Hoppy Leap Day!

Goals 2020 -- February Recap

Here's the update on my unsubscribing -- pretty happy with this:

-- I unfollowed 11 people on Instagram (this may not sound like a lot, but it's a reasonable percentage of my total follows);
-- I muted some folks whom I still want to follow but who post a lot of inane stuff in between the good posts;
-- I unfollowed 12 people on Twitter;
-- I unfollowed 2 people on Goodreads; and
-- I unsubscribed from 22 listserves.

There is still work to be done, and I will definitely keep at the unsubscribing.  It's satisfying!

What I'm Reading Now -- We Were the Lucky Ones

Up next from the Postal Book Club is We Were the Lucky Ones.  It is K's pick, and I'm very much looking forward to it.  I don't know much except that it's about a family in pre-WWII Europe, but I have heard wonderful things about it from K and E.

Also, it starts with a family tree.  I think after all my years with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'm predisposed to like any book that starts with an illustration.

What I'm Reading Now -- The Girl Who Lived Twice

S and I were at the library picking something up recently when I spotted the cover of The Girl Who Lived Twice.  One should not judge a book by its cover, but one is allowed to be interested in a book based on its cover, right?

I recognized this one right away as being related to the Millenium (Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) series, and I'm struggling to find time to read these days, so a page-turner is just what the librarian ordered.  Stieg Larsson, the author of that series died in 2004.

This is actually the sixth book in the series, and the third by this author.  I didn't realize that when I picked it up.  I don't think it will matter much if they are read out of order; there is enough explanation, I think, to be able to figure out who's who.  But still, since I do enjoy a good page-turner, I am considering trading this in for book four.  Any thoughts on this issue?
 
We will see how the new author handles the series.

Broken Justice

Another attorney recommended the Broken Justice podcast to me. Back in my younger days, I did a short stint with the public defender's office in another state and one here in Missouri, and even then the problems discussed in this podcast were evident.  Staff was overworked, cases fell through the cracks, deadlines passed by left and right, and the state hiring freezes meant that no relief was coming.  So I was pretty open to this subject even before I started the show.

Before I get to my criticisms, let me take a minute to say that the problem addressed here is so much bigger than just the public defender system.  This aspect of the issue is touched on briefly in the last two episodes, with the discussion of "supply side" and "demand side" solutions.  One of the "demand side" solutions is to decrease the need for PDs by changing the way charging decisions are made by prosecutors.

Episode 5 profiles Wesley Bell, the now-not-so-new St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, who made some structural changes to the way the prosecutor's office works which helped to alleviate some of the burdens on the PDs.  One of the best and most meaningful changes Mr. Bell made, in my opinion, was to increase support in his office for referrals to alternative treatment courts.  There is a comment in the podcast that out-of-control incarceration rates are due in large part to addiction and mental illness.  That is a bit of a simplification, but there is a kernel of truth there.  Mr. Bell has shown support for alternative treatment courts which is unprecedented from that office.  That support has gotten a lot of habitual drug users out of the cycle and has opened up mental health services to loads of folks who didn't have (or didn't know how to access) that care previously.

But his and other policy changes are not without problems.

First, since this podcast is all about criminal defense, let's talk about the St. Louis County judges' administrative order allowing the PD's office to appoint any licensed attorney practicing in the county to represent a criminal defendant if the PDs are overworked.  What?!?  Is anyone else as appalled by the absurdity of this rule as I am?  Two huge problems:

1. It does not solve the problem of client neglect.  Private attorneys, too, are often overworked, overtaxed, and of necessity let things fall through the cracks.  (Sure, they might be paid more, but that doesn't mean they aren't worked just as hard.)  So to expect them -- when they have staff and bills to pay -- to drop everything and focus on a forced pro bono case is idealistic at best.

