Narco Cultura - Who is Dying in the War Against Drugs

        One of the most fascinating documentaries that Hannah and I have watched this year has been Narco Cultura, which explores perception of the illegal drug trade from the point of view of our neighbors to the south as well as hispanic populations in the southern American states. It follows the doings of Edgar Quintero a member of a "Norcocorrido" band and Richi Soto, a crime scene investigator from the Juarez branch of Mexico's DEA.
    This documentary was beautiful, the cinematography especially was significantly better than what I have come to expect from a documentary. Combine that with the fascinating lives of those involved and we have a documentary that should have been nominated for Best Documentary. Take for instance the life of Edgar Quintero, a young hispanic man who lives in Hollywood with his wife and two small children. He is the member of a band called Buknas that specializes in music glorifying the latin american drug trade.

In addition to this he writes drug anthems for various gang leaders graphically boasting about the atrocities that they have committed. In the first scene Quintero is shown discussing with a dealer what caliber gun he carries and asking him what he wants put in his song. He later sings the song for the dealer and receives a significant amount of money (several thousand dollars) in return. He then returns home and tells his wife that the money is savings and she promptly stashes it in drawer. Through the documentary we see him in various music video shoots and concert venues sporting various weaponry as his band sing their drug ballads. To him the drug trade is indirectly his bread and butter. He sees the cartels as Robin Hood and his merry band of thieves that provide for the poor of Mexico as they fight the sheriff and the government. He supports his family and does very well by writing and singing their drug anthems.

     Contrast this with Richi Soto, a combination of a hispanic Serpico and a fatalistic Hank Schrader. He is a Crime Scene Investigator for SEMEFO (Mexico's version of the DEA) in Juarez Mexico. His job is to investigate the many drug related murders that occur in Juarez. To give some perspective on this, in 2010 there were 3111 murders in the city of Juarez, one mile away in El Paso, Texas there were a total of 5 murders that same year. Lest you think that this low number is simply an outlier in 2011 there were only 16.  Juarez is officially the murder capitol of the world by a wide margin. Soto and his coworkers live in a constant state of fear that one, their coworkers are corrupt and are in the pay of the drug cartels, and two that they will be outright killed by the cartels for doing their jobs. These police officers literally have to wear masks when they go out to crime scenes in an attempt to avoid being recognized. As the documentary was being filmed, one of his coworkers was shot and killed outside of his home, making that the fourth killing in Soto's unit. As the film goes on Soto becomes more and more discouraged and the audience learns that only 3% of the murders he investigates ever leads to an arrest and much less than 1% are ever convicted.
     This was an excellent documentary that should be seen by anyone concerned about the effect of narcotics on our society. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.
   

Hot Coffee - What to Do About Frivolous Lawsuits (Graphic Burn Photographs)

      In 1994, a woman named Stella Leibeck famously (or infamously) spilled hot McDonald's coffee on herself in her parked car. She then proceeded to sue the McDonald's corporation and was awarded $2.86 million by the jury. Mrs. Leibeck was then derided internationally and became the "poster child" for frivolous lawsuits and tort reform. Just about everyone knows about this case but many people do not know the details. For instance, Mrs. Leibeck originally asked McDonald's to simply cover her medical costs and loss of income which were approximately $18,000. In response McDonald's offered $800. As the lawsuit went forward many attempts were made by Leibeck's lawyer to settle for between $60,000 and $300,000, all of which were turned down by McDonald's. In addition to this, McDonald's coffee had caused over 700 scaldings all of which had been settled by the corporation. During the Leibeck vs. McDonald's trial, a McDonald's executive testified that the losses to the company caused by these scaldings were not significant enough to warrant any change in company policy. It is also not well known that after the jury awarded $2.7 million the judge reduced that amount to a total of $640,000. McDonald's appealed and then settled for an undisclosed amount under $600,000. For those of you who still feel that this was a huge amount, this is a photo of her injuries.

