Touched by an Angle (And no, I did not misspell "Angel")

Angle: a particular way of approaching or considering an issue or problem. Of course, there are many other definitions of the word "angle" that one may find in a dictionary, but this is the definition I am referring to by the title of this post. Now let me explain why I came up with the title...

Last week I watched an interview with Pauley Perrette (who plays Abby Sciuto on the TV show NCIS), where she recounted her experience of getting attacked by a homeless man. In her interview, she mentioned that after that experience she got more involved working with homeless people and organizations that are dedicated to helping them improve their lives. I found it very interesting that just a few days later I was watching an episode of NCIS that had homeless veterans at the heart of the story.

The episode, titled "Shooter" from Season 11, started off with a very different vibe. It did not feel like the average NCIS episode, but I quickly grew to love the direction it took. As soon as the theme of the episode became apparent, I wondered if Pauley's experience might have been the inspiration for the story of this particular episode. I watched the episode a couple days later for a second time with the commentary track turned on. Neither Pauley nor the writer of the episode specifically mentioned her experience being the inspiration for this episode. However, Pauley did talk about parts of the episode hitting really close to home for her.

One character on the show told another (Ducky to Gibbs for those of you familiar with the show):
"I recently read a HUD report. It estimates, on any given night, between 50 and 60,000 [veterans] who have served are sleeping on the streets or in shelters." At first I wondered whether these statistics had any weight or if they were just made up. When I watched the commentary, the writer said that all the facts they included in the episode were true.

I looked up the HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) report myself for curiosity's sake. Since this episode originally aired in April 2014, I found what I guessed would have been the most recent report available to the writers at the time. The report I found said that on a single night in January 2013, an estimated 55,779 veterans were homeless. (Click here to see the report) I also looked at the subsequent reports and the estimates for a single night in January 2014 and January 2015 were 49,993 and 47,725, respectively. (Both of these numbers come from the 2014 report and 2015 report presented to Congress in November 2015)

A man by the nickname of Blue was the homeless veteran character featured in the episode. During the commentary, Pauley said he reminded her of a homeless man she used to know and how similar the character's story paralleled her experience with the man. Pauley said she used to see the man on the street often, but one day he was suddenly gone. Later she found out that he had died. She spoke of how sad that experience made her and that she keeps a photo of him on her phone. This was a testament to me of the lasting impact other people can have on our lives, and vice versa.

We are surrounded by media, and it has the potential to inspire us to do great things. Rarely do I get emotional when watching a TV show, but this episode was one of those exceptions. NCIS is one of only a few I can think of that has ever has touched me. The media we choose to consume can have a positive or negative impact on us. I wish there was more media content available that promoted prosocial behavior such as the episode I have discussed in this post. When we do find positive media we can let it serve as a pleasant reminder that there is good in the world; or we can act on the inspiration we receive, get involved in some capacity to make a difference and be the good in the world.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed the angle (hence the title of my post) presented by this episode of NCIS on the issue of homeless people. Although the main story was about homeless veterans, the episode also touched on homeless people in general. Though I am not entirely sure how I can get involved in the cause, I plan to find out what I can do to have a hand in reducing the number of homeless individuals, wherever they may live.  I would like to repeat here what Dr. Coyne said at the end our lecture this past Wednesday, "You all have a symphony to write in this world. Make it a good one."

Injustice is Served

Infuriating. I can think of no better word to sum it up.

I finished watching Making a Murderer on Netflix last week, and my head was swimming in all of the thoughts that I had along the way as I was viewing the series. I decided to type up my initial thoughts/reactions and come back to them later after I was no longer so emotionally invested in what I would write. Even after revising what I wrote last week (and toning it down quite a bit), I am fully aware that much of what I am publishing in this post still comes across as emotionally charged. Here are my thoughts:

