A few weeks ago, I posted the following here, addressed to folks who live in the Los Angeles area...
Anyone want to see Dreamgirls? Live? A snazzy (I hear) production of the show is playing downtown at the Ahmanson Theater from February 23 through April 4. I have season-type tix for March 23 and I don't want to use them. I know most people love this show but I don't. I would like to sell my tickets at face value to someone who does love the show. My seats are good — second row of the balcony near the center — and if March 23 doesn't work for you, I can probably exchange them for equally-fine seats on another date if it's late in the run. Drop me an e-mail if interested.
Five of you wrote in to say you wanted the tix. The first one got 'em but she now cannot use them. I let this lady off the hook, figuring I could sell them to one of the other four. Turns out the other four have all gone ahead and bought their own tickets so I have the same two seats still available. The price hasn't changed even though the show has opened to great reviews like this one. If interested, drop me a note...and this time, all sales final.
Remember Chris Handley, the fellow I mentioned here who was recently sentenced for possession of Manga comics that depicted imaginary people having imaginary underage sex? You might be interested in this letter from his attorney describing the problems of the case and why Handley accepted the outcome he accepted.
I certainly don't fault anyone facing prison time from making the deal they think will work best for them. We outsiders might like them to battle on for a principle and spend the next X years fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court...but we aren't the ones who might literally be sacrificing our lives for that cause. I also don't have a lot of faith in The System (and especially in the current Supreme Court) to arrive at a correct answer.
Note that the lawyer says, "Through its choice to create two crimes with vastly different sentences for the same conduct, Congress gave to the prosecution an invaluable tool (quite similar to extortion) in obtaining pleas." I think that's the part that really troubles me about this case and others like it; that the outcome is predicated not on what's right or even on what the law says is right but in the power of the threat. It's one thing to plead guilty because you actually are inarguably guilty. It's something else to be put in the position where to plea bargain spares you pain, to prove your innocence costs (or risks) too much...and whether you actually are innocent becomes largely irrelevant. I don't think that's fair to someone who's accused and I really don't think it's fair to the society that our justice system is supposed to serve.
I don't agree with a lot of these. F'rinstance, he thinks it's a crime that The French Connection beat out A Clockwork Orange in 1971 for Best Picture. I thought the former more deserving than the latter but I would have voted for Carnal Knowledge or The Hospital (which weren't nominated in that category) over either. And in hindsight, the film of that year that was probably the most influential wasn't nominated in any category. That was Dirty Harry.
Chivers also thinks Citizen Kane and Psycho should have won in their respective years. I'll give him Kane but I've never understood the fuss about Psycho.
There are a lot of these but I've also stopped expecting the Oscars to make a lot of sense. The more you know about voting procedures and who votes, the easier it is to come to that view.