The awful truth - Page 2

'The Central Park Five' examines a shocking crime — and its troubling outcome

12.11.12 - 4:53 pm | Cheryl Eddy |

(132)

One of the central Park Five defendants, in archival footage from the documentary

None of the NYC police or prosecutors involved in the case are interviewed in The Central Park Five. Two reasons: an ongoing civil rights lawsuit filed by the wrongfully convicted men (which now involves the filmmakers — in September, they were subpoenaed for footage of the accused discussing their confessions); and really, who wants to go on record admitting that they failed, and ruined multiple lives as a result? Unlike the WM3, the Central Park Five's "innocence never got the attention that their guilt did," historian Craig Steven Wilder points out. Academy Award nomination or not, The Central Park Five may help change that.

Like the injustice doc, another late 2012 trend is the presidential biopic. Weeks after the release of Lincoln, Hyde Park on Hudson arrives with a lighthearted (-ish) take on Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1939 meeting with King George VI (of stuttering fame) and Queen Elizabeth at FDR's rural New York estate. Casting Bill Murray as FDR is Hyde Park's main attraction, though Olivia Williams makes for a surprisingly effective Eleanor.

But the thrust of the film concerns FDR's relationship with his cousin, Daisy — played by Laura Linney, who's relegated to a series of dowdy outfits, pouting reaction shots, and far too many voice-overs. The affair has zero heat, and the film is disappointingly shallow — how many times can one be urged to giggle at someone saying "Hot dogs!" in an English accent? — not to mention a waste of a perfectly fine Bill Murray performance. As that sideburned Democrat bellows in Lincoln, "Howwww dare you!" *

THE CENTRAL PARK 5 opens Fri/14 in the Bay Area; HYDE PARK ON HUDSON opens Fri/14 in San Francisco.

Comments

A profound willingness -- even a sense of delight! -- to disturb

others might be the definition of such a word if it existed... and now it does exist!

I think to obey modern spelling conventions though, we need to trop the "e": Assholism.

We even can form a group for it -- a group of one: Assholism Anonymous.

Eddie, on a more serious note, I think you inadvertently grant too much to free market capitalism in your assessment.

Free market capitalism doesn't *ever* thrive -- at least not for very long.

What thrives is the type of two-legged leech who, being completely and psychopathically devoid of natural human longings of society and group production, are perfectly adapted to exploit such a system.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 9:58 am

Ah, so you ducked the request for your idea of "top level"?

How ever did I know that you would?

And trying to obfuscate that with a few hundred words of flannel and froth doesn't fool anyone either.

In fact, your evasive tactics are so similar to Lilli that a reasonable eprson would have to assume that ou are both one and the same person.

Sorry, but you're busted.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 11:27 am

I assure you that

I am not lillipublicans.

The successful people, which by your definition I suppose means financially, of course would not attribute their "success" to the exploitation of labor.

I doubt that George W. Bush or Barack Obama consider themselves mass murderers, but their self-definition doesn't negate the fact that they are.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

If you think W and O are mass murderers than you should

present your evidence to the authorities and have them arrested.

But of course that is just hypebole on your part and has no bearing on reality.

The fact that you don't even like the most left-wing President we have ever had tells us everything we need to know about you.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

Remember that most of the

Remember that most of the criminal convictions at Nuremburg were not for the holocaust, they were for waging a war of aggression with blatant disregard for the safety of civilians.

The international institutions set up after WWII and the legal framework surrounding them leave no doubt that drone warfare is a criminal act, a crime against humanity, and that the perpetrators must bear full responsibility.

It goes without saying that a rogue violent state would take whatever steps to avoid compliance with the law.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

You forget the cardinal rule - might is right.

He who has the biggest stick makes the rules.

That's why we spend more on the military than the rest of the world put together - so that we never have to listen to Johnny Foreigner telling us what to do.

If you don't like it, move to Switzerland. Even Hitler and Napoleon didn't invade there.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

Might makes right...except in

Might makes right...except in central park, right?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

Now why didn't they think of that?

All "Johnny Foreigner" has to do is outspend us. That might be on the horizon, but I wouldn't expect a simpleton to be able to see the possibility.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

The problem with war crime prosecution is that only the victors

get to do it.

For instance, after WWII, we executed Japanese for waterboarding American soldiers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191...

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

Ah yes, that's the excuse the Nazi's trotted out at Nuremburg.

I think it was Goerring who claimed that if Germany has won, it would have been FDR and Churchill being tried.

