The Performance of the Law: Time to Go to Clown School

In recent years the media establishment that we currently live under, also known as the 24-hour news cycle, has struggled to find issues to keep viewers entertained. Knowing that there was not enough “breaking news” to keep their airwaves filled, the mainstream media went looking for a new source of news and found it in the courts of America. At first, as trials became a common element of newscasts this new access to government was applauded by many among us. As a broadcasting element it helped to educate American’s about the legal process and clear up much confusion that was caused in people’s minds by shows such as “Law and Order.” Over time, however, a disturbing trend occurred in our courts. The trials became more about those conducting them then they were about those being accused.  

The first evidence of this decline in courtroom behavior surfaced during one of the most famous trials in the last fifty years of American history. That trial was O.J. Simpson’s murder hearing.  Like the heralds of old Johnnie Cochran and his defense team in this particular case trumpeted in a new era of American justice. One in which the lawyer, Judge, and witnesses were seemingly more important than the accused. Many among us remember those famous words from this trial, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Very few though when asked can remember anything that the defendant said in this case, except for his proclamation of innocence. Almost all can remember his friend Kato Kaelin and the controversy that arose around his testimony. They can also remember Judge Lance Ito and the celebrity status that he found through hearing this case. These examples, however, are negligible when one considers what happened to our courtrooms after the media realized the ratings that they could obtain from nonstop coverage of a high profile case.

The realization of the ratings that were possible manifested itself very quickly in the form of a slew of new courtroom shows. Of these, however, the most famous in the current day would be Judge Judy. 

Described by some as a “spitfire” and others as a “hack,” Judge Judy is certainly one of the most memorable characters that have graced the televised courtrooms in our country on a daily basis. Sitting on her bench she brings her own brand of no nonsense jurisprudence to television screens. The question though is that given her short tempered nature and joke cracking demeanor towards plaintiffs and defendants, is she truly conducting herself in proper way for a Judge. I would say no for this reason. By joking about those that she sits before and cutting them off mid-sentence she is showing that the court itself does not take the proceedings seriously. This translates into mainstream America believing that this is proper behavior for a courtroom. A pattern which can be seen recently with NFL star Chad Johnson and his now infamous slap on his lawyers buttocks in the courtroom to show that he thought his council was doing a good job.

The examples given to this point can in some ways be shaken off as “unique” given that we don’t see this kind of behavior every day in our courts. However, I would say that they were just the beginning with what we have seen in recent months from the court room dramas that have unfolded on national television; mainly the trials of Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman. In the case of Arias it was not the judge or her defense lawyer that tried to gain notoriety and fame from being a part of the case. It was in fact the prosecution who in this case was called by some a “showboating attorney.” His most noticeable transgression against what many call proper behavior occurred when he started signing autographs outside of the courthouse. An act which defense council in the case thought was grounds for a mistrial, although the Judge did not. This kind of behavior was not limited to this case as we can look to the current trial of George Zimmerman.

In the opening statements of the Zimmerman trial both the prosecutor and defense made very questionable remarks. The prosecution in the case during their opening statements used a “shock and awe” approach. Repeatedly swearing and using racial slurs in an attempt to get a reaction out of the jury. Although a point can be made that he was not doing this for the benefit of the jury but more for the benefit of the T.V. audience at home in an attempt to give a better show. Defense council in this case opened with a knock knock joke. Almost showing that he did not understand it was a murder trial and not a comedy night club he was speaking at.

While I do not support a return to powdered wigs for all in involved in the legal process I do cringe a bit every time that I see a new lawyer come onto television and try to make their mark. At first, cameras in the courtroom were and should have been celebrated among the citizens of America. It was a level of access that we had never been able to achieve in regards to the legal process. However, as my Grandma used to say “our chickens have come home to roost.” In a society that is so media driven, should we not have known from the start that lawyers would stop performing for their clients and start performing for the camera? Is this where we want the American Judicial system to go in the future? Let me know what you think about this issue in the comments below. 

