I find particularly creepy how they insure that no one is around before proceeding with the brutalization...
Sunday
What a Scam! Don't give to the Kids Wish Network
I got a call one weekend morning not long ago. Some woman asked me if I wanted to donate to the Kids Wish Network. "No" I said, "and please don't call me in the morning, or at home, or...ever." Then I mentioned that I was on the do not call list. This provoked a small tirade about how they were exempt, being a charity and all, and she couldn't believe I wouldn't want to support granting wishes to dying kids.
Hmmm.
Well, it turns out, I don't. And neither (hardly) does the Kid's wish network. With a little digging and some help from Charity Navigator and the Kids Wish Network 2008 IRS form 990, here's what you get:
The Comeon:
They use this kid to con you into lining their pockets!
Here's the reality:
Total expenditures $16,895,430
Fund raising costs $12,490,985
Program expenses for children $2,294,167
Other expenses $2,110,278
The three top people are all related: a husband named Mark Breiner earns nearly $160,00) just in salary plus big benefits. His wife Shelley earns nearly $115,000 a year plus benefits, and it appears (though I can't confirm) that his mother in law (or another relative) draws almost $90,000.00.
In other words, this "charity" gives about 10 cents on the dollar to "charity" while using the bulk of their 15 million dollars to enrich a single family, and keep the scam going though aggressive fundraising.
So, if you are thinking about giving to the "Kids Wish Network" Don't. Just pass out a few bucks to homeless guys on the street. At least you know who the direct beneficiary of that charity is.
Hmmm.
Well, it turns out, I don't. And neither (hardly) does the Kid's wish network. With a little digging and some help from Charity Navigator and the Kids Wish Network 2008 IRS form 990, here's what you get:
The Comeon:
They use this kid to con you into lining their pockets!
Here's the reality:
Total expenditures $16,895,430
Fund raising costs $12,490,985
Program expenses for children $2,294,167
Other expenses $2,110,278
The three top people are all related: a husband named Mark Breiner earns nearly $160,00) just in salary plus big benefits. His wife Shelley earns nearly $115,000 a year plus benefits, and it appears (though I can't confirm) that his mother in law (or another relative) draws almost $90,000.00.
In other words, this "charity" gives about 10 cents on the dollar to "charity" while using the bulk of their 15 million dollars to enrich a single family, and keep the scam going though aggressive fundraising.
So, if you are thinking about giving to the "Kids Wish Network" Don't. Just pass out a few bucks to homeless guys on the street. At least you know who the direct beneficiary of that charity is.
Say this and this guy will sue you...
This is Steve Theriot
If you say that he is "just another Jefferson Parish politician thug mobster trained by his mentor John Alario, dressed up in a facade of respectability by a corrupt Louisiana Legislature.”
He will try to sue you.
Really.
Wednesday
Hell hath no fury like a judge embarrassed
Judge Michael Gary
Ever wondered how judges manipulate the system to impose their own sort of justice? Here's a great example. According to that sage source the post, " A red-faced Brooklyn jurist -- smarting from an oversight that forced him to let a subway vandal go free last week -- yesterday seized on the man's inability to show up in court to hit him with 11 months behind bars. Justice Michael Gary said the failure of the subway vandal-artist known as Poster Boy to appear in court last Thursday (he came on Friday--a day late) meant his carefully negotiated no-jail plea was now worthless. "I owe you nothing," Gary told Henry Matyjewicz, 28.
So what did Judge Gary gave him for being a day late? 11 months in jail rather than the non-jail 210 hours of community service he'd been promised. And why? The post speculates that the judge might have "been steaming over the coverage he got in The Post over his first, failed attempt to jail Matyjewicz."
So here we have an absolutely perfect example of how the system really works:
1. A judge makes a perfectly reasonable (and legal) decision.
2. The post criticizes the judge for being soft on crime.
3. The Judge, bowing to political pressure, finds an excuse to seem like a bad-ass after all and sends a guy to jail for almost a year because he was a day late for court.
Now, it's not like Gary is above doing this sort of thing. Nor even that he's a decent sentencer. In fact, In 2003, an appeals court reversed him for imposing a 15-year maximum sentence in a robbery case where the defendant had beaten a murder charge. The appeals court said Gary was punishing the defendant, Jared Errington, for the murder, rather than the robbery, and sent the case back for sentencing by a different judge. And that, by the way, explains the 11 months rather than the maximum year-long sentence he could have imposed: It's insurance against an appeal--an effort to look considered rather than vindictive.
