Crime & Federalism

This book will be most appreciated by people who prefer their fiction to read like non-fiction.  Set in a newsroom, it's really a collection of short stories of newspaper personalities.  Everyone from trust fund kids to desperate career women to agoraphobic readers appear.  There is one of the finest scenes involving a relationship meltdown anywhere: A man who makes the mistake of revealing his vulnerabilities is rewarded by...(no spoilers here), although experienced men know that sharing emotions with a woman is like putting blood in the water around sharks.  I wish I had bought the book on Kindle, so I could have reproduced it.

One of the better books I've read all year, and I'm not usually a fiction reader.  Do not read any spoilers.  I would advise against even reading the synopsis.  There were skin-crawl moments throughout, and if you enjoyed the father's love angle of The Road, you'll appreciate the mother's love angle of Room.  As with The Road, a child's perspective on the world is highlighted.  It's four to five hours of enriching reading.

I had a long misogynist screed written about the destruction of the man cave.  Then I read this comment:

Man cave? Boy cave is more like it. Why do so many grown men in this country want to fill their rooms full of tens of thousands of dollars worth of model race cars and championship pennants and baseball cards, and sit around in sports jerseys getting drunk and watching sports on TV? Except for the booze, this is my five-year-old's idea of paradise. Racing flames on the toilet seat! It's hilarious. And also nauseating. The sheer kitsch factor is nearly overwhelming in itself, but the casual equation of kitsch with manliness is just too much.

Some call me a misogynist, but the truth is that I hate men even more than I'm falsely accused of hating women.  What is there to admire about modern men?  When people hear men, they think of Al Bundy:

Al is a simple man, who finds himself constantly downtrodden by life and forever regretful of the turns his life has taken since the end of high school, when marriage and a broken leg prevented him from playing college football. The character was so popular that it has left O'Neill somewhat typecast since the series ended production.

What's wrong is that they are right.  If you drew 100 random male names from the phone book, would you even find a single Teddy Roosevelt:

Roosevelt had a lifelong interest in pursuing what he called, in an 1899 speech, "the strenuous life". To this end, he exercised regularly and took up boxing, tennis, hiking, rowing, polo, and horseback riding. As governor of New York, he boxed with sparring partners several times a week, a practice he regularly continued as President until one blow detached his left retina, leaving him blind in that eye (a fact not made public until many years later). Thereafter, he practiced judo attaining a third degree brown belt and continued his habit of skinny-dipping in the Potomac River during winter.

Would Al Bundy have a man cave?  I suspect so.  It's not hard imaging him sitting on a La-Z-Boy chair while watching television.  

Would Teddy Roosevelt have a man cave?  In fact, he did not:

Of course, Roosevelt wasn’t exactly shy about his hobby. He lined the White House basement with training mats, and he practiced with anyone who was willing to tussle—including his wife and sister-in-law. Once, he even brightened a boring state luncheon by throwing the Swiss minister to the floor and demonstrating a judo hold, to the delight of his guests.

There's no need for a man cave.  Go the gym.  Hit up the shooting range.  Take a road trip with a friend.  Rediscover the lost art of simply hanging out with a male friend.  

Whatever you do, don't build a fucking man cave.

Because I confront people who cut in line and do other anti-social acts, I often hear, "Mike, you're going to get shot!"

My first thought is, "Why don't you think they should be worried about me?"  And yet the question itself reveals the national ethos - one of cowardice.

How often have you heard a person say, after backing down from a confrontation, "You need to live to fight another day"?  There is logic to that position, and one does indeed need to know when to retreat.  Yet the warrior retreats so that he may attack when its advantageous.  "[E]ven though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage."

And yet, for the vast majority of American males, that "another day" never seems to come.  Life is one never-ending serious of punking out.  The boss yells at you?  Take it.  Your wife nags you about dishes in the sink.  Deal with it.  Someone cuts in front of you in line?  

Just never yell at someone.  Never tell someone to fuck off.  Never tell a person to get to the back of the line.  Live to fight another day.

It's easy to understand where this lie comes from.  We tell ourselves that we will live to fight another day because realizing we are cowards is hurtful.  Yet we did just back down, right?  This creates cognitive dissonance.  We will lie to ourselves in order to resolve the dissonance.

The problem with lying to one's self is that it prevents change.  Maybe you don't stand up for yourself because you'd get an ass kicking.  If that's the case, learn jiu jitsu.  Box.  Take steroids: If you're over 40, you can get testosterone from your doctor. Lift weights.  Unless you're really old, there is no legitimate excuse for being feeble.

Maybe you won't confront your boss because you fear being fired.  If that's the fear, then make yourself someone who would be impossible to fire.  Create systems at work that only you understand.  Sabotage your enemies.  Just because you don't punch first doesn't mean you shouldn't punch hardest.

If you're afraid of standing up to your spouse, make yourself the kind of person your spouse would be a fool to attack.  Become someone with options.

To become something better, you must first recognize your contemptible state.  Embrace the dissonance.  Recognize that you are pathetic, and instead of telling lies to yourself, do something to change.