• This series really intrigued me for a number of reasons. For starters, I was interested because I enjoy a number of the crime dramas on TV (e.g., NCIS). Ironically enough, I watched an episode of NCIS last night that featured a conspiracy story and it reminded me of Making a Murderer while I was watching it. I would almost describe Making a Murderer as Forensic Files on steroids.
• Another reason I was fascinated with the show and wanted to watch it in its entirety was the realization I had quickly after I started viewing it, which was the importance of critical thinking outside of academia and in virtually all professions. Which leads me to my next point...
• Calling all critical thinkers! Honestly, I am still in awe that any rational person could convict Steve as guilty (at least guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). The defense attorneys did a magnificent job of exploiting the holes in the prosecution. As the series progressed I came back to the same thought over and over: "Guilty until proven innocent is the way it seems to go these days". In my opinion, there was more than enough questionable evidence to have reasonable doubt regarding Steven Avery's innocence. He was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years the first time. Why should I assume anything less this time?
• Both of the judges were very lousy, in my opinion. Seriously, is there a way to impeach judges? Every decision they made during the course of the trial (and listening to them speak) gave me the impression that they considered Steve Avery & Brendan Dassey guilty from the get go and were never planning to let them off the hook. Judge Willis’ remark in the hearing for Steve's sentencing alone is a great example: "You're probably one of the most dangerous criminals to ever step foot in this courtroom." REALLY? If Steve was in fact guilty of murder (which I still doubt), then maybe that statement has some weight. However, I cannot help but think that Judge Willis went into Steve's trial with his own personal biases affecting his decisions the whole time. And what good is a judge that allows his prejudices to influence the way he oversees a trial? Neither Brendan nor Steve had any chance with Judge Fox and Judge Willis, respectively, in my opinion. Talk about an uphill battle...
• What in the world is wrong with the justice system in Wisconsin? This series leaves me thinking I never want to live there. Both of the investigations into Steve Avery's alleged crimes as highlighted in this series were really sloppy (as far as they were portrayed in the documentary at least). Whether the evidence used in the murder case was valid or not, the fact that the majority of it was discovered by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department raises way too many red flags for me. They were supposed to remove themselves from the investigation, yet they were still involved the whole time...
• Brendan's original lawyer, Len Kachinsky, made me sick. He never seemed to even have the desire to defend Brendan's innocence. The final episode depicted how Len and the private investigator he had working with him conducted themselves during the case in a manner that almost made them appear to have been helping the prosecution strengthen its case! Mr. Kachinsky was caught in an obvious lie when he was questioned about it in court years later, and under oath to boot.
• In the end, as unfortunate as this is to say, I believe the jury was swayed to their guilty verdict almost entirely because of Mr. Kratz' appeals to emotion in his opening & closing arguments. He established a perception of Steve and Brendan in the minds of the respective jury members that I think would be hard for most people to overlook. The prosecution did a poor job of proving either Steve or Brendan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so I seriously have to wonder what persuaded the jury in each of the cases to reach the verdicts that they did.

This is honestly just the tip of the iceberg. A number of other things come to mind that I would like to point out (maybe in a future post!). I have left out a number of questions that I considered critical to proving Steven Avery guilty or innocent that were addressed in the show and my thoughts on them. The show explores a number of things only briefly and left me with many additional questions.

I recognize that this series was released with the intention to tell a story. The filmmakers combed through a vast amount of footage and edited it down to share their perspective on the case. Dean Strang, one of Steve’s defense attorneys, said in an interview that the trial lasted about 6 weeks. At 5 days a week, he estimated that to be 200-240 hours. He stated, "If you made a movie that was 240 hours long, nobody would watch it, and it would be torture to make them." (Listen to the full interview here) With that being said, we must realize that the show evokes a significant emotional response even though viewers have a limited perspective on the case as a whole.

WARNING: I hesitate to recommend that everyone should watch this series. I found it very intriguing, but I realize a number of people may be offended by some of the content. On Netflix it shows up as a TV-14 rating, but based on the profanity used throughout the series I sincerely wonder why it did not receive a TV-MA rating. I may have avoided it altogether if that had been the case. The profanity level varies from episode to episode. Also, some of the details of the case that are mentioned (whether or not they are 100% true) paint a rather graphic image. Otherwise it is pretty consistent with other “true crime” series. Consider yourself warned.

President Trump?

As I sat in the exam room at my doctor's office on Thursday afternoon, I looked over at the magazines that were available and the cover of an issue of TIME magazine there caught my eye. It read, "How Trump Won: Now he just needs the votes". At first I was simply interested in seeing what the article might be about, but as I began reading I quickly became intrigued with the author's message.

Early on in the article, the word disintermediation is used to explain why Trump has been so successful in the polls. The basic concept of disintermediation is cutting out the middleman. For example, someone publishing an ebook by themselves rather than going through a publishing company. The article explores the disintermediation of the political race for the upcoming presidential election this November. The middleman in this scenario is the mainstream media (or "lamestream" media as suggested in the article).

Social media has connected the world in such a way that Trump and his fans can, in effect, communicate directly. Although the media has been predicting for months that Trump's campaign is going to lose steam at some point, that does not seem to be the case. In my opinion, the mainstream media is wasting their breath. I would be willing to bet that Trump has more Twitter followers and Facebook friends than the number of people who watch the news and hear what the "lamestream" media has to say.

I acknowledge that the article spent very little time discussing the view of people who think Trump is a joke as a candidate for president. The article is pretty one-sided in discussing why Trump is having success in the race and how he may have a good shot at becoming the Republican nominee. One point the article brought up is how Trump is known for saying just about whatever he wants. In a world that seems to have become dominated by "political correctness" and fear of voicing an opinion to the contrary, what would it be like to have someone as President that is so well-known for being politically incorrect? Maybe Trump has what it takes to shake things up and actually make a big difference. Only time will tell.

UPDATE (11/10/16): I guess the question mark in the title of this post is now obsolete...