So to all ye who wonder how it really goes down. Look no further...
Great defense...
A wheelchair-bound lawyer who suffers from cerebral palsy and cannot control the movement of his arms and legs astonishingly faces charges he sexually assaulted a judge while they were alone in a Queens office, authorities said. Hippocrates "Chicho" Mertsaris, 35, is accused of slapping a 40-year-old administrative judge for the Taxi and Limousine Commission on the rear end in October as she walked near him in a small room in the commission's Long Island City office, according to court documents.
An attorney for Mertsaris, a TLC lawyer, says his client has "no voluntary control of his arms or legs." "We are not saying he didn't touch her, but he didn't grab her or feel her up. Nothing like that," said attorney Wyatt Gibbons. "It was nothing sexual." But the judge, whose name has been withheld because she is considered a sex-crime victim, decided to press charges, and Mertsaris was charged.
An attorney for Mertsaris, a TLC lawyer, says his client has "no voluntary control of his arms or legs." "We are not saying he didn't touch her, but he didn't grab her or feel her up. Nothing like that," said attorney Wyatt Gibbons. "It was nothing sexual." But the judge, whose name has been withheld because she is considered a sex-crime victim, decided to press charges, and Mertsaris was charged.
Thursday
Wednesday
The Face of Prosecutorial Abuse...
Virginia's Tea Party AG--Ken Cuccinelli
So here's a perfect example of why prosecutors with a political agenda are so damn scary. The Attorney General of Virginia is on freakish crusade to enforce a set of norms the Tea Party and Taliban both love. He's used the power of the state to try to rescind anti-discrimination policies for gays and lesbians, approved a new policy allowing sectarian prayer by state police chaplains at public events, and even tried to cover up the bare-breast of the Roman Goddess who has graced the state seal since 1776. Now he's been turned back on several of these efforts, but he seems undeterred. His most recent target of intimidation? A climate scientist.
As Dahlia LIthwick ably reports in Slate, the AG has filed " A civil investigative demand (or CID, which is basically a subpoena) with the University of Virginia on April 23, giving the school 30 days to produce more than 10 years' worth of documents related to the state-funded research of a former faculty member, Michael Mann. Operating under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, the CID seeks from the university, among other things, "any correspondence, messages or emails" to or from Mann and 40 named climate scientists; any documents sent to or from Mann that reference any of those 40 scientists; and any "documents, things or data" submitted in support of any of five different grant applications that amounted, in total, to almost $500,000. The university is also expected to turn over "any and all emails or pieces of correspondence from or to Dr. Michael Mann since he left the University of Virginia."
And why? Because while he'd like to further the science deniers who persist in thinking that global warming is a hoax, Cuccinelli understands that issuing CID's and targeting academics will have a chilling effect--making scientists and academics fear that research with politically sensitive implications will bring down the heavy hand of the tea-party taliban upon them.
And that, is a scary world indeed.
Monday
The DVD of season two...
So turns out the complete second season of RTB will be released on DVD on May 11th.
Sunday
Who should replace Justice John Paul Stevens?
I've just written up (for Slate) my pick for who should replace Justice John Paul Stevens...and the winner is...
Jeffrey Fisher
Here's the piece...
In the spirit of an off-beat list, my vote goes to 40-year-old Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of Stanford Law School's Supreme Court litigation clinic. He has the temperament, track record, consensus-building skills, and life expectancy to make him a formidable nominee. Wildly accomplished for his years, Fisher is already considered one of the most influential lawyers in the country. Charmingly, he also served as a clerk for Justice Stevens. As a litigator, Fisher has compiled an astonishing string of high court victories, in part because of his impressive ability to persuade Justice Scalia to side with criminal defendants. That skill alone would make him a formidable presence on the court. Moreover, having never been a judge, (before joining the Stanford faculty, Fisher worked at the well-regarded law firm of Davis-Wright Tremaine), his paper trail is mostly academic. The big strike against him is age. Then again, in 1811, James Madison swore in Associate Justice Joseph Story. His age at the time: 32.
Jeffrey Fisher
Here's the piece...
In the spirit of an off-beat list, my vote goes to 40-year-old Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of Stanford Law School's Supreme Court litigation clinic. He has the temperament, track record, consensus-building skills, and life expectancy to make him a formidable nominee. Wildly accomplished for his years, Fisher is already considered one of the most influential lawyers in the country. Charmingly, he also served as a clerk for Justice Stevens. As a litigator, Fisher has compiled an astonishing string of high court victories, in part because of his impressive ability to persuade Justice Scalia to side with criminal defendants. That skill alone would make him a formidable presence on the court. Moreover, having never been a judge, (before joining the Stanford faculty, Fisher worked at the well-regarded law firm of Davis-Wright Tremaine), his paper trail is mostly academic. The big strike against him is age. Then again, in 1811, James Madison swore in Associate Justice Joseph Story. His age at the time: 32.
Thursday
Judge Gleeson tells it like it is...
Thanks to my old colleague Frank for passing this to me:
Some Excerpts from United States v. Vasquez, No. 09-CR-259 (JG), 2010 WL 1257359 (E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2010)
When people think about miscarriages of justice, they generally think big, especially in this era of DNA exonerations, in which wholly innocent people have been released from jail in significant numbers after long periods in prison. As disturbing as those case are, the truth is that most of the time miscarriages of justice occur in small doses, in cases involving guilty defendants. This makes them easier to overlook. But when they are multiplied by the thousands of cases in which they occur, they have a greater impact on our criminal justice system than the cases you read about in the newspapers or hear about on 60 minutes. This case is a good example.
...
When the case was first called for sentencing in December, I pointed out the obvious: the five-year mandatory sentence in this case would be unjust. The prosecutor agreed, and welcomed my direction that she go back to the United States Attorney with a request from the Court that he withdraw the aspect of the charge that required the imposition of the five-year minimum. She asked for a couple of months to make the case that the sentence enhancement should be abandoned.
On March 5, 2010, the prosecutor appeared again, shadowed by a supervisor. She reported that the United States Attorney would not relent. She offered two reasons. The first was that I might have failed to focus on the fact that Vasquez had "received a bump down," meaning he was allowed to plead to the five-year mandatory minimum rather than to the ten-year mandatory minimum that he, his brother, and three other co-defendants were originally charged with. I think this means that Vasquez should be grateful the government did not insist on a ten-year minimum sentence based on additional quantities of cocaine it concedes he knew nothing about and could not be held responsible for under the guidelines, presumably on the theory that other members of the same conspiracy dealt those quantities. I suppose there is some consolation in the fact that the government did not pursue that absurd course, which would have produced an even more egregious injustice if Vasquez had been convicted. But that hardly explains, let alone justifies, the government's insistence on the injustice at hand
...
I recognize that the United States Attorney is not required to explain to judges the reasons for decisions like this one, and for that reason I did not ask for them. But the ones that were volunteered do not withstand the slightest scrutiny.
As a result of the decision to insist on the five-year mandatory minimum, there was no judging going on at Vasquez's sentencing. Though in theory I could have considered a sentence of greater than 60 months, even the prosecutor recognized how ludicrous that would be, and asked for a 60-month sentence. But the prosecutor's refusal to permit consideration of a lesser sentence ended the matter, rendering irrelevant all the other factors that should have been considered to arrive at a just sentence.
The defendant's difficult childhood and lifelong struggle with mental illness were out of bounds, as were the circumstances giving rise to his minor role in his brother's drug business (i.e., it was to support an addiction, not to become a narcotics entrepreneur with a proprietary stake in the drugs), the fact that he tried to cooperate but was not involved enough in the drug trade to be of assistance, the effect of his incarceration on his three-year-old daughter and the eight-year-old child of Caraballo he is raising as his own, the fact that he has been a good father to them for nearly five years, the fact that his prior convictions all arose out of his ex-wife's refusal to permit him to see their three children.
Sentencing is not a science, and I don't pretend to be better than anyone else at assimilating these and the numerous other factors, both aggravating and mitigating, that legitimately bear on an appropriate sentence. But I try my best to do just that, and by doing so to do justice for the individual before me and for our community. In this case, those efforts would have resulted in a prison term of 24 months, followed by a five-year period of supervision with conditions including both other forms of punishment (home detention and community service) and efforts to assist Vasquez with the mental health, substance abuse, and anger management problems that have plagued him, in some respects for his entire life. If he had failed to avail himself of those efforts, or if, for example, he intentionally had contact with Melendez without the prior authorization of his supervising probation officer, he would have gone back to jail on this case.