Despite what many might think the temperature at which McDonald's brewed (and still brews) it's coffee is not unreasonable. The McDonald's training manual states that coffee should be brewed at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit. As this is only 22 degrees off of boiling it can cause significant injury if contact with the skin is made. However, this is actually the temperature at which almost all coffee is made. As I was writing this blog I walked up to the barista at the Starbucks I patronize and asked at what temperature the coffee is held. He said, "It is held at between 180 and 190 degrees, but is brewed at a higher temperature." This, and other similar lawsuits, are the topic of the documentary Hot Coffee. The film goes on to argue that tort reform, monetary caps on damages, and mandatory arbitration are all attempts by powerful corporations and the politicians (and judges) they endorse, to take away the right to civil litigation by the everyman. This is a very powerful film that everyone should see. However, the people who do see it should also do their own research and think critically about what they have learned.
     This documentary talks about several different "Exhibits" as if they were presenting evidence in a courtroom and in a sense they are. They are presenting evidence to the courtroom of your mind, where I hope Reason presides. Naturally, you will have to make decisions about the evidence presented for yourself. I believe that this documentary was really trying to present a balanced case with evidence both for and against tort reform. Unfortunately, much of the evidence presented ended up being flawed when everything was put into the light.

     After discussing Mrs. Leibeck and her case, the documentary went on to talk about Mississippi Supreme Court Judge Oliver Diaz, who was attacked during his election campaign by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for being anti business and anti tort reform.

Despite the attack Diaz won the election but was then indicted on charges of bribery and tax evasion. As portrayed by the film he was acquitted of all charges but not before he was prevented from serving as judge for over two years. This was shown in such a way as to lead the audience to believe that this delay in allowing him to serve was part of a right wing conspiracy to protect corporations from litigation. What was not shown by the film was that while the judge was acquitted of the charges, it was only because his wife plead guilty and was given two years probation. I will allow you to make your own decision on whether or not he allowed his wife to take the fall for these crimes. This also highlights the importance of voting with care and evaluating the sources behind everything you see and hear. Needless to say, this is especially important when considering political attack ads.

      The final portion of the documentary talked about Jamie Leigh Jones and her alleged gang rape by KBR employees while she was serving as a civilian contractor in Iraq. She had signed an employment contract that prevented her from suing her employer and instead called for mandatory arbitration for any disputes. The film followed her attempts to get out of that arbitration as she fought for her day in an actual courtroom. The film stopped filming before she was able to get her day in court, but it did eventually happen. It turned out that there was overwhelming evidence that much of what Ms. Jones had to say was largely made up and she was held liable for much of Halliburton's legal fees.
       Even though the documentary showed poor evidence of the need for tort reform, I do believe it is necessary. In particular there should be much more transparency involved in these disputes. If the public is able to see settlement amounts for instance they will be able to decide for themselves if it was a fair amount. If the legal proceedings are made public, people will be able to see for themselves if a corporation should be held responsible. Despite what many people think there are not that many frivolous lawsuits and those that are frivolous are usually very quickly thrown out. Many of the famous stories that have become viral over the internet are completely made up. Those that aren't generally have extenuating circumstances that many people are not aware of. Juries and especially judges are generally more intelligent than many people will lead you to believe. If we elect the right judges, they will know the proper damages that are due to victims. 

       By far my favorite portion of this documentary was the advice given just before the end. This advice was so fantastic I will post it here as well.
 1. Be a savvy consumer of media - Question whether or not you are getting the full story.
 2. Know your State Laws (Author Edit) - Make your own decision concerning whether caps on damages are appropriate and make sure your views are represented in the state legislature.
 3. Scrutinize Political Ads - Research the agenda of the organization paying for the ad.
 4. Read your Contracts (Author Edit) - Decide for yourself if mandatory arbitration is right for you as an employee and make sure your views are represented in congress.

What Has Happened to our Community - Craigslist Joe (2012)

                                                         

    Hannah and I chose Craigslist Joe as our documentary of the week. It turned out be a very interesting film to say the least. Craigslist Joe is a film about Joe Garner's social experiment to live entirely off of Craigslist for an entire month. The purpose of his experiment was to see if one could still depend upon the kindness of strangers for sustenance as could be done in the early part of the last century. It was an interesting film but lacked any sort of thoughtfulness about what could be learned and extrapolated from his experiences.