One Scandal, Two Scandal, Red Scandal, Blue Scandal

If you are like many of us, each morning that you awaken, you stumble out of bed and head towards two objects in your house; the coffee pot and the television. You flip both on, starting your journey towards consciousness and inevitably if you turn on the news you listen to the reports about the myriad of scandals that are now plaguing the Obama administration and Congress. From the I.R.S. targeting conservatives to the N.S.A. wiretapping there does not seem to a shortage of issues that both sides of the political fence can scream about with righteous indignation. We are now even seeing rehashes of older scandals with certain members of Congress and the press trying to bring back golden oldies like Fast and Furious. Given that there is no shortage of issues and revelations to discuss it seemed only appropriate to examine some of the more popular among them and how they are affecting President Obama’s second term in office. 

Three polls were released today by some of the biggest names in research; CNN/Opinion Research, Gallup and Rasmussen. All three concern the President’s latest job approval rating and all three are bad news for the current administration. Gallup, being the kindest of the group, found the 47% of American’s thought that the President was doing a good job in office, down eleven points from earlier this year. Rasmussen found in their poll that 52% though that the President was not doing a good job, up ten points from earlier this year and CNN/ Opinion Research found similar results. What becomes obvious from these numbers and the pattern that emerges when tracking them over the last six months is that the scandals that are rampant in D.C. are definitely affecting the Presidents public image. 

So what exactly is the most important or damaging of the current field of bad press that President Obama and his administration have been facing? Polls released by major research firms last month showed that the I.R.S. targeting of conservatives was the most important to American’s. Given that just about everyone in the United States has a small fear of the I.R.S. this really came as no surprise. However, recently we found out that the N.S.A. has been collecting massive amounts of information on American’s and it seems as if the winds are shifting. Combined with the collecting of emails from reporters at the AP and Fox News, Americans more and more are looking at the White House with suspicion. Wondering how much of their personal lives does their government have access too? It would seem that the answer to that particular question is all of it. 

One thing is clear from the cacophony of scandals that have been coming out this year. That the President isn’t doing much about them. Whether he believes that they are nonsense as he has hinted in a few interviews and press conferences or he thinks that they will just go away, nothing has been done in any real sense. Roughly three weeks ago the first hearings about the I.R.S. began on the Hill. We saw testimony from Tea Party groups who were targeted and in what was truly a scandalous moment we saw Lois Lerner give a speech about her innocence and then refuse to incriminate herself by taking the 5th. Since these hearings began we have been told by the current administration that they are investigating this with a great seriousness. Is that really the case though? Just yesterday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller, testified that he didn’t even know the name of the lead investigator of the case; claiming that he didn’t know the specifics of the case. This can only lead a person to wonder how seriously the F.B.I. and the administration are taking this case. Given that the last time a President and his administration were accused of inappropriately using the I.R.S. you would think that this would be a top priority but this is not the case. Instead the White House and Department of Justice are more concerned with Edward Snowden, the N.S.A. leaker who is now hiding in China. 

Snowden, whom last week released sensitive information regarding the N.S.A. PRISM program, which collects massive amounts of information on United States citizen’s phone lines, is a top priority right now. The Administration claiming that it is because of the leaks and the fact that he broke the law. Can we really trust this reason, however, given that President Obama has shown an almost ruthless diligence in pursuing leaks and those responsible for them? It would seem that this has more to do with revenge over the embarrassment caused by the leak more than it does with any law being broken. What is clear about the Snowden situation is that it is far from over given yesterday’s live internet chat where he claimed that there was more to be told. 

Whether or not you support or dislike President Obama and his administration it would seem that just about all of us can agree on a couple of points. It is wrong to go after reporters and try to suppress the press. It is wrong to target people with government agencies because of their political beliefs. It is wrong to eavesdrop on American’s because there is a chance they can lead you to a terrorist. Given all the things that are wrong, I have to wonder how much is right inside the current White House and that is my mission to you. Use the comments link below to tell me what you think is good about the current administration. Or tell me what you think is the biggest of the scandals that are now plaguing D.C. 