The mandatory minimum sentence in this case supplanted any effort to do justice, leaving in its place the heavy wooden club that was explicitly meant only for mid-level managers of drug operations. The absence of fit between the crude method of punishment and the particular set of circumstances before me was conspicuous; when I imposed sentence on the weak and sobbing Vasquez on March 5, everyone present, including the prosecutor, could feel the injustice.
In sum, though I am obligated by law to provide a statement of "reasons" for each sentence I impose, in this case there was but one: I was forced by a law that should not have been invoked to impose a five-year prison term.
Some Excerpts from United States v. Vasquez, No. 09-CR-259 (JG), 2010 WL 1257359 (E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2010)
When people think about miscarriages of justice, they generally think big, especially in this era of DNA exonerations, in which wholly innocent people have been released from jail in significant numbers after long periods in prison. As disturbing as those case are, the truth is that most of the time miscarriages of justice occur in small doses, in cases involving guilty defendants. This makes them easier to overlook. But when they are multiplied by the thousands of cases in which they occur, they have a greater impact on our criminal justice system than the cases you read about in the newspapers or hear about on 60 minutes. This case is a good example.
...
When the case was first called for sentencing in December, I pointed out the obvious: the five-year mandatory sentence in this case would be unjust. The prosecutor agreed, and welcomed my direction that she go back to the United States Attorney with a request from the Court that he withdraw the aspect of the charge that required the imposition of the five-year minimum. She asked for a couple of months to make the case that the sentence enhancement should be abandoned.
On March 5, 2010, the prosecutor appeared again, shadowed by a supervisor. She reported that the United States Attorney would not relent. She offered two reasons. The first was that I might have failed to focus on the fact that Vasquez had "received a bump down," meaning he was allowed to plead to the five-year mandatory minimum rather than to the ten-year mandatory minimum that he, his brother, and three other co-defendants were originally charged with. I think this means that Vasquez should be grateful the government did not insist on a ten-year minimum sentence based on additional quantities of cocaine it concedes he knew nothing about and could not be held responsible for under the guidelines, presumably on the theory that other members of the same conspiracy dealt those quantities. I suppose there is some consolation in the fact that the government did not pursue that absurd course, which would have produced an even more egregious injustice if Vasquez had been convicted. But that hardly explains, let alone justifies, the government's insistence on the injustice at hand
...
I recognize that the United States Attorney is not required to explain to judges the reasons for decisions like this one, and for that reason I did not ask for them. But the ones that were volunteered do not withstand the slightest scrutiny.
As a result of the decision to insist on the five-year mandatory minimum, there was no judging going on at Vasquez's sentencing. Though in theory I could have considered a sentence of greater than 60 months, even the prosecutor recognized how ludicrous that would be, and asked for a 60-month sentence. But the prosecutor's refusal to permit consideration of a lesser sentence ended the matter, rendering irrelevant all the other factors that should have been considered to arrive at a just sentence.
The defendant's difficult childhood and lifelong struggle with mental illness were out of bounds, as were the circumstances giving rise to his minor role in his brother's drug business (i.e., it was to support an addiction, not to become a narcotics entrepreneur with a proprietary stake in the drugs), the fact that he tried to cooperate but was not involved enough in the drug trade to be of assistance, the effect of his incarceration on his three-year-old daughter and the eight-year-old child of Caraballo he is raising as his own, the fact that he has been a good father to them for nearly five years, the fact that his prior convictions all arose out of his ex-wife's refusal to permit him to see their three children.
Sentencing is not a science, and I don't pretend to be better than anyone else at assimilating these and the numerous other factors, both aggravating and mitigating, that legitimately bear on an appropriate sentence. But I try my best to do just that, and by doing so to do justice for the individual before me and for our community. In this case, those efforts would have resulted in a prison term of 24 months, followed by a five-year period of supervision with conditions including both other forms of punishment (home detention and community service) and efforts to assist Vasquez with the mental health, substance abuse, and anger management problems that have plagued him, in some respects for his entire life. If he had failed to avail himself of those efforts, or if, for example, he intentionally had contact with Melendez without the prior authorization of his supervising probation officer, he would have gone back to jail on this case.
The mandatory minimum sentence in this case supplanted any effort to do justice, leaving in its place the heavy wooden club that was explicitly meant only for mid-level managers of drug operations. The absence of fit between the crude method of punishment and the particular set of circumstances before me was conspicuous; when I imposed sentence on the weak and sobbing Vasquez on March 5, everyone present, including the prosecutor, could feel the injustice.