Has that "another day" you keep mentioning ever come?  

It's not too late...

When District Attorney Mark Hurlbert allowed a Morgan Stanley banker to escape felony hit-and-run charges because “Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in [Martin Joel] Erzinger's profession," many were incensed.  Yet how could I, someone who cautions against prosecutorial abuse and overcriminalization, get swept up in the mob?  It's a legitimate question that resulted from my failure to communicate: I did not put on the screen what was inside my head.

Mark Hurlbert is, to put is mildly, totally fucking bat-shit crazy.  Want some examples?

• He charged two women with felony impersonation after one woman gave her friend a racing badge.  That's not a joke or a spin job.  One woman gave her racing badge to her friend - who wasn't able to register for a mountain bike race.  Both women were charged with felonies.
• He took a man to trial on assault charges for throwing a snowball!  Again, this is neither a joke nor a spin job.  
• He took a man to trial twice on what seem to be trumped-up child pornography charges.  I wish I were making this up.  After being rebuked by two juries, Hurlbert filed a change-of-venue motion.  His logic: “It really comes down to believing that the community's pretty divided on this. There were two juries, a portion of each of the juries thought he was not guilty and a portion of the jury thought he was guilty and wouldn't budge either way. (It) showed that people are pretty divided. So maybe moving it to another county, people wouldn't be so divided.”

This is a truly diabolical man who has no sense of justice or fairness.  If Hurlbert had a history of exercising his prosecutorial discretion in a sane way, one might conclude that he gave the banker a pass out of a sense of justice.  Given Hurlbert's history of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse, one can only conclude that Hurlbert is accepting bribes.  

Whether these bribes come in the form of cash in an envelop, or campaign contributions, is a question for the Attorney General.  Unfortunately for Colorado residents, their newly-elected Attorney General, John Suthers, is more concerned with protecting an unethical prosecutor than listening to his constituents.  

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, who dismissed felony hit-and-run charges against a rich local banker, has closed down his publicly-accessible Facebook sites.  Colorado's Attorney General, John Suthers, still allows comments.  If you want the Attorney General's office to investigate Mark Hulbert, contact the AG's office.  It's as simple as:

1. Go to this page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Suthers/34261623016?v=wall
2. "Like" the site.
3. Write on his Wall.

Hurlbert must not escape his corrupt acts, and an investigation must be opened immediately.

UPDATE: Rather than address legitimate concerns of his constituents, Attorney General John Suthers has removed his Facebook page.

When it was reported that District Attorney Mark Hurlbert dismissed felony charges against a rich banker who slammed into a bicyclist, I wondered if Hurlbert had accepted a bribe.  Hurlbert has high political aspirations, and recently ran for State Senator.  Perhaps the rich banker promised  generous campaign contributions in exchange for dismissing felony charges?  It seems that Hurlbert  must be accepting bribes.  No other explanation makes sense.

Although I haven't seen any envelopes with cash, I have seen how Hurlbert treated other Colorado criminal cases.  Two women lost their jobs after being charged with felonies for switching race cards at a race:

DA Mark Hurlbert filed felony criminal-impersonation charges against two veteran Vail, Colorado, mountain bike racers, Wendy Lyall and Katie Brazelton, after an injured Brazelton, 40, gave her registration materials and entry number to her friend, Lyall, 36, so she could race

Does that seem like a serious crime to you?  Why is this even a criminal matter for a prosecutor rather than a civil matter for race organizers?  Yet Hurlbert treated the case as a serious matter.  He didn't care if the women lost their jobs.  He charged them with felonies.  Serious business.

Why then has he allowed a banker who committed a violent crime to avoid a felony charge?  He claims it's because the banker should keep his job.  And yet Hurlbert cost two women who switched a race card their jobs.  What is going on?

When a Morgan Stanley banker nearly kills a bicyclist, Hurlbert tells the victim to screw off:

EAGLE, Colorado — A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardize his job, prosecutors said Thursday.

Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, faces two misdemeanor traffic charges stemming from a July 3 incident when he allegedly hit bicyclist Dr. Steven Milo from behind then sped away, according to court documents.

Milo and his attorney, Harold Haddon, are livid about the prosecution's decision to drop the felony charge. They filed their objection Wednesday afternoon, the day after prosecutors notified Haddon's office by fax of their decision.

Perhaps there is an alternative explanation for the disparate treatment? I cannot think of one. Right now thinking people must infer that Hurlbert is accepting bribes.

Moreover, we can infer that a bribe has been offered given Hurlbert's fraudulent arguments.  Hurlbert claims that his motives are pure:

“The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us,” Hurlbert said. “Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.”

That is a lie, because restitution goes to the victim - in this case, the bicyclist.  That is a lie, because the banker has substantial assets, and can pay a restitution order by tapping into savings.  The victim, moreover, doesn't care about restitution:

Milo wrote in a letter to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert that the case “has always been about responsibility, not money.”

“Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway,” Milo wrote. “Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case.”

How can Hurlbert claim that a sociopathic banker must keep his job in order to pay restitution to the victim, when the victim himself doesn't care about that restitution?  That argument is clearly fraudulent.  Hurlbert is lying.

