June 2016 - Page 5 of 6 - Ramblin' with Roger

Brock Turner’s crime

“Do not talk about the sad way your life was upturned because alcohol made you do bad things. Figure out how to take responsibility for your own conduct.”

When something sucky happens, it’s natural to want to find some semblance of a silver lining. Back in January 2015, Brock Turner, a Stanford University student and All-American swimmer, sexually assaulted a young, unconscious woman behind a trash dumpster. And HE portrays HIMSELF as the victim.

“I’ve been shattered by the party culture and risk taking behavior that I briefly experienced in my four months at school,” writes the former college undergrad. “I’ve lost my chance to swim in the Olympics.”

“Turner blames the sexual assault he committed on a campus culture of excessive alcohol consumption, peer pressure, and ‘sexual promiscuity.'”

Ah, yes, Brock Turner was not schooled in knowing that his newly-found “sexual promiscuity” does not, in any way, equate to sexual assault. Yet he got a judge to feel bad for his sorry self, who gave him a mere six months in the county jail, which is functionally three months, rather than the six years in prison the prosecutors requested, or the 14-year maximum for the three charges for which he was convicted.

People are outraged, naturally, because Brock’s father, Dan sighed: “That punishment was a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action.” He’s referring to his precious son, of course, NOT THE VICTIM OF THE CRIME. “He will never be his happy-go-lucky self.” Boo frickin’ hoo.

Was the judge’s extremely lenient sentence a function of gross sexism, racism, and/or classism? Any or all, though that classic affluenza defense, which got a light sentence for that drunk kid in Texas who killed four people, must be considered.

In Turner’s case, “further scrutiny on the judge’s remarks at sentencing appear to suggest he concluded the defendant had ‘less moral culpability’ because he was drunk, and that a light sentence would be an ‘antidote’ to the anxiety he had suffered from intense media attention on the case.” Brock Turner’s anxiety.

But I’m convinced there’s an additional factor. The judge, Aaron Persky, was captain of the lacrosse team. At Stanford. I think it’s the alumni jock thing, protecting the tribe, that came into play. His decision has led to a drive to recall the judge, which they can do in California, and I’d support that.

Now, obviously, there IS a rape culture in this society, in the military, on college campuses, and elsewhere. And I think this travesty of a sentence does nothing to stop it.

The parody site The Onion ran a piece College Basketball Star Heroically Overcomes Tragic Rape He Committed back in February 2011. It’d be funny if it weren’t so true.

Still, I might have let this story go, or at least not write about it. But there was a blogger in the Times Union, my local newspaper, who wrote a post which I, and several others, believe was classic blaming the victim. It was so incendiary that it got lots of hits for the TU website, and will be featured in today’s dead tree version. Fortunately, another blogger responded with more patience than I could have mustered.

So what IS the upside of this whole ordeal? The survivor’s statement, where she was able to control the public narrative without giving up her privacy, able to say the things that others in her situation could not.

She writes, in part: “I have done enough explaining. You do not get to shrug your shoulders and be confused anymore. You do not get to pretend that there were no red flags. You do not get to not know why you ran. You have been convicted of violating me with malicious intent, and all you can admit to is consuming alcohol. Do not talk about the sad way your life was upturned because alcohol made you do bad things. Figure out how to take responsibility for your own conduct.”

Vice-President Joe Biden wrote of the survivor of Brock Turner’s attack: “I do not know your name—but I see your unconquerable spirit.” Both she and the Veep have noted the decency of the two young men who came to her aid.

I also appreciated To Brock Turner’s Father, From Another Father. And other women, outraged by this decision, were likewise emboldened, such as this one.

Remember, consent is like tea. OK, it’s an overly simplistic concept, but it makes a useful point.

Sick time

Understand that I have well over 100 sick days available.

A friend of mine, one of my hearts-playing buddies, wrote this:

“From the what’s wrong with this picture division: was just told that we have to submit all of our sick time in advance, LOL! And this was said in all seriousness and all cluelessness.”

I know that feeling. I had my hernia surgery back on September 30. Because I ended up being out more than five days- it was six – I discover, after the fact, that I should have filled out this paperwork beforehand, signed by my doctor, acknowledging that I am well enough to return to work. This is tied to the Family Medical Leave Act. Eventually, with no alacrity whatsoever, I get these papers filled out.

Then in February, I was sick for three days, a Tuesday through Thursday. I felt well enough to return to work on Friday, but I had to stop at my allergist, for which I charged another quarter-day sick. The next month, I get a packet in the mail that I have to fill out the FMLA paperwork again because I was out sick for more than THREE days. If you’re also constantly dealing with sickness, you can conveniently avail your medicines through online pharmacies like the Canadian Pharmacy.

Did the rules change with the calendar year? In any case, I wasn’t out more than three days for an illness, I was out for the illness for three days, then a quarter day for my unrelated allergy shot, which I got because I didn’t want to have to backtrack on the regimen.