It didn't work then as a defence and it doesn't work now. But really, Lilli, if you're going to use an argument, try not to make it one the Nazi's used.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

At both the Nuremberg and

At both the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, any conduct engaged in by the allies was a priori exempted from prosecution given that the wars were of aggression and instigated by the axis powers.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

No war crime trial has ever taken place that meted-out suitable

punishment for crimes engaged in by victorious forces -- no matter who started the war.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

And the same applies to America's alleged "aggression"

It was 100% in response to the invasion of Kuwait, 9/11 and the atrocities and threat from the Saddam regime.

We'd have been right even if might wasn't right.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

True, the Nazi's claimed that they'd been attacked by the Jews.

Excellent point.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

What threat from the Saddam regime?

Non-existent WMD?

Non-existent al-Qaeda in Iraq? (They formed and/or moved in after the US invasion.)

Selling oil for Euros? Now that may have been a threat to US capitalist interests. Likewise, Qaddafi was trying to set up a currency, the gold dinar, to avoid having to use the US$ for oil transactions. He had to go.

I do agree that the attacks of 9/11 were atrocities.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

Hmm, let's see. Ask any Kuwaiti, Iranian or even Iraq's own

citizens. All have suffered at Saddam's hands, but no more.

Plus, crucially, we now have air bases within strike distance of Iran and Syria, quiescing their aggression and providing vital support to our allies in the area.

Our forward bases in Afghanistan helped catch Osama. And we're well-positioned to protect crucial oil shipping lanes thru the Gulf.

win-win.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

Between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bush's tax cuts for

the rich -- all of which was paid for on credit -- our national debt will be at 20 TRILLION before then end of the decade. Half of that amount is from Bush.

The costs of the wars in health care for veterans alone will be half a trillion dollars or more. Those costs are ongoing.

So: doubling our national debt to achieve rather mixed socio-political results. Hmmm indeed.

Looks like the only clear winner is the petroleum industry.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

Far and away the largest item in the federal deficit is the

out-of-control entitlement programs that are gringing this nation to it's knees. The wars weren't actually that expensive - considerably less than a trillion.

In fact, the biggest item in the deficit will soon be interest on the debt, because of the persistent refusal of Democrats to cut spending.

Moreover, the deficit has spiralled since Obama took over. Bush saw annual trillion-dollar deficits as a temporary fix. Obama has made them a permanent feature.

You obviously haven't looked at the numbers.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

You are citing the largest *budget* item, but lyingly referring

to it as "deficit."

This of course, a favorite propaganda line of the bloodsucking leech class as it attempts to complete its epic heist; like a rapist telling his victims that, after all, they've brought it on themselves.

Health care costs alone for the wars will approach one trillion dollars.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/12/15/what-did-the-iraq-war-cos...

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

Are you seriously denying that interest on the national debt is

not a major component of the annual fiscal deficits? That's a product of all the previous spineless administrations and Congresses, but it has gotten much much worse under Obama, who genuinely appears not to care an iota about out massive debts.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

"Deficits don't matter" -- Dick Cheney

When Repugs are in power, they are doling out tax cut after tax cut to their rich fat cat buddies, lauching multiple wars on the national Visa card, and engaging in major deficit-spending sprees on military hardware which has no practical use -- remember Star Wars?

But when Democrats have one or more branches under their control, the Repugnicans return to their bogus act of being deficit hawks, with their similarly bogus cheerleaders -- these despicable psychopathic trolls here -- who achieve self-gratificational heights though knowingly spewing their obnoxiously false rhetoric where sane people congregate.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

#postfail

#postfail

Posted by marcos on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 9:53 am

A RIGHT is ONLY a RIGHT if you can get it ENFORCED ...

Jason Grant Garza here ... I would challenge that we HAVE the best health care in the world. Where was mine, where was the HUMANITY in the false arrest when I was denied EMERGENCY services ( http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com ) where was the HUMANITY in my " NURSE RATCH " letter or the response from ETHICS? Where was the HUMANITY when I complained NOT only in regard to the denied Emergency Services but also the "RISK MANAGEMENT" complaint that I filled that was SPOT on in their maltreatment toward the VICTIM (SFGH), where was the HUMANITY when the city attorney had me illegally 5150'ed at my deposition, where was the HUMANITY when I followed up with Mobile Crisis regarding their leaving so that SFPD could carry out the city attorney's malfeasance deed and falsely 5150 me where was the HUMANITY when I went back to the FEDERAL COURT with the signed confession that the city had previously lied and and had my case (C02-3485PJH) thrown out YEARS earlier, where was the HUMANITY in all the city agencies I went to that told me I was WRONG (MOD, Patient Advocacy, DPH, etc),

Let me show you .... go to youtube and search on Jason Garza ... or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cP3jCmJFRo

At youtube you will see MORAL HAZARD, INHUMANITY, NO ACCOUNTABILITY from well paid PROFESSIONALS ...

