Anyone who has cable has seen the movie I Robot and some of us have actually read Asimov's stories. A recurring theme was the three laws of robotics, meant to keep sentient robots from turning on us humans. In other words, in the future Asimov foresaw people were smart enough to predict the SkyNet problem and take steps to prevent it. People continue to laud Asimov for these 3 laws:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The problem is that the first law doesn't work. Basically, carried to its logical conclusion, it allows and commands robots to do what they tried to do in the movie: herd us all into safe areas and not allow any harm to come to us (we'd basically become pets).
Wherein I rambled on about Jury Nullification / Justification Defenses for a while and cut it down to 15 minutes. I don't think I cut out the important parts, although the switch to discussing whether jury sentencing might be the solution is ragged.
I talk about the problems associated with allowing defendants to argue nullification/justification to a jury.
Hollywood and War Movies At Least I Know One Person is Reading the Blawg
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Scott Greenfield read my rant yesterday about Stop Loss and decided to poke at me a little bit. I think he make be piqued, just a bit, by the fact that I lumped him and his in with Hollywood types. I can't blame him for that, I'd probably be a wee bit disconcerted myself. On the other hand, he does seem to be taking some responsibility for the fact that there are people out there who think that I should be pay $5 for a 75 cent cup of coffee just because they shaved a penny's worth of cinnamon into it and put 5 cents of whip cream on top. In any event, I really wasn't going after New Yorkers and he asked some questions which need to be answered.
1) Don't we, like, have to win or accomplish something before we make a movie that's pro-war?
Nope, Casablanca came out on 01 January 1942, long before we accomplished something or won our first battle (Midway June 1942). I'm sure you can find any number of movies ranging from "Why We Fight" to "The Flying Tigers" which came out the same year all with pro-war themes.
2) Don't they get Fox News out there on the left coast?
I think it's only actually banned in San Francisco and Seattle. In L.A. it's not that it's banned, it's just that nobody watches it because those horrible little people on Fox don't have a clue about fashion and important celebrity news (Fox, sadly, seems to have been making efforts to fix this).
3) What about all the good, uplifting stories about people getting killed and maimed? How come there's never anything about that?
Let me try to give a serious answer here. Uplifting stories would be about honor, courage, sacrifice, perseverance, soldiers doing their duty, and the bonds that formed in military units. This does not mean that the downside of war must be ignored. I'm not asking for The Longest Day. I'm asking for A Band of Brothers. Band of Brothers took us through both the good and bad. It showed the ideals I listed above; it also showed inept commanders, people dying, stupid orders, U.S. soldiers who stole things, and U.S. soldiers killing people they should not have. Yet, I felt like I was being shown reality, not a thinly veiled morality play aimed at showing the evil of the U.S. military, American soldiers, American politicians, or just plain Americans. In the end, despite all the evil shown therein, it is uplifting because it shows the soldiers persevering through all of it: they soldiered on.
What then, am I bumbling about, trying to say? 1) If you are going to make a movie which is pro-soldier, the claim made over and over in pre-release interviews for Stop Loss, don't make it about a soldier who is refusing to do his duty and abandoning his fellow soldiers. Do it about a squad in country prevailing against high odds through training, intelligence, and perseverence. 2) I am skeptical that Hollywood can do this because of philosophical leanings and a lack of actual experience among those writing, directing, and acting in Hollywood films.
BTW, Scott, I getting near the end of my 4 years in the Army in 1990. I had been accepted at St John's of Minnesota. I was getting out and getting on with my life. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait. I was among the first deployed and in the last group of my unit to leave. I was "extended" in active service beyond my ETS date and ended up staying in for 2 years longer than planned. I'm not terribly sympathetic to the plight of the "hero" in this movie.
"I'm told #7 Stop-Loss opened to only $1.6 million Friday from just 1,291 plays and should eke out $4+M. Although the drama from MTV Films was the best-reviewed movie opening this weekend, Paramount wasn't expecting much because no Iraq war-themed movie has yet to perform at the box office. 'It's not looking good,' a studio source told me before the weekend. 'No one wants to see Iraq war movies. No matter what we put out there in terms of great cast or trailers, people were completely turned off. It's a function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something that's unresolved yet. It's a shame because it's a good movie that's just ahead of its time.'"
AAAAAaaaarrrrgggggg!!!!! You've got to be kidding me!
It's not a "function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict." It's a function of the fact that you idiots made a movie about a man who is deserting.
In case you couldn't tell, I had a visceral reaction against this film the first time I saw its trailer (maybe a month ago). I'm a member of the great unwashed masses - you know those of us who live in the Tweens (the flyover lands between NYC and Cali.) - who will never go see this movie or others of its ilk.