Understand that I have well over 100 sick days available, a function of working here for over two decades. I waited for a good while before sending back the paperwork, NOT filled out, with this explanation. Haven’t heard whether that worked yet.

I’ve decided it is better to be sick every OTHER day; less paperwork. Body, please be ill, if you must, but only on alternating days.

This is what overt racism looks like

Ironic then that Trump refers to Judge Curiel as a “hater.”

Racism is one of those words so ugly that people will contort all logic to deny its existence, especially when it comes to themselves. So I was THRILLED when Leon Wolf, in the ultraconservative website Red State, wrote on 3 June: “This is What Overt Racism Looks Like.”

I am sorry, but there is nothing else to call this. The Wall Street Journal has… released an interview with Donald Trump in which Trump explains his repeated and continued attacks on Gonzalo Curiel, the judge assigned to the Trump University case. Curiel’s decision to release records related to the case in response to a public interest request filed by the Washington Post has clearly infuriated Trump…

In a rambling tirade against the judge…, Trump said, among other things, that Curiel was “a Mexican, we think.” (Curiel, as it happens, is from the Chicago area, but his parents are of Mexican heritage.) The WSJ finally got around to asking Trump the question that should have been asked from the first moment he mentioned the judge’s ethnicity, which was actually a couple months ago when Curiel refused to dismiss the case on summary judgment. That question, of course, is “Why would you bring up the judge’s ethnicity at all?”

An excellent question. Note that NOW Trump says his words were misconstrued. I call BS.

Trump’s answer was, shall we say, revealing:

…Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

So, because the judge is of the same ethnicity as the people who would be presumably kept out of the United States by a wall, he clearly cannot be fair and impartial. Donald Trump is suggesting an ethnic litmus test for federal judges.

Think about what Trump is saying for a minute. Forget that Trump himself repeatedly bragged on the primary campaign trail that he would win the Hispanic vote and focus on what he is now saying: he is saying that no Hispanic person on earth can be trusted to give him a fair hearing. He is saying that no one – even a Mexican born in America – can be trusted rule impartially in accordance with the law simply because of Trump’s stance on whether there ought to be a wall on the Southern border.

This was not a slip of the tongue that he walked back. In fact, on CBS’s Face the Nation this past Sunday, he confirmed his intent.

Keep in mind, Curiel himself is not an illegal immigrant, or even an immigrant. I have no idea whether his parents were even immigrants or illegal immigrants. They are of Mexican heritage, therefore he cannot be trusted to pass judgment on Trump, who supports a wall on the Mexican border.

Look, there’s no other way to say this: that’s just overt racism. Saying that this guy has a “conflict of interest” against Trump solely based on his Mexican heritage is also an accidental admission on Trump’s part that he is opposed to Mexicans.

And THAT is what racism looks like in this modern world. It’s not separate water fountains or derogatory names. It’s suggesting that a judge of an ethnic minority, at least when he’s in conflict with Trump, cannot be trusted to give a fair hearing on an issue that affects his tribe.

Might not a white male be biased IN FAVOR of the wall? And how would you measure this? Or is that one should automatically disqualify women judges in cases of contraception, black judges in any case about racial discrimination, LGBT judges in gay equality cases, any judge that isn’t a Christian in the separation of church and state doctrine, et al.? The implication is that the non-minority (or man) would be MORE fair, somehow, makes no sense to me.

Or should we ban white judges from trials involving white defendants?

It is ironic then that Trump refers to Judge Curiel as a “hater.” Because it is the Republican nominee for President who’s showing the disdain. In the short term, painting the attributes of oneself onto another may work in the short term, but is generally rooted out.

“I love Hispanics!” is a weird thing to say about a group of people who you say are inherently untrustworthy when it comes to anything they say about you, Mr. Trump.

He’s not dog whistling it any more. He’s not doing the wink-and-nod thing. He’s flat out saying: you cannot trust anything this guy says about me because he’s a Mexican. If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

In the comments, in the various news columns about this story, several people have said, “But Trump has a point.” Yes, the “point” is that Trump is making racist observations, and one rationalizing their legitimacy means those commenters ought to check their own biases.

No, he’s not really going to build a wall, and let Mexico pay for it. He will not be able to get every Muslim to be blocked at the border. But he has made it the norm to be racist and to vent these kinds of un-American things.

Yet the Republican leaders reacted to Trump’s most recent racist rantings as though they came “totally out of left field,” when it’s been consistent with his message literally since he announced for president. The question is whether the party will continue to disavow their candidate’s bigotry.

And Trump may be interfering with the due process of the legal proceeding. The judge cannot comment on the case, per the code of conduct. HuffPo says: “Legal scholars said Trump could face consequences for slamming the judge, although many have speculated that Curiel was unlikely to sanction him formally.” The judge can, but probably WON’T slap down Trump because it’ll be seen by others through both a political and racial lens.

V is for Voting

I will have a plethora of opportunities to cast my ballot, at two different venues.

It’s a bit too much.