    Without giving anything away Joe ended up travelling most of the country in his 31 day journey and met many of the types of people you would expect that he would. He even met the founder of Craigslist.  Needless to say he spent a couple of nights out on the street and some days going hungry. I believe he would have had much more success if he had been a little more cheery and gregarious. In fact, he may have been so but the film portrayed him as a very quiet and awkward person. It is also fair to say that if he may have had a much different experience if he hadn't been a young middle class white male. Without even considering race, he could never have tried this experiment if he were a woman.
     As his thesis Joe says he is on a quest to see if there is still any sense of community in modern America and I feel that he was able to show that there is significant community. It is just different from what people might expect. After seeing this film it seems to me that community is no longer found in our communities but is instead found within groups that we choose to be a part of. It is found in our followers and in those we follow on Twitter. We find it in our selected church or the clubs we are a part of. In the basketball leagues we are a part of and other social groups. This is all well and good and healthy but the problem is that America as a society is losing a sense of responsibility to anyone but ourselves. We no longer feel any need to curb our behavior to what is considered appropriate by any set group. It used to be that if we upset our community (quite literally the people who lived around us) they would no longer do business with us and we could no longer make a living. As such communities were very self correcting. They would deal with the members of the community who broke the rules both socially and economically. These days if you upset your community you just find a new one. This is why there is so much hate online in places like YouTube and Twitter; there is no longer any accountability to one's community.  People can and absolutely do say incredibly inappropriate things in these areas because they know they will not be held accountable. Community no longer has any sense of permanence.
     This is why online communities are flourishing. We are able to get the sense of belonging that most of us crave but at the same time are afforded anonymity so that our actions in our communities (the things we say and do) have no lasting negative consequences for us. Unfortunately, our actions may have far reaching negative consequences on those we interact with online.

     Craigslist Joe highlights this phenomenon. Many people are eager to have fleeting relationships with very little responsibility. People are willing to give a stranger a ride to New Orleans or let them sleep on their floor but only if they meet the person online. Only if the implied relationship comes with no strings attached. While this was an interesting film, it is difficult to learn anything worthwhile from it. This is one you could skip. 

    

Sync or Swim (2008)

This week we watched Sync or Swim. Since this is more my girlfriend Hannah’s area, she is writing our blog post for the week. You can visit her Google Plus page here. Enjoy - JS

I am Hannah, Jay’s girlfriend. Jay and I thought it would be fun if we mixed it up and have me write this week’s blog. For our documentary night I chose Sync or Swim, a film that follows a group of synchronized swimmers as they compete for spots on the 2004 U.S synchronized swimming team. This documentary offers an intimate look at this sport that is often misunderstood. I was particularly interested in this film because I used to compete in synchronized swimming as a young adult. I was on the Walnut Creek Aquanuts, an elite synchronized swimming club and 12-time National Champions and winners of over 200 national titles; 17 Olympians, 8 of whom are gold medalists have been former members of the Aquanuts.

Sync or Swim follows nine athletes and their rigorous training schedule. These girls practice six days a week and have one recovery day.  It’s essentially like having an unpaid full time job. This film also examines the media storm that took place just before the 2004 summer olympics. Tammy Crow, one of the key members of the 2004 US synchronized team, was involved in a fatal car crash in February 2003. After staying up almost all night, she skidded off a mountain road and crashed into a tree. Tammy's two passengers died: her boyfriend, Cody Tatro, and a 12-year-old boy, Brett Slinger.

Tammy was driving too fast for the snowy conditions (and the California Highway Patrol claimed she had alcohol on her breath). She was charged with vehicular manslaughter. She pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 3 months of prison and three years’ probation to be served on October 25th. The judge ordered her to pay $23,000 in restitution to the family of Brett Slinger. Tammy was allowed to postpone her jail time until after the Olympics. The average jail sentence for vehicle manslaughter is 10 years depending on the state and a maximum of 20 years.

As you might imagine, the decision to postpone her jail sentence until she was able to participate in the Olympics was extremely controversial. Many people felt that the judge was far too lenient especially considering that she may have been drinking. Others felt that the judge had made the right decision as  she had experienced her own suffering through the death of her boyfriend. As she had devoted her life to representing the United States in the Olympics, they felt she should be able to do so. It is the opinion of this author that the judge made the right decision and she rightfully was allowed to participate.

All in all this was a very interesting documentary. Check it out for yourself.