Today I would like to give out a very special cookie to a congressional aide in D.C. That aides name is Nick Muzin and while eating at the Capitol Hill Club Thursday night, saved Representative Ted Poe’s life. Poe, who was eating popcorn, had a piece become lodged in his throat and was unable to breathe for several minutes according to witnesses. It was during this time that Muzin a former doctor rushed to the Representative and successfully performed the Heimlich on him. This may not seem like a big deal given all that’s happened in D.C. this week alone but saving a life is always noteworthy.

LYNCH MOBS ARE MADE FOR YOU AND ME: SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE BIGOTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

Two hundred and thirty seven years ago, in a small cramped room in Philadelphia, PA, a group of men sat sweating, swearing and sulking. They were there for one reason in this particular instance. To take a step that had never been taken before by any other group of men who had been appointed to make decisions for a population; whether or not to create a new country and break away from their colonial parent. These few men were making this decision for many reasons but above all others stood the idea that all people were entitled to live their lives without fear of persecution by their peers. At first the system was imperfect but a major step forward in this belief would be taken less than seventy-five years later at the close of the civil war. Yet another leap forward would come in another fifty years as woman’s rights became an important issue and finally forty years after that the largest of steps would occur with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. As anyone can easily see America has a long tradition of fixing the wrongs that its own citizens commit against each other; regardless of whether that injustice is slavery, voting rights, abortion rights or even lynch mobs. However, in the last thirty years of American history we have seen a shift from the revolution of equality that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. You may be saying to yourself that this isn’t true. We just voted for gay marriage in a large amount of States. I would say, however, that it is true. The difference is that in the current cultural state of American society we have shifted our focus to more socially acceptable people whom we can verbally attack and expunge from what we consider to be the norm.

                The first group that I would like to talk about is one of the most hated in our society currently; smokers. While at first glance it may be easy to say that they deserve it because you don’t want to smoke their cigarettes or that it is a filthy and disgusting habit, one must consider what those statements entail. Essentially we are talking about segregation. Adam Corolla recently said on the Bill O’Reilly Factor that “we look down more upon smokers than we do dead beat dads.” This statement struck a chord with me frankly and not only because it is true but it says something more about American society that we as a country may not be ready to accept. That message is that we have completely abandoned common sense in this regard. Or to quote Dr. Sheldon Cooper, we have gone bat-crap crazy.” I’m willing to bet that today before you rushed home to read the newest offering from your favorite writer that you passed by over one hundred no smoking signs. I am also equally as positive that you passed by one hundred establishments and not a single one had a sign hanging on their door saying “no dead beat dads allowed.” This may seem like quibbling and perhaps it is to a certain extent but the underlying point remains that we are more than willing to attack a group of people for having a bad habit or making a bad lifestyle choice but not for abandoning their family or beating their children. When those topics come up it seems that everyone can agree that it’s bad but apparently not bad enough to put up a sign saying keep out. Telling people that their lifestyle decisions are wrong is the new way that American’s have found to feel morally and socially superior to each other and this brings us to the next group of people I would like to discuss; the obese.

                    To start this section of the discussion I would like to quote a few of our more successful citizens, beginning with the owner of Abercrombie and Fitch, Mike Jefferies. Recently in an interview with Business Insider the clothing mogul told his interviewer that he didn’t want “fat” or “not so cool” people wearing his clothes. This caused a large amount of blowback and the owner has since apologized for his remarks but he is not alone in his opinion of the larger part of the population. Not only are the obese not cool enough for the hippest clothing but apparently they are also stupid and lazy. At least that was what was tweeted by Geoffrey Miller, an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico and a visiting professor at New York University’s Stern Business School. Miller tweet was concise and to the point saying “Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, then you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth.” Of course the outrage came pouring in from the academic community but the question remains of how many schools when they interview someone for acceptance make a decision about them based on whether or not they are in shape and attractively thin. To go one step further from education we can look at business models where specifically airlines are now talking about weighing passengers and charging them by the pound. While practical given the nature of physics and how flight works this kind of policy will only accomplish the task of shaming a portion of the population and will more than likely lead to violent outbursts from people who are charged exuberant rates because they have an affinity for cheesesteaks and Hostess. It doesn’t stop with business though. The U.S. government has decided to get on board with this fatty-phobia as it has been nicknamed by some. Under the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare, the obese among us and their smoker friends will have to pay penalties simply because of who they are. Yet at the same time, a man or woman who drinks a fifth of scotch every two days will not. The targeting of the obese in American society has come to a precipice in my opinion. We are on the ledge of pushing those that we find visually unappealing or just downright disgusting off of it. Why you may ask. Not because they are truly hurting anyone but because we simply don’t like them and the choices that they have made. America is turning into a theme park of sorts where before getting on a ride you see the sign that says “you must be this person to ride this ride.”

                While smokers and the obese get most of the news there is one group who are just as abused as the other two and are more familiar with theme park signs than the others will ever be. That’s right, you guessed it. I’m talking about the vertically challenged or to use the last bastion of the weak minded, political correctness. Short people have endured ridicule for as long as I can remember and speaking as a historian I don’t think I’ve ever come across a time period that I have researched that they weren’t. Evolution is based upon strength and ability to survive. More importantly, when we look at a man who is 5’8” or shorter, as a culture, we do not see a survivor. We see someone who can’t play sports, can’t reach the top shelf and probably won’t date a lot of women, because let’s face it, as a culture women like tall men. We cast them as adorable comic relief in movies like the Austin Powers series, or we dress them up in makeup and call them a clown. Whatever the end result is, in modern society we discount this group of people in many ways based solely on height. This particular form of bigotry is different than those previously mentioned though because the people who suffer from it have no choice in the matter. Height as we are all aware is a matter of genetics. However, that doesn’t seem to stop many among us from cracking a joke at a short person’s expense. Because let’s face it, midgets are hilarious and should be there to entertain us.

              The simple fact of life folks is that bigotry isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Whether it’s people who are living in smog filled cities bitching about the smoker destroying their lungs in the car next to their SUV or a clothing retailer that tells someone to leave because they don’t fit the image or the sizes of their store. What’s important though is how we as a nation and as individuals treat these situations.  So I will send you into the world with a mission. The next time that you see a short, fat smoker, go over to that person and give them a big hug because as my Grandma used to say, “the good lord knows that they surely need it.”

THE N.S.A. AND YOU: AN AMERICAN LOVE STORY

     

     Over the course of the last week we have been inundated with a flood of reports from our friends, the media, regarding the N.S.A. and ‘whether’ or not they are monitoring all wireless communications in the United States through the program called PRISM. The reason that the caveat of ‘whether’ is included is because there is a small amount of debate over ‘whether’ or not the N.S.A. is actually listening to and reading through the information or just collecting it. A debate which will eventually land this program and its creators in front of the Supreme Court arguing over 4^th Amendment violations. Like a kid collecting baseball cards though, the N.S.A. is collecting info and saving it on just about every single American; looking for that prized terrorist trading card that will help complete their set. Although if recent experience is any indicator about the effectiveness of this method of data collection, we may all be in trouble.

               

     Looking over the past few years and the reasons attacks have been stopped there doesn't seem to be any real advantage or effectiveness to this approach of data mining. Except to make American’s feel like their sleazy Uncle Sam just showed up to another party drunk and tried to grope their mom. To begin, however, let’s look at a few of the attempted terror plots that this sort of data retrieval is supposed to advert. To start it seems only appropriate to delve in with the underwear bomber of 2009 since this all stinks to high heaven anyway. Just in case you forgot, back in 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane leaving Amsterdam and heading for Detroit on Christmas Day. What made this particular flight memorable was that while sitting in his seat, the would-be bomber attempted to set his crotch on fire. Being seen by a fellow passenger and subdued by one as well the underwear bomber had no success with his midair fiasco.

