Thanks for visiting this site, but it is no longer being updated. I've moved on over to http://www.mediapundit.net/ and I invite you to join me over there from now on. Thanks for your understanding.
Opinions can provide a rare look inside the mind of a Supreme Court Justice. Lengthy opinions often indicate a complex issue where a finding is created from a patchwork of previous rulings which can bare little, or a great deal, of resemblance to the issues at hand.
In Georgia v. Randolph, a husband and wife were at odds over whether to allow police to search their home without a warrant after they were called there by the wife. The majority of the court concluded that in the presence of conflicting consent, no consent must be assumed and no search may take place without a warrant, as required by the 4th Amendment.
The majority opinion, written by Justice David H. Souter, spans 12 pages, and is in three parts. Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion is also 12 pages long. In contrast, Justice John Paul Stevens concurring opinion is less than one full page, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer's concurring opinion is just over that.
Chief Justice Roberts opinion summary concludes that United States v. Matlock is sufficient precedent in which to find in favor of the State of Georgia without further interpretation. The finding of Matlock is that a third party may in fact give legal consent for warrantless search of a shared premises, even if the third party is not the defendant. Matlock did not involve an objection to search by one party while another gives consent.
Roberts states that the court "creates constitutional law by surmising what is typical when a social guest encounters an entirely atypical situation". This is consistent with the strict constructionist belief that interpretation of the law must be limited to what the law says, ignoring its spirit, legislative intent, and other outside sources[Wikipedia], and that to do otherwise is to create law, rather than interpret law. Some interesting rights have been "created" in this way before, such as Miranda rights, which garnered its name from Miranda v. Arizona. That police must warn suspects in custody that they can remain silent if they wish, and have a right to an attorney are in fact not written in the constitution, or in any law at all. They were, as Justice Roberts would state, created by the court system.
Roberts continues the Matlock line of thought by citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, which supports Matlock that consent for search need not come from the defendant, and insists that the current decision in Randolph creates an exception to these cases. He also raises the prospect of innumerable situations where one of the parties may object to a search, but are not physically present at the premises entryway (such as a bathroom, or bedroom), creating an ambiguous situation that responding police will now have to deal with, placing them in the position of being both police, and lawyers. And a situation may arise where there may be an actionable situation (such as an assault inside the premises that is ongoing), where the police may not be able to enter because the offender is a cotenant that is denying them entry.
While the majority opinion argues that there is no basis in law for one cotenants wishes to be given priority over anothers, Roberts believes that it's unreasonable to expect that every situation will be the same, that in fact where the person wishing entry may be related to the cotenant granting consent for entry, that could be considered a reasonable consent, even with a standing objection. Hypothetical scenarios such as this are critical to determining what may, and what may not be considered a reasonable expectation, a standard often used to make determinations when the law does not cover every situation.
United States v. Jacobsen reenforces this, Roberts contends, as it says that "If two roommates share a computer and one keeps pirated software on a shared drive, he might assume that his roommate will not inform the government. But that person has given up his privacy with respect to his roommate by saving the software on their shared computer." (Note: This Supreme Court decision may very well be found to override that decision, but for now it stands.)
Part II of Roberts opinion continues with other case citations which he believes supports his contention that shared privacy is not really privacy at all, that if you give up your privacy to another person, they may in turn give it up to someone else, including the government. This section in fact continues making such arguments, stating specifically that "There is no basis for evaluating physical searches of shared space in a manner different from how we evaluated the privacy interests in the foregoing cases."
Roberts continues to show his belief that rulings such as this create law that does not exist, saying "Rather than draw such random and happenstance lines--and pretend that the Constitution decreed them--the more reasonable approach is to adopt a rule acknowledging that shared living space entails a limited yielding of privacy to others, and that the law historically permits those to whom we have yielded our privacy to in turn cooperate with the government." (My emphases.)
The third and final section of the opinion addresses Roberts belief that the scope of the ruling is too obscure, and as one justice that concurs with the majority actually acknowledges this in his/her opinion (I don't know who said this); "no single set of legal rules can capture the ever changing complexity of human life", to which Roberts says, "The majority acknowledges these concerns, but dismisses them on the ground that its rule can be expected to give rise to exigent situations, and police can then rely on an exigent circumstances exception to justify entry."
Chief Justice Roberts concludes his opinion with the following, which I reprint unedited.
"This case invites a straightforward application of the rule that a physically present inhabitant expresses refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant. Scott Randolph's refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of Janet Randolph's consent. The State does not argue that she gave any indication to the police of a need for protection inside the house that might have justified entry into the portion of the premises where the police found the powdery straw (which, if lawfully seized, could have been used when attempting to establish probable cause for the warrant issued later). Nor does the State claim that the entry and search should be upheld under the rubric of exigent circumstances, owing to some apprehension by the police officers that Scott Randolph would destroy evidence of drug use before any warrant could be obtained."
I find nothing surprising in this opinion. John Roberts, like Alito, Scalia, and others, believe that if it's not written in law, then it's not law at all. If all justices thought this way, we wouldn't have Miranda rights, and conservatives (especially the Bush administration) would be shell shocked to find that Executive Privilege, which it has used to a degree unlike any other administration in history, would also disappear. Love it or hate it, good things have come with non-constructionist judicial interpretation, as well as some bad. That's the way of the world.
I just wrote a 347 word rant blasting two New York Times writers for saying something I thought to be incredibly stupid, that Barry Bonds could easily surpass Hank Aaron's home run record early in the coming 2006 regular season. The problem is -- and I noticed this while I was doing my final proofread -- they said Babe Ruth, not Hank Aaron.
It really is a shame, I thought my piece was actually pretty good. It was right to the point, loaded with statistics backing me up, and I got to act snotty towards journalists. (I love them, that's why I berate them.)
The person who got the facts wrong was myself. I'm a nub. I didn't publish the post, so no misinformation was spread (shew!), but that doesn't change the fact that I jumped at the chance to lay the hurt on other writers just so I'd have something to write about. I'm writing this as an apology to the Times and Christine Hauser and Ben Shpigel. Your article was fine, everyone should go read it.
I have recently learned that a police department in my home state of North Carolina may br using a unmanned aerial vehicle to spy on perfectly legal and low risk public events without cause. Gaston County's Police Department purchased a CyberBUG UAV, an small unarmed spy plane, sometime early this year. The Department claims that it bought the UAV in order to "augment the response and rescue efforts of the Gaston County Police department." But the reality is the police can use the drone for virtually anything they want.
Gaston County assistant police chief Jeff Isenhour on the subject: "A good example would be a large crime scene. Put the CyberBUG up and get views of that crime scene. Tactical operations, where you need to do surveillance around a tactical situation you can put the CyberBUG up. A manned search, put the CyberBUG up and have it out in front of officers for officer safety. As we progress we'll see other needs for it, and utilize it," he said. [source]
Isenhour also said that his officers have been training to fly the UAV for at least 8 months prior, meaning plans were in place to use the spy plane as early as the first quarter of 2005.
The uses he cited sound noble and reasonable, except that's not what it's been used for previously. Homeland Security tasked police in Maryland tested a similar UAV by surveilling a biker gathering on local fairgrounds. In the end, they decided they simply didn't need the expensive device, with price tags around $30,000 per plane.
According to the Charlotte Observer, the Gaston PD plans to use their spy plane for benign operations such as monitoