using the female facilities to change for gym classes, which upset many other girls at the school.

Just because you decide that you are a woman doesn't make you a woman. Just because you decide that you are a man doesn't make you a man. If you have XY chromosomes and a penis, you aren't a woman. You can dress up like a woman. You can put on a wig. You can wear high heels. You can attempt feminine grooming styles. You can try to walk or talk similar to whatever your own particular stereotypical vision of a woman may be. I couldn't care less. We all have our own issues to work through. But when you try to force other people to accept and relate to you as a woman that's when I say get the bleep out of here. 

We have separate locker rooms and bathrooms not because of gender bigotry or hatred but because of privacy, modesty and in some cases safety. I think it's asinine and extremely offensive, as Perry does, to compare racial segregation to restrooms marked "ladies" or "gentlemen". Perry can take his martyr complex and shove it someplace unpleasant. I do not think it is in any way fair to force everyone else to lose their modesty because one person has what amounts to a mental disorder. This is particularly the case when we're talking about children. The rights of the other young women need to be valued here. They should have the right to change without a male being present. They shouldn't be forced to validate Perry's fantasies. Building or allowing this young man access to a gender neutral changing area and/or bathroom is a reasonable accommodation. Trying to force everyone else to bend the knee to a rather radical view of human sexuality and biology is neither reasonable nor workable in my view. When you cast things as a zero-sum game, which is what this has become, you will get a fight. I don't think anyone should hate or discriminate against anyone else based on their sexuality or how they identify. But don't tell me that 2+2 = 5 and that I'm a bigot should I disagree. In a time where "bullying" gets a lot of attention it's ironic that the schools and the federal government are forcing or in other words bullying teen girls to get undressed and use the facilities in the presence of someone who is, despite his delusions, not female.
LINK