To those of you from Hollywood trying to push these movies: You have no credibility. Every single movie you make comes across from an anti-war point of view. As the Wall Street Journal put it,
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect Hollywood to actually make big budget, serious pro-war movies. It isn't going to happen. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they couldn't do it if they wanted. And, I really don't want them to try - at least until they can do better than something like Heartbreak Ridge (the last pro-war movie I can remember which isn't about WWII or earlier).
I just wish that Hollywood would stop making the anti-war, anti-U.S. movies. I know they won't; I've heard the Jon Stewart manifesto,
and I believe that Hollywood will continue to make movies of this sort to live out their Vietnam era mindset and to tell us ignorant sots out in the hinterlands what we should think.
Sure, I'm out here and have been prosecuting about a year and 8 or 9 months, and Tom's been back for a while and posting every few days, but there's always room for one (or a lot) more. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a newby prosecutor blog:
Everybody go over and say "Hi!" And I mean say "Hi!" Do me the favor of not sniping at him. The blawg is young, well written, partisan, and will drive some of you defense attorneys crazy. I'd rather ya'll not drive him off the web or discourage him or make him defensive. He's a new prosecutor and it's interesting to see his perspective. I'd rather not see that bogged down with back and forth sniping; I've already almost lost one of favorite blogs to this. If you must snipe go over to Tom's; he's been prosecuting for years and ain't nothing ya'll are going to say to him he can't shrug off or throw back at you (go on, ask him a question about the death penalty and Catholic theology - I dare you). On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want to expose any new prosecutor to the withering, insightful, and pointed commentary of Scott or Mark if it weren't friendly (although, he does apparently share Mark's affinity for a certain picture; unusual that, most prosecutors seem to favor some variation on crusaders rather than gladiators). I guess what I'm asking is that while over there you comport yourself with the same dignity and courtesy you do while on this blawg.
Cool, we're now up to 3 prosecutors who actually blawg about *GASP* criminal law.
The International Court of Justice can demand new trials for foreign citizens in the US who weren't told they could contact their embassy or consulate. President Bush can order that States will comply with the ICJ.
However, the States don't have to pay any attention to either of them. The part of the Vienna Convention which the ICJ and President tried to enforce is not self enforcing. In other words, when the treaty was approved by the Senate and signed by the President it did not state that it would become law within the signatory countries. Therefore, in order for the treaty to have force of law within the U.S. the Congress had to pass a law enforcing it.
What was the appropriate response here?1 Well, she could have just laughed it off. She could have elbowed him in the ribs (or other sensitive areas). She could have pulled a practical joke on him the next time he came to meet with her. All are fairly typical bonding ritual responses.
Why'd it go further? Hard to say; going forward on something like this doesn't really help anyone. She comes across looking like she can't work well with others; he comes out looking like a neanderthal who never heard of the initials P followed by C. She gets what sounds very much like a demotion, from the Organized Crime Strike Force to "handles drug cases." He gets fired (although this seems as much because he lied about the incident).
---------- 1 I am, of course, assuming the typical 4 to 6 swipe noogie - not a 10 minute rub 'em bald version.
A TechStuff segment in which I talk about and demonstrate both Hulu and Miro, the latest forays of big television channels and small internet vidographers onto the net.
According to AOL, it's also Purim, that most interesting of Jewish holy days. Remember, in addition to making lots of noise, to keep Hamam's name from being heard, there's also an obligation to drink until you can't tell the difference between that evil man and Mordechai.
From the outside looking in this always looked like it could be a lot of fun.
The SEC basketball tournament moved to a smaller arena because of the other arena getting hit by bad weather (maybe a tornado).
Now, instead of working out some way to determine which fans will get to watch games (lottery, first-come-first-in, etc.), the SEC banned all regular fans. Only VIP's and roadies getting to watch the game in the arena.
Just imagine, you're a Kentucky fan who drove 8 hours to get to Atlanta. You paid for an entire weekend at a hotel (not to mention gas, meals, etc.) - you probably even took time off work. Now you don't even get a chance to watch the game(s) you paid for. And you get to drive back 8 hours.
In case anyone out there needs this warning: This ain't legal advice. Everything in the blog is off the cuff and no one goes back and reads all the cases and statutes before blogging. The law may have changed; cases misread and misunderstood two years ago can still lead to a clinging misperception. Courts probably don't even operate as described herein. In fact - just in case someone is stoned enough to start quoting this blawg as authority to a judge - It is hereby stated that everything in this blog is pure fiction.
First (09/06/2007)
Previous
#8 of 37
Next 
Last (12/01/2009) 