In sum, though I am obligated by law to provide a statement of "reasons" for each sentence I impose, in this case there was but one: I was forced by a law that should not have been invoked to impose a five-year prison term.
Monday
How the Republicans would spend your money...R.N.C. Spends Thousands on Jets, Limos and Clubs - NYTimes.com
The Republican National Committee spent about $30,000 in the month of February on private airplanes and limousines, not to mention the $1,946.25 charge at Voyeur West Hollywood, which was described by The Los Angeles Times last year as a “high-end nightclub” with an interior “reminiscent of the masked orgy scene” from the movie “Closer."
Wednesday
Scary New GOP Poll...
Harris Poll Findings...
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was 'not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president'
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is 'doing many of the things that Hitler did'
Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama 'may be the Antichrist.'
So is there hope for America or are we toast?
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was 'not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president'
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is 'doing many of the things that Hitler did'
Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama 'may be the Antichrist.'
So is there hope for America or are we toast?
Thursday
Texas Wants to put the Moral Majority in Textbooks...
The Texas school board is holding hearings on changes to its social studies curriculum that would portray conservatives in a more positive light, emphasizing the role of Christianity in American history and include Republican political philosophies in textbooks.
Phyllis Schlafly in our Kid's Textbooks?
One guideline requires publishers to include a section on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association." Another states that the Civil Rights movement created “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities.
I don't even know what to do with this one.
Phyllis Schlafly in our Kid's Textbooks?
One guideline requires publishers to include a section on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association." Another states that the Civil Rights movement created “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities.
I don't even know what to do with this one.
Wednesday
Tuesday
Monday
My President's Day Message--An Open Letter to Obama
Dear Mr. President,
Thank you for all your e-mails over the past few years. Energized by the spirit of tolerance and the promise of change, I have enjoyed signing petitions, opening my heart and my home to your events, and even sending in the occasional donation or two.
But I'm afraid you've lost me.
I have watched in horror as the sweeping mandate you so skillfully won has been squandered. You have failed at every turn to practice the politics necessary to change the course of this country, sacrificing health care reform, regulation of the financial system and greater freedom and equality for all Americans on the altar of a personal crusade for civility in a long-since broken institution. Your commitment to bipartisanship and compromise has resulted in neither. Your opponents have derailed every initiative and gutted every innovation, while you have continued to reach out, coaxing and pleading for a better day that simply will never come. Your opponents have won. Their obstructionism has prevailed. I understand that you expect me to blame them for their conduct. I do not. I blame you. Your desire to shift the glaciated culture of Washington elevates discourse over policy, and civility over action. That is not the change I voted for.
To imagine that we could not undo with 60 seats what George Bush accomplished with 53, is a profound statement about the utter ineffectiveness of your high road rhetoric. I have devoted my life to trying to make this country better, and I had pinned my hopes on our ability to do that. I no longer believe that either you or the democratic party will ever be up to that task.
My heart is broken, my wallet is closed. I am done.
E-mail me no more.
With deepest regrets,
David Feige.
Thank you for all your e-mails over the past few years. Energized by the spirit of tolerance and the promise of change, I have enjoyed signing petitions, opening my heart and my home to your events, and even sending in the occasional donation or two.
But I'm afraid you've lost me.
I have watched in horror as the sweeping mandate you so skillfully won has been squandered. You have failed at every turn to practice the politics necessary to change the course of this country, sacrificing health care reform, regulation of the financial system and greater freedom and equality for all Americans on the altar of a personal crusade for civility in a long-since broken institution. Your commitment to bipartisanship and compromise has resulted in neither. Your opponents have derailed every initiative and gutted every innovation, while you have continued to reach out, coaxing and pleading for a better day that simply will never come. Your opponents have won. Their obstructionism has prevailed. I understand that you expect me to blame them for their conduct. I do not. I blame you. Your desire to shift the glaciated culture of Washington elevates discourse over policy, and civility over action. That is not the change I voted for.
To imagine that we could not undo with 60 seats what George Bush accomplished with 53, is a profound statement about the utter ineffectiveness of your high road rhetoric. I have devoted my life to trying to make this country better, and I had pinned my hopes on our ability to do that. I no longer believe that either you or the democratic party will ever be up to that task.
My heart is broken, my wallet is closed. I am done.
E-mail me no more.
With deepest regrets,
David Feige.
