Category Archives: Current Events

An interview/profile of Keith Olbermann. I'm starting to get the feeling that Olbermann has in mind to transform his new homebase network into what a lot of folks claim MSNBC is, which is the left-wing counterpart of Fox News. Hope I'm wrong.

William Saletan on the legacy of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. You may not get it if you go to that link because ads rotate…but when I went there just now, the sidebar had a big insurance ad showing a women crying on a gravestone and the headline asked, "If you died today, who would take care of your family?" Interesting juxtaposition.

Fred Kaplan on the state of democracy in the Middle East. I'm actually a little more concerned about the state of democracy in Middle America.

David Frum laments the way Republican "attack ads" are now making attacks on other Republicans for having done horrendous things like back their party's nominee or talked with Barack Obama. Frum, who is often described as a "G.O.P. strategist" is an interesting guy to watch here. He wants to see Republicans win as much as anyone but he thinks his party is going about it in precisely the wrong way.

I keep thinking I've heard about as many bad things about Goldman Sachs as I could possibly hear. Then I read another Matt Taibbi post. As far as I can tell, no one is denying this stuff in any meaningful way.

I'm still searching for the ideal way to sync up notes on my iPad, iPhone and PC. But my journey is taking me through a number of useful articles for writers including this one by my chum Bob Elisberg.

Today marks fifteen years since O.J. Simpson was found Not Guilty of two murders that most of us think he committed. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind. I got hooked on the case and read most of the books and watched most of the shows, though my mind has since jettisoned much of what I learned. I have a terrific memory but every so often, it thinks the way you do when you go to your Public Storage locker and you look at some crates and go, "Why am I saving that crap?" And out it goes. I'm kinda fascinated by how little I now recall of a story that I used to know so well, I could informally but authoritatively debate it at length with friends. I don't think I could have some of those debates today…but I do remember vividly winning every argument with someone who thought O.J. hadn't done it. My opponents didn't always admit I was right, of course…but you could tell they knew.

The folks who didn't think Simpson had hacked two human beings to death generally didn't know much about the case and 0% of them had an alternate theory supported by any evidence whatsoever. You'd say to them, "Well, if he didn't do it, who did?" And they'd mutter something about, well, maybe it was Colombian Drug Lords. Any evidence of that? Well, no. At the time of Simpson's acquittal, some of his lawyers and defenders promised a huge book would be forthcoming that would tell what really happened, who really killed Nicole and Ron.

You seen that book? Me neither and it's been fifteen years.

It isn't just that no one involved in the case can prove who really killed them if it wasn't Simpson. It's that no one involved in the case seems to be able to even make up a possible scenario as to who killed them if it wasn't Simpson. They can't even fabricate a story that sounds remotely plausible and isn't disproven by half the evidence. At least with the Kennedy Assassination, those who didn't want to accept the official explanation managed to offer some alternate names and narratives. I've never even heard anyone who believes the kind of vague, evidence-deprived theories that Simpson himself has put out there.

I do understand how some people just plain don't want to believe what everyone else believes. Questioning the Conventional Wisdom is usually a good thing…but refusing to ever believe the Conventional Wisdom just because others do is a great way to be wrong a lot of the time. I have this friend who buys into every single conspiracy theory about everything. It's automatic. I've said to her, "You know, if I pulled out a gun right now and shot you and you saw me do it and you survived…and if the police came and asked who'd shot you, you'd say, 'It could have been anyone except Mark Evanier!'" Some of those who don't think O.J. dunnit are in that category. Some also have such a deep, perhaps justified distrust of police that they automatically assume all arrests are false and all evidence is fabricated. And you also have those who sort of like the idea of a black guy getting away with murder and seeing so many white folks sputter about the injustice. These are the "taste of your own medicine" people.

I've talked to a number of these people, though not lately. There was a time I couldn't go to a party or other gathering without meeting one and having the subject erupt. I also met a number of people who took the wishy-washy, safe-from-all-directions position. They thought O.J. did it but that the police framed him anyway, either because they knew he'd done it and wanted to enhance the case…or because they (wrongly) didn't think he did it and just wanted to nail that uppity you-know-what. For what little it's now worth, I came to the conclusion that none of that happened except the part about Simpson killing those two people. I think all of the evidence of "framing" was either out of the whole cloth or built on some innocent mistake made by the police or prosecutors. And I suspect that if you turned a bright-enough spotlight on most major arrests in this country, you could find similar mistakes.

Something changed in this country the morning of the verdicts. We suddenly had a lot less faith in our judicial system. Everyone did or should have. I mean, if you thought Simpson was guilty, then the system had failed because it let a double-murderer go off to play golf. If you thought he was innocent, then the system had failed in a different way. An innocent man had spent a long time behind bars and had to spend his life's savings to hire skilled-enough lawyers (lawyers you could never afford) to prove that innocence. It's interesting how some opinions on the Death Penalty have changed since then. Before that verdict, those who championed the frying of convicted murderers were fierce in their insistence that no innocent person had ever been executed in these United States. I think the Simpson verdict caused a lot of them to drop that argument from their arsenal. After all, if a murderer could be acquitted, that makes it pretty credible that an innocent guy could be convicted. The widespread use of DNA testing since then has further weakened the belief that anyone who's found guilty is undeniably guilty…and of course, there's that irony there. The Simpson case is where most people learned of DNA testing…and now they believe it even though the jury in the Simpson case didn't.