              

     Fast forward to one year later and change venues from Detroit to New York City. The city that never sleeps has had its fair share of terrorist scares throughout the years since 9/11 and one more came in Times Square on May 1, 2010. A young man named Faisal Shahzad parked a vehicle filled with fertilizer, propane tanks, gasoline canisters and other items on a crowded street corner in this iconic New York location. Once again, like his flying brother in arms, this plot wasn't stopped through the diligence and hard work of law enforcement. It was foiled by a vendor, who while peddling his wares to tourists that day happened to notice Shahzad’s car smoking slightly and so informed a police officer who was standing near him. Thus the bombers plot was thwarted and all was well in the Big Apple for one more day.

                

     Lastly, we need to look at the recent Boston Marathon bombings committed by the Tsarnaev brothers. Given how recently this occurred I will skip the details of what happened and focus more on how they were apprehended. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two, as you are all aware died during a police chase. His younger sibling, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would later be found hiding in a boat suffering from gunshot wounds. The important part about these events is the how they were found and not that they were; at least for the purposes of this conversation. Law enforcement and the N.S.A. claim that the PRISM program is an acceptable reach into the privacy of Americans because technically they are not listening to each and every phone call. They say that programs like PRISM help them to find and catch would-be terrorists. However, if you look at the examples provided here, three of the most successful attacks we have endured in recent years, two of which were busts, these programs seem to do very little if anything to help prevent terrorism. In the first two examples it was ordinary citizens who stopped the attackers by simply paying attention to something that was odd in their surroundings. In the Boston case, you can see definitive proof that PRISM and efforts like it are completely ineffective. Both brothers from what we have learned not only lived on their cell phones but also made many calls to known terrorist locations in the world. Something that PRISM, specifically, was supposed to have picked up on. Add on top of PRISM that Russian officials warned us about them, it would seem that secretly monitoring Americans serves no purpose other than to unite them against a government who has gone too far; something that will happen occasional when running the great experiment of Democracy.

               

      What programs like PRISM do allow for is the unfettered monitoring of American citizens; something that the United States government has allowed to become its primary occupation. Like many other ruling bodies before it, they are concerned for the safety of their population. So concerned it would seem that they cannot trust said population to its own thoughts. Putting aside the creepiness factor about programs like these, they are clear violations of American’s 4^th Amendment constitutional rights; which among other things protects citizens from unreasonable searches by their government. That being said, I would like to urge any who read this to write their elected representatives. Let them know that a balance needs to be struck but that creating a permanent record such as the one that you had in school is unacceptable. Because that’s what this is about. As it stands right now, if you step out of line they have reason for a warrant and all the records that they collected on you become fair play. So mistakes you made 20 years previously could come back to haunt you.

      Now that the diatribe is finished I would like to award a cookie. A big fat chocolate chip one with giant walnuts to Edward Snowden who is the N.S.A. contractor that leaked the information regarding the PRISM program to the press. Debates about whether or not this guy is a hero or a traitor are raging right now in Congress and the public at large. But here we call him a hero. No he’s not a hero of old, such as Hercules or Ron Jeremy, but he is a hero nevertheless. It takes copious amounts of courage to attempt to do something like leaking details about a government program this large and he apparently, according to interviews, is all too familiar with them. He didn't endanger lives other than his own to do it either unlike others who have leaked classified information to the press. What he did do was see something around him in society that was fundamentally wrong under the tenants of a free society and he did something about it. Shouldn't we all be so brave?