Thursday
Wednesday
Sotomayor sees inexcusable lawyering as a "strategic choice"
I've been saying since the start that Sotomayor is going to be a terrible disappointment, and that we've squandered the chance to bring on a powerful voice for the disenfranchised.
So right here, in the wake of a Coakley loss, is the proof of concept:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the death sentence of a mentally impaired Alabama man who killed his former lover despite the fact that his lawyer, ( who lacked criminal law experience) failed to tell jurors that he had an IQ of less than 70 and had been classified as mentally retarded.
''Even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that ... counsel made a strategic decision not inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood's mental deficiencies and not present to the jury such information,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor said."
Really? Shame on you.
So right here, in the wake of a Coakley loss, is the proof of concept:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the death sentence of a mentally impaired Alabama man who killed his former lover despite the fact that his lawyer, ( who lacked criminal law experience) failed to tell jurors that he had an IQ of less than 70 and had been classified as mentally retarded.
''Even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that ... counsel made a strategic decision not inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood's mental deficiencies and not present to the jury such information,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor said."
Really? Shame on you.
Sunday
Wednesday
Let's do the numbers...
Ever since the show was cancelled, I keep getting asked about our numbers. And thanks to the good folks over at The Futon Critic, I can provide them. Now one thing about numbers—there are lots of ways to slice them including important things like the demographics, the number of people who watch live vs. time shifted, and stickiness (how often a DVR viewer skips commercials). But partly because it’s self-serving, and partly because it’s easiest, I’m using what are called “Live + 7” numbers which reflect the total audience who watched live or engaged in DVR playback within 7 days of the original broadcast.
So with that in mind, for all my friends and interlocutors, here are the stats…
In our second season (2009) Raising the Bar averaged just under four million viewers a week (3,961,000).
That’s more than any show on A&E, ABC Family or AMC—and yes, that includes Mad Men which averaged about two and a half million a week (2,496,000) and Breaking Bad (1,628,000).
And the other shows I’m regularly asked about?
South Park (which I love) had 3,481,000 viewers (but kicked our asses in 18-49)
Damages had about a third as many viewers at 1,398,000
On HBO we were slaughtered by True Blood (5,003,000) but beat out every other series including Hung (3,617,000), Entourage (3,460,000), Big Love (2,320,000), Curb Your Enthusiasm (1,518,000) and Bored To Death which managed about a quarter as many viewers (948,000).
On Showtime Dexter had about three fifths of our audience (2,166,000) Weeds less than half (1,524,000), Nurse Jackie about a third (1,314,000), Californication less than a quarter (981,000), and The Tudors (779,000) and The L Word (642,000) less than that.
And yes we beat everything on TBS and SyFy as well.
So who ate our lunch? USA. Basically everything they put on kicked our asses. Burn Notice, (7,677,000), Royal Pains, (7,474,000) Monk, (6,259,000) White Collar (6,080,000) and even Criminal Intent, (4,447,000) gave us a whupin. And of course TNT’s own The Closer (which was our lead-in) continued to post huge numbers.
Hope that answers the questions. And as we say in the biz "that's a wrap."
So with that in mind, for all my friends and interlocutors, here are the stats…
In our second season (2009) Raising the Bar averaged just under four million viewers a week (3,961,000).
That’s more than any show on A&E, ABC Family or AMC—and yes, that includes Mad Men which averaged about two and a half million a week (2,496,000) and Breaking Bad (1,628,000).
And the other shows I’m regularly asked about?
South Park (which I love) had 3,481,000 viewers (but kicked our asses in 18-49)
Damages had about a third as many viewers at 1,398,000
On HBO we were slaughtered by True Blood (5,003,000) but beat out every other series including Hung (3,617,000), Entourage (3,460,000), Big Love (2,320,000), Curb Your Enthusiasm (1,518,000) and Bored To Death which managed about a quarter as many viewers (948,000).
On Showtime Dexter had about three fifths of our audience (2,166,000) Weeds less than half (1,524,000), Nurse Jackie about a third (1,314,000), Californication less than a quarter (981,000), and The Tudors (779,000) and The L Word (642,000) less than that.
And yes we beat everything on TBS and SyFy as well.
So who ate our lunch? USA. Basically everything they put on kicked our asses. Burn Notice, (7,677,000), Royal Pains, (7,474,000) Monk, (6,259,000) White Collar (6,080,000) and even Criminal Intent, (4,447,000) gave us a whupin. And of course TNT’s own The Closer (which was our lead-in) continued to post huge numbers.