2. Not everyone practices criminal defense.  Would you want an allergist to perform your neurosurgery?  Certainly not.  So why would you want a bankruptcy attorney as your criminal defense attorney?  I assure you, you don't.  This situation creates problems for both the client and the attorney:
     a. The client is going to get a terrible defense.  The attorney doesn't know what they're doing, they don't know the rules of criminal procedure, they don't know the players.  This is not what you want when, as a defendant, your liberty (or even life) is on the line.
     b. The attorney stands to be sanctioned, including losing his or her license to practice law, for poor representation in a case they shouldn't have had (and didn't choose to have) (and had no business having) in the first place.  That license is his or her livelihood and it could go right out the window!  Jefferson County, which shares a boundary with St. Louis, used to employ this practice.  However, so many attorneys just quit practicing there as a consequence, they all but stopped the appointments.  Unfortunately, since St. Louis County is the biggest court system on the east side of the state, the "I just won't practice there" solution isn't really a viable one for attorneys.

Second, back to Wesley Bell.  As I acknowledged, some of his ideas are productive and helpful.  Others just push the problem down the road.  One of his big ideas (and in principle not necessarily a bad one in some circumstances) is to stop seeking prison time for non-violent offenses.  This includes non-payment of child support.

Here's the problem: pushing all the child support collection issues off of the criminal contempt docket and onto the civil contempt docket puts even more of the burden, which is already huge, on the person who is owed child support.  They are not the person who is doing wrong!  Why are we making them work extra hard to collect what is due?  One argument made in support of Mr. Bell's policy goes like this: "These defendants are reliant on the PD's office.  Obviously they have no money."  But if you follow that through to the next step, it sounds like this: "So instead, we will make their exes, who also are strapped because they're caring for the child(ren) but not getting support, beg/borrow/steal money to hire a private attorney in order to collect the child support."

That is totally illogical and shifts the burden in a way that I find to be completely inappropriate.  I have spent several years working in the area of child support collections.  In some cases, there is truly nothing to get -- and in those cases, prison is bound to be ineffective.  But in many cases, there is money to get; often it's cash or money from a family member, but it's there.  When someone is facing jail or prison time -- miraculously! -- the money often appears.

[Aside: I have been biting my tongue the whole way through here every time I wrote "Mr." Bell.  I have a hard time giving him that level of respect in light of his behavior -- at least since he has taken office, and possibly before.  See here and here for examples.]

On the whole, Broken Justice is a much-needed investigation into a a grossly underfunded system with huge responsibilities in the community.  But there was so much wrong with how it was presented (especially the last couple of episodes), and it left a bad taste in my mouth by the end.

What I Watched -- Find Me

Yet another delightful find of S's recently was Find Me.  It was an odd movie, but unusual -- which is enough to get attention in these days of remakes and sequels.

The main character is Joe, a recently-divorced accountant whose work friend Amelia goes mysteriously missing.  Amelia had previously tried to convince Joe that he needed to break out of his box, explore the world, and enjoy nature.  She failed in her attempts until she mysteriously disappeared, leaving breadcrumbs Joe to find her.

What follows is a love letter to the western landscape -- slot canyons, rich forests, sweeping landscapes.

Also, the soundtrack!  Many of the tracks initially seemed like odd choices, but turned out to be perfect!  Whomever was responsible for those choices deserves a raise.

Bottom line: loved the different narrative, loved the homage to the land, and loved the music!

Quote of the Day

"When a flower grows wild, it can always survive.  Wildflowers don't care where they grow."
  -- Dolly Parton, Wildflowers

Happy Birthday, E!

What I Watched -- At Eternity's Gate

I love Van Gogh; he's my favorite painter.  So when At Eternity's Gate came out, I was immediately ready to see it!  Then I heard that it wasn't very good, so I put it off.

When I did eventually get around to it, S and I were both immediately frustrated by the unsteady camera work.  If you can get beyond that without feeling seasick, you can start to think about that artist himself.  If, that is, you can get beyond the terrible sound editing vis a vis the soundtrack.

The film is a glimpse into the mind of a man on the edge, which is simultaneously introspective and maddening -- more the latter than the former.  It's confusing and a bit frustrating, until about the last 10 minutes.

Despite its shortcomings, though, I still like it because it's Vincent.

The title is the name of one of Van Gogh's works: Sorrowing Old Man (At Eternity's Gate).

Bottom line: not a great movie, but great paintings from a mind ahead of his time.