We are WAY AHEAD in the MANIPULATION of the PROPAGANDA.

Best Health Care ... what a FARCE ... and I can SAY THAT for I have a SIGNED CONFESSION and then being LEFT for DEAD ... what was the CONSEQUENCE for the PROFESSIONALS ... let is see ... the NURSE moved on (no penalty) the city attorney moved on ( no penalty for what happened in FEDERAL COURT case C02-3485PJH), the JUDGE moved on, the MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS moved on, the GOVERNMENT HEALTH Care Apparatus moved on, the DPH moved on, MOD moved on, the Sheriff's Office moved on, SFPD moved on .... HOWEVER was there CORRECTION or did they JUST move on to the NEXT VICTIM?

Shall we see what they are trying to do to me now .... go to youtube.

Yes, the BEST INDOCTRINATION, the BEST COVERUP and non RESPONSIBILITY, the BEST "RISK MANAGEMENT" possible, the BEST freigns of CONCERN ... again, WHAT PENALTY?

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Re Cheney, I disagreed with him, and Bush in that regard.

I supported the W tax cuts and continue to. The problem, and it was the same with the Reagan tax cuts, was that we didn't cut spending at the same time, which of course grew the deficit.

What we really need is lower taxes AND dramatic cuts in entitlement spending, thereby reducing the deficit and diverting resources to the wealth-generating sector of society. Without that, we are fiscally doomed, and sadly neither party appears to care about that at all.

Long gold; short Treasuries.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

The troll claims to have disagreed with Cheney/Bush;

..."supported the W tax cuts and continue to," but "we" didn't cut spending at the same time.

What do you think I'm as simple-minded a fuckwit as you? Bush's *OWN* *BUDGET* was out of line with tax receipts. None of his war-time budgets even *counted* the war spending. You are just a troll.

Your flip use of the term "entitlements" seems to imply that it's only right that they be trimmed. Perhaps you'd like to try to convince me, but first I'd like to see you talk a poor, hard working, and ill-tempered man into handing over to you the contents of his wallet.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 8:03 pm

You protest too much. I simply averred that Cheney's remark was

fatuous. However, that does not refute the logic of balancing the budget - it merely shows the paucity of arguments that you can only cut taxes without cutting spending.

We clearly need to do both, unless you want Scandinaivan levels of taxation, and even then, they are having massive deficit problems too.

Tax cuts without spending cuts will not work.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

All the Scandinavian countries are in the top 10 for

quality of life while -- contrary to your extraordinary falsification -- maintaining low or *zero* deficits.

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10395-public-de...

The reason your arguments devolve into the absurd, incomprehensible, and patently false is that you are pretending to want economic vitality, while actually being in favor of economic decay. The milieu in which your ideal for humanity flourishes is a Dickensian dystopia.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 6:33 am

Then you should move to Sweden.

Although if their "quality of life" is so high, why do they have such a high suicide rate?

Me? I don't want to pay 60% tax.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 7:00 am

Sweden has almost exactly the same suicide rate as the U.S.

In fact, certain rates of suicide are far higher in the U.S. -- suicides of males between age 5 and 14 is five times the rate in Sweden. Sweden has generally lower rates except for the higher age groups, with older males particularly more apt to commit suicide. The rates of suicide among younger Swedish males is markedly lower than in the U.S.

Might the slightly higher average rates be due to an older Swedish population? Yes. Their median age is five years older than the U.S. median age, and their life expectancy is close to three years better at 80.9.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/swed.pdf

The 60% figure pertains to income tax of the highest earners in society. In exchange for their taxes, Swedes get free healthcare, free education, and a host of other free public services and amenities. You can horde your gold coins and and fondle them, but it won't make you happy or long-lived.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

The austerity that you propose

has failed miserably wherever it has been tried. Further impoverish the bulk of the population to enrich the owners and you'll get Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom where austerity is leading to record unemployment and despair.

Over 50% of government spending goes to war and its related industries--that's the real entitlement. Social Security hasn't contributed one cent to the deficit. Expand Medicare to cover everyone and the aggregate savings in healthcare will reduce the deficit.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 10:22 pm

Eddie, every single sentence there is 100% false.

Please at least study the topic if you are going to opine here.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 7:00 am

If you would like to educate yourself on this topic,

may I suggest the work of Dean Baker, Mark Weisbrot, Michael Hudson, and William Black.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 3:23 pm