I am a huge supporter of the right to vote. But, in the city of Albany, I’ll have WAY too many opportunities in 2016. And except for the first item, this would also apply to the rest of the state.

*High school referendum revote: February 9. Polls Open 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Vote at the elementary school.

*Presidential Primary: April 19. Polls Open 12 noon-9 p.m. Vote at the library.

The polling hours, not incidentally, are a source of irritation among some of us in upstate New York. Nine hours represent the shortest number of hours of any state in the country. Meanwhile, the polls are open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., the GREATEST number of hours in the country, if you live in New York City or the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Erie; all are downstate, except for Erie County, which includes the city of Buffalo.

Also, for already registered voters, any change to party enrollment was to have been requested by October 9th, 2015 in order for it to have gone into effect and be applicable for ANY primary election occurring in 2016. The deadline for new voter registrations was March 25th. This meant that you were a registered voter in 2015, but not enrolled as either a Democrat or Republican, then decided in November 2015, that you wanted to vote in five months for Bernie or Hillary or Ted or the Donald or John Kasich, you were out of luck.

New York has, by a period of at least three months, the most restrictive access to the primary ballot.

*City School District of Albany’s budget vote: May 17. Polls open 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Vote at the elementary school.

Also includes the library trustees and the library budget, but NOT the school board, which is elected in November.

*Federal Primary Election: June 28. Polls Open 12 noon-9 p.m. Vote at the library.

Member, United States Senate (1)
Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 20th Congressional District

There has been a push to combine at least the Presidential primary with that for other federal candidates, or the non-Presidential federal primary with the state and local contests. OBVIOUSLY, that hasn’t worked out yet.

(As it turns out, I have nothing to vote for here, but others in the state will.)

*Primary Election: September 13. Polls Open 12 noon- 9 p.m. Vote at the library.

These may not all be contested, but these are the offices that could be up:

New York State Senate
Justice of the Supreme Court, 3rd JD (2)
Member, New York State Assembly
District Attorney (County) – 4-year term
County Court Judge (1) – 10-year term
Albany City Court Judge (1) – 10-year term

*General Election: November 8. Polls Open 6 a.m.- 9 p.m. Vote at the library.

As you can see, I will have a plethora of opportunities to cast my ballot, at two different venues. If there were contests at each of these levels, that’d be SIX times I’d vote; alas, it’s only five, merely tying my personal record from 1976, two of which were school budget votes.

ABC Wednesday – Round 18

Sylvester Stallone is 70

When The Wife and The Daughter went to Philadelphia in in late April 2016, they made the pilgrimage to the site.

I remember seeing this commercial for The Lord of Flatbush, and even remember a 15-second version of the ad; I could sing that iteration of the theme song, and even the fact that the movie was rated PG.

Flatbush was a 1974 movie starring Henry Winkler (3rd from the left), released on 1 May, which, oddly, I never saw. He was looking very much like Arthur Fonzarelli, a minor character turned into a breakout star on a TV show called Happy Days later that year.

Another actor in that film was Sylvester Stallone (2nd from the left). I must have seen him in Bananas as Subway Thug #1 or in Klute as a Discotheque Patron. He was uncredited in both of those 1971 films.

The first movie I saw Sly Stallone where I knew his name was Rocky in 1977. Not only did he play the boxer Rocky Balboa, who gets a chance to fight the heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed, but he also wrote the story. I watched the film at a movie theater in Charlotte, NC with my mother. She liked it too.

Stallone was nominated for two Academy Awards, for Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay. Rocky was eventually “inducted into the National Film Registry as well as having its film props placed in the Smithsonian Museum.”

The only other films of Stallone’s I’ve ever seen involve him playing Balboa. Rocky II (1979) I liked, Rocky III (1982), with Mr. T was OK, but IV (1985), with Dolph Lundgren and Brigitte Nielsen, soon to be the second of Stallone’s three wives, I thought was schlock.

“Stallone’s use of the front entrance to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in the Rocky series led the area to be nicknamed the Rocky Steps. Philadelphia has a statue of his Rocky character placed permanently near the museum.” When The Wife and The Daughter went to Philadelphia in late April 2016, they made the pilgrimage to the site, though The Daughter probably didn’t get the significance.

“It was announced on December 7, 2010, that Stallone was voted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in the non-participant category.”

Except for his voicework in Antz (1998), I never saw another Stallone film until Creed (2015), which was surprisingly good. Nope, no Rambo or Expenditures franchises in my viewing queue, most of which he also wrote.

My admiration for Stallone comes in part from this: “Complications his mother suffered during labor forced her obstetricians to use two pairs of forceps during his birth; misuse of these accidentally severed a nerve and caused paralysis in parts of Stallone’s face. As a result, the lower left side of his face is paralyzed – including parts of his lip, tongue, and chin – an accident which has given Stallone his snarling look and slightly slurred speech.” He’s a lot smarter than most people gave him credit for.

Happy birthday to Sylvester Stallone.