What I Watched -- Voyeur and You

Gay Talese reports the story of Gerald Foos in Voyeur.  Gerald owned an Aurora, Colorado, motel.  In that motel, he built a specially-designed attic which allowed him to spy through ceiling vents on all motel guests.  I absolutely believe that all this happened.

The moral voice in the film is Talese's New Yorker editor, who shares the audience's skepticism about Foss's intentions and wondering what the value of Talese's interviews with him will be.  In the end, probably the most interesting part of the film was the portion in which the fact checkers are trying to determine how much of Foos's story was true and how much was manufactured.  Psychologically, it was also fascinating to see how Foos changes once his story is made public -- everything bad that happens becomes someone else's fault.

Having watched the movie, I am exactly as creeped out as I expected to be.  I'm sure you have heard the horror stories about AirBnB owners putting cameras around their properties.  I can't say that I wouldn't also be tempted to do that if I were loaning out my own home to strangers, but as a person who has been on the renting end of AirBnBs before, I certainly don't ever want to do it again after realizing how prevalent the cameras are.  For some reason, it seems like reputable hotels (which Foos's was not) should be safer, more secure places, but then when you think about that for just a second, why does it seem like they should be?  Aren't the minimum wage workers at any hotel just as likely to be creepy voyeurs just like Foos?

Our viewing of Voyeur followed on the tail of the first episode of season two of You.  You is a Netflix show starring Penn Badgley, probably best known as Gossip Girl -- in other words, it is not a distinguished filmography.

But this show plays right into so many of my concerns about how easy technology makes it for someone to find out so much about a person.  (Yes, I appreciate the irony that I am complaining about this on a blog.  Perhaps I should stop writing....)

It is truly only coincidental that we are watching both of these things so close of the heels of the implementation of the new
California law requiring certain companies and websites to make it easier for consumers to control the privacy of their data -- but somehow these things all seem connected.

You know what else seems connected?  That a Penn
Badgley meme popped up in S's feed while we were watching You.

As I said: creepy.

What I Watched -- Mudbound

Mudbound is dark in two ways.  There is very little about it that is uplifting, so if you are in the mood for a real downer, it's your movie.  It's title fits the whole tenor of the film, because as I watched it, I felt like I was stuck in mud the whole time, unable to move or stop the coming events.  Clever, eh?

But the images are also dark.  There were a lot of times that I found myself squinting at the screen, trying to see what was happening because there was no or so little light in the image that I couldn't tell who was who or what was happening.

Carey Mulligan, whom I love (only in part because she is from London), does a wonderful job adding depth to a role with minimal personality.  Garrett Hedlund, whom I recognize but I can't figure out why, is the emotional center of the film.  He plays the brother of Carey Mulligan's character's husband, and is the one with whom the viewer can identify.  He's tough to understand sometimes, but he's the one to sympathize with.

There is not a lot of plot to report.  The film starts with the death of an old farmer, being buried by his two sons.  Then we backtrack to the start of the relationship between one of the sons and his wife, follow the other brother through the war, and meet the African-American tenant farmers who live and work the land.  We move forward from there, progressing towards the funeral that started the film.

Bottom line: dark (literally) and depressing, but a good way to pass time on a flight.

What I Watched -- Hello Ladies

Another one of S's recent delightful finds was a show called Hello Ladies.  As with most decent shows, it had a short original run -- an eight-run season on HBO (all of which I watched), plus a movie (which I haven't seen yet).

It stars an awkwardly tall Englishman as Stuart Pritchard, a hopelessly hopeless and lovelorn British expat in LA.  He's constantly on the hunt for a super-attractive and unattainable girlfriend, which is what the whole show is built around in theory.  But really it's about him and his friends.  Stuart rented out his pool house to a struggling actress, one of his  sidekicks in the series.  The one that broke my heart the most was Stuart's best friend Wade, whose wife left him at the start of the series, and he's navigating the separation with little help from Stuart.

Should I watch the movie?  Or will it just ruin the show?

Goals 2020 -- February Edition

This month, I will unsubscribe.  This includes primarily email lists which are not beneficial and people/organizations I follow who don't add anything useful to my life.