That morning fifteen years ago, I was having a brick patio built in my backyard. I made a deal with a contractor and he brought in a crew of gentlemen I suspect were all or mostly undocumented aliens. I can admit this because I'm unlikely to ever run for governor of California. They were the kind of men you see hanging around outside Home Depot or a Public Storage facility hoping to get a day's work. The contractor may have gotten them from one of those places.

I invited the crew in to watch the verdict when it was announced on TV. I thought they shouldn't miss that moment of history and I guess I was curious about their reaction, whichever way it went.

When Simpson was declared Not Guilty, they all kind of shrugged. They were grateful I'd let them see it but I don't think the actual verdict mattered much to them. One said, "That's good." And then he explained that his neighborhood had been decimated by rioting during the not-that-long-ago Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles. He was afraid that if Simpson was convicted, it would prompt another such riot but beyond that, he didn't care. None of them cared. None of them thought the courts and police were fair to people in their ethnic group and income level, undocumented or not. To them, Simpson wasn't even a minority. He was just another guy with more money and more success than any of them would ever see…and what happened in his world did not relate to theirs. They assumed the guy was guilty and that that's how The System processes a guilty guy who's rich 'n' famous.

I said something like, "Well, maybe this will wake some people up to the problem." I was the only one in the room who thought that was remotely possible. The workers all thanked me and went back to laying bricks.

I think they were wrong. I told you up above what I think did change. It hasn't necessarily trickled down from folks recognizing a problem to anyone actually fixing that problem…but I don't think we're so quick now to assume that when the police say "We got the guy" that they got the guy or that a jury verdict settles the question. I know I'm not.

Here's an article from the L.A. Times about the day Simpson was acquitted. It has a lot of photos and a discussion of how those photos were taken.

Harry Shearer posts one of the better responses to Dick Cheney's inane, self-justifying remarks about the so-called War on Terrorism. One topic that's worth discussing is how much of what we've done wrong since 9/11 has just been a matter of people (many Democrats, included) chucking aside common sense strategies in favor of just trying to be as macho and tough-looking as possible.

In related news, though the terrorist with the explosives in his underwear is reportedly spilling his guts and answering all questions, there are still calls out there to waterboard and otherwise torture the guy. Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we send Michael Lohan over to kick his mother in the crotch?

My buddy Bob Elisberg has a new column up in which he argues that Republicans are a lot better at speaking and acting with a single mind than Democrats. I think he's right about that but I'd disagree that it really comes out of any permutation of Conservative philosophy. I think Republicans have just been better at convincing each other that their base will punish anyone who even puts a toe outside the reservation. I don't see that it has a lot to do with politics.

Yeah, Republicans are the ones who say "My country, right or wrong," but I've always felt that was just a slogan…like "fair and balanced." It comes from the same place as assertions by right-wingers that they're the true Americans because they have the right view and maybe the right religion. Conservatives are just as apt to trash America (or to blame it "first") as Liberals when it isn't doing what they want. Lately, some of them can't say enough bad things about the competence of the government, or its duly-elected officials, to do anything right.

My friend Roger, who describes himself as a guerilla Conservative, does that all the time. If I say that I think our military leaders are doing something wrong in Iraq, that's "blame America first" and hating this country and not supporting our troops. And five minutes later, he'll be telling me how the post office is incompetent, the immigration department is a pack of clowns, and Congress is mucking up everything it touches overseas.

But his side loves America and mine doesn't.

Let me see if I have this straight…

A guy named Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane with an explosive in his shoes. It took then-prez George W. Bush six days to comment on the attempt, about which he said very little. Eventually, Reid was tried and convicted in a standard American courtroom.

A few years later, a man named Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab tries to blow up a plane with what is apparently the same explosive in his underwear. It takes current-prez three days to condemn the attack…but guys like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are out slamming Obama for not speaking out sooner and more forcefully. They also say it is wholly inappropriate to try the suspect in a standard American court. That Obama would even consider that instead of a military tribunal shows he doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, doesn't take it seriously, etc.

And of course, the mere fact that the new attack occurred is proof that Obama has dropped the ball on the War on Terrorism. But despite the shoe bomber, Bush kept us safe after 9/11.

Got it.

Nate Silver points out that in the last decade, there have been six attempted terrorist attacks on U.S. commercial flights. There have been in that time, 99,320,309 flights. Ergo, your odds of being on a plane that is the target of a terrorist attack are currently running around one in 16,553,385. We all do things a lot riskier than that every day without hesitation.

By the way: If you aren't checking out Mr. Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, you're missing a lot of calm, statistics-based discussions about health care and insurance and what it's all going to cost us. If you read his site and those to which he links when rebutting, you'll get a pretty sane overview of the situation.

Every news channel I turn on today has a discussion about what, in light of the recent terrorist attempt, we can do to make air travel safer. The emerging consensus seems to be that doing things that don't work at all is a lot better than doing nothing.

More than half the time, I think Christopher Hitchens is way off-base, often taking a contrarian view just because it's a contrarian view. But I think he's spot-on when he writes, as he does today, about the follies of airline security. The TSA puts us through a lot of rituals and inconveniences that are supposed to make air travel safer…but they really don't. They just make some think the problem is well in hand.

The New York Times editorializes against the revamping of the estate tax. I agree. This is really turning into a case where Republicans are trying to slash taxes for the super-rich at the direct expense of those making a lot less.