COMMON SENSE FOR BEGINNERS:

     Before delving into the blood and guts of the issues I would like to discuss in this first posting, it seems only appropriate to give a brief description of what I hope to achieve with this blog. In short I hope to provide those of you reading this with a reasonable and balanced perspective on current news and political events. The reason I want to impart my own particular brand of common sense is because in this day and age of the 24 hour news cycle it seems as though that we have lost perspective. There is no middle ground in other words and this is the first issue that has been grating on me. Balance in the media and whether or not it can ever be restored. So to start, I would first like to discuss the different news outlets and my interpretation of them.

   
     As we begin this discussion, I want you to think about where you get your news. Whether it be from cable news, your friends or the internet. Or the increasingly unlikely source, the newspaper, and god bless those of you that still absorb the sweet song of the metropolitan organ that is the daily rags. Regardless of which source you go to, I can tell you one thing about it. You know exactly what side of the proverbial fence that particular seller is on. Let’s take cable news for instance and the networks that produce what we now call the 24-hour cycle. There is, in no particular order, FOX News, BBC America, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Comedy Central.

               
      Let’s start with what I would consider the lone wolf or in the vernacular, the freaky Goth guy with black nail polish, FOX News. Always brooding and angry, never participating with the other kids in class, FOX News is currently the most conservative leaning agency on cable TV. They stand alone on cable television defying and sometimes spitting in the face of the opposition. At first glance, second glance or third they may seem like a crying child in the backseat of your car; never happy and always hungry for something bigger. But, many people from what I have observed have developed cults based around this news station. You’re either with them or you want to burn down their studios.  There is no middle ground when it comes to the red headed step child of American news.

       However, I would point this out. In American politics we rely heavily on the media and it makes me ask these questions. What good is a media that likes the government? Does a media that oblige the status quo in politics truly and honorably service its constituencies?  Or on the flip side of that particular argument, does a media that constantly criticizes its government, service its constituents either? I would say that the latter is better than the former. To make this argument I would like to point out MSNBC and G-dub as he has become known in our ever expanding world of interesting vocabulary.

     
      During the Bush years, MSNBC was highly critical of the favorite son.  I don’t believe this is a secret to anyone, nor does it, in my opinion, fall outside the realm of common knowledge. This same criticism that we found during the Bush years, is now found on FOX when concerning Obama. Now depending on your own little flavor of politics you may think one or the other is great. However, I would argue that they are both the ideal of what our media as American’s should be. The media should have the sole purpose of scrutinizing the government under which they broadcast news.  It is worth mentioning though that both networks have failed miserably when they have a sitting President that they like. Both agencies, which are the fringe of either party, serve a useful purpose and at the same time, expose the problems with modern politics and the American mindset. At its simplest, they lack common sense.  They have no regard for those that may think that there is more than one way to accomplish a task. It was once said, by a famous figure, that you and I should know because we took high school history, “I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way.” That famous person for the record is Mark Twain.  This thinking, however, should be applied to American politics.

              
       Now for those of you wondering why this blog includes cookies, your answer is incoming. Cookies are something that we as a culture give to someone who has done a good thing. We give them to our dog when they do a trick. We give them to kids when they get an “A” on a spelling test. And here, we give them to politicians and reporters when they show a shred of integrity and intelligence. With this in mind we turn our attention to www.cosponser.gov  A website that is a fantastic example of common sense government for Americans. To put it simply, you read a bill, in its entirety, and decide whether you like it or not. This enfranchises all of us. Keep in mind, there is nothing legal about this when it concerns Congress; however, what it does do is allow people to have a more open line of communication with their elected representatives. This takes away the veil of politicians in a very profound way. Consider this.

       Recently President Obama wanted to expand background checks for guns. He claimed the 90% of American’s wanted this. The reality of this claim, however, is who knows. At best poll numbers are anonymous phone calls that as far as the rest of us know are some guy sitting in a back room with a phone book and checking off names. He could be providing lists to his employer; just collecting a paycheck and trying not to be fired. With cosponsor.gov, we as the people can clear up this confusion. We can give our voices a forum. So keep this in mind. The pessimism of previous generation’s access to government can change now. The internet has made it possible.