Hope that answers the questions. And as we say in the biz "that's a wrap."
Tuesday
Episodes 13, 14 and 15...
For those of you wanting to know how RTB turns out, you can find the last three episodes onlinehere.
This from Simple Justice
Hat tip to Simple Justice who had this nice post on the recent decision in People v. Radcliffe More on this soon...
Wednesday
Britain to Tax Banker Bonuses
I love the way they're doing this. We won't of course, but we should--a windfall profits tax is perfectly appropriate here. At least as long as we're not going to just chuck the whole system and adopt an APT tax which is what we should do.
Tuesday
Thinking about time...
In the wake of yesterday's news that RTB had been cancelled, I found myself thinking a lot about the whole arc of my life, (leaving The Bronx Defenders, writing Indefensible, going back and forth to Hollywood etc) and more specifically about time and doing time. It turns out there's a handy website that calculates the number of days between dates, allowing me to easily determine that there were 1,259 days from the day I got a phone call from Steven Bochco and we agreed to do a show, until its cancellation two seasons later. In the spirit of idiotic RENT songs, the website also informs me that: 3 years, 5 months and 10 days also converts to:
108,777,600 seconds
1,812,960 minutes
30,216 hours
179 weeks (rounded down)
But put another way, it's almost exactly a four year prison sentence with good time, or what the feds would describe as a 48 month guideline sentence.
I am sad to see the show fall by the wayside. There was so much more I thought the show had to say, and I really felt we continued to improve from a story and character standpoint. I suppose I was even naive enough to think that a third season would have offered us a critical reappraisal. But, as a friend of mine use to say, "at least no one calls me "old peg leg".
108,777,600 seconds
1,812,960 minutes
30,216 hours
179 weeks (rounded down)
But put another way, it's almost exactly a four year prison sentence with good time, or what the feds would describe as a 48 month guideline sentence.
I am sad to see the show fall by the wayside. There was so much more I thought the show had to say, and I really felt we continued to improve from a story and character standpoint. I suppose I was even naive enough to think that a third season would have offered us a critical reappraisal. But, as a friend of mine use to say, "at least no one calls me "old peg leg".
Monday
The gutsiest move by a politician in a long time
Gov. Ted Strickland grants clemency to 78 people and why? Rehabilitation! And not just your drug guys doing 100 years for possession either, he actually released people convicted of murder, and other serious crimes. Bravo Governor. I'm sending you a donation today, and I urge other readers to do the same or to at least write and express your approval:
You can do that HERE
You can do that HERE
Friday
Justice à Manhattan
I love the french Here's the awesome plot summary of one of my RTB episodes:
Jerry et Richard se battent pour des clients victimes de verdicts injustes. Richard doit affronter le juge Kessler, qui est davantage préoccupé par un rencard surprise que par le procès... Pendant ce temps, Bobbi lutte pour régler une situation bouleversante impliquant son ex-mari.
C'est bien.
Jerry et Richard se battent pour des clients victimes de verdicts injustes. Richard doit affronter le juge Kessler, qui est davantage préoccupé par un rencard surprise que par le procès... Pendant ce temps, Bobbi lutte pour régler une situation bouleversante impliquant son ex-mari.
C'est bien.
Court officer steals documents from the defense file on videotape!
Now he has to apologize or go to jail.
Judge Donahoe held Deputy Adam Stoddard in contempt for the Oct. 19 incident in which he could be seen on a courtroom security video sneaking up behind attorney Joanne Cuccia in the middle of a hearing and taking a document from her file.
During several days of testimony following the incident, Stoddard said he happened to have glanced at the file and saw the words “going to,” “steal” and “money” grouped together in a sentence. It made him think a crime was taking place and gave him the authority to pull the document, he said.
But Donahoe rejected that story, saying there’s no way “a reasonable detention officer” would have thought a crime was taking place based on what he saw.
“There was no immediate or future security threat that would have justified a reasonable detention officer in DO Stoddard’s situation removing, seizing and coping a document from a defense attorney’s file,” Donahoe wrote in his ruling, which was made public today. “A reasonable detention officer would have recognized after spending approximately 37 seconds reading the paragraph in question, that the ‘key words’ had nothing to do with an immediate or future security threat to the jail or anyone else.”
Here's the video!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
my controversial book about a day in my life as Public Defender in the South Bronx is finally available... Click here to order 