We hope that the State Bar of Colorado will open an investigation.  We also hope that voters will recall the corrupt Hurlbert from office.

One has to wonder how much money District Attorney Mark Hurlbert accepted to allow this crime to go unpunished:

Dr Milo was bicycling eastbound on Highway 6 near Eagle when Martin Joel Erzinger allegedly hit him with the black 2010 Mercedes Benz sedan he was driving.

Erzinger fled the scene and was arrested later, police say. He drove until he reached a Pizza Hut parking lot, where he stopped and called Mercedes auto assistance to report the damage to his vehicle.

That's a felony hit-and-run.  Everyone criminal lawyer knows this.  It's a serious crime.  What's worse is that Erzinger called to report damage to his own car rather than call 9-1-1.  An ethical prosecutor would say in court, "That's an aggravating factor evidencing a lack of remorse.  It also shows a truly depraved individual who elevates the condition of his expensive car to another person's life!"

Nevertheless, District Attorney Mark Hurlbert violated his oath of office, and violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, by treating a rich criminal defendant "more equally" than a poor one:

A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardise his job, it has been revealed.

Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, was set to face felony charges for running over a doctor who he hit from behind in his 2010 Mercedes Benz, and then speeding off.

But now he will simply face two misdemeanour traffic charges from the July 3 incident in Eagle, Colorado. 

We can only speculate, but my best guess is that Mark Hurlbert accepted a bribe.  Can you think of another explanation?  In his official biography, Hulbert writes:  "He makes victims a priority and is dedicated to providing victims a strong voice in the justice system."  

What did the rich banker's victim think about the "justice system"?

Dr Milo told Hurlbert that the case 'has always been about responsibility, not money'.'Mr Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway,' he wrote. 'Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case.'

Can you think of a reason - other than a bribe - that would explain Hurlbert's charging decision?  I can't.  It thus seems that the most logical conclusion that Hurlbert is accepting bribes.

Doesn't this make you proud to be an American?  

A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardise his job, it has been revealed.

Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, was set to face felony charges for running over a doctor who he hit from behind in his 2010 Mercedes Benz, and then speeding off. But now he will simply face two misdemeanour traffic charges from the July 3 incident in Eagle, Colorado.

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert said: "Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it."

People are mocking the Lawyer Strike blogger.  Meanwhile, those with wealth and power are mocking everyone else.  What you are going to do about it?  Write a few more angry blog posts?  How's that been working for you?

While I do not think the Lawyer Strike blogger's concrete idea is workable, he sentiment is nonetheless on-point.  We do not live in a nation of laws.  We live in a system where slaves follow one set of rules, and Martin Joel Erzinger follows another set.

Something needs to be done.  I would say that actions "outside of the law" need to occur, but that would be a nonsensical linguistic formation.  Wall Street bankers already live outside of the social contract, and thus the laws do not apply to them.  Just as one cannot cheat on a spouse to whom he is not married, one cannot, by definition, commit a crime against a banker.

Once the rest of you agree that you are slaves and Wall Street is your master, then action will be taken.  Meanwhile, you will oppress your liberators by - consistent with your training as slaves - treating acts against Wall Street as "vigilantism."  Only would an enslaved people oppress those who seek to liberate them.

What's the worst thing that can happen to a narcissist?  Here's a hint: It's not the worst thing that happens to you.  If you were raped, a narcissist would tell everyone how traumatic being a witness was - to him.  That you suffered wouldn't be comprehensible to the narcissist.

Former President George W. Bush explains:

Bush: "I faced a lot of criticism as president. I didn't like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low."

Lauer: "You say you told Laura at the time it was the worst moment of your presidency?"

Bush: "Yes. My record was strong, I felt, when it came to race relations and giving people a chance. And it was a disgusting moment."

George W. Bush doesn't care about black people, and he doesn't care about you.  When your loved ones die in terrorist attacks his Administration orchestrated, he doesn't care.  When people die in wars brought in order to enrich his friends in the Military Industrial Complex, he doesn't care.  When you lose your jobs due to his economic policies, he doesn't care.  When you can't afford gasoline because Bush allows his Saudi friends to control the oil supply, he doesn't care.

When you personally insult him, suddenly he cares - about himself, anyway.

Do you think Barack Obama is any different?  After his party was gutted, he blamed you for being too stupid to understand him:

[Barack Hussein Obama] also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."

It wasn't that his economic advisers were the same people who were running Wall Street during the subprime bubble that outraged Americans.  It's not that Wall Street will pay our record-level bonuses while most Americans fear for their jobs.  It's not that Obama hasn't indicted a single player responsible for the massive financial suffering.  It's not that Obama's "healthcare reform" was really just a give-away to BigPharma and Big Healthcare.  No.  It's that you're unworthy of Him.

Are you getting the message?  The very people you elect do not care about you.  Why do you care about them?  Why are you outraged when people insult Obama, or Bush, or any of these other criminals?  

What cognitive defects do you partisans suffer from?  Have you considered seeing a psychologist?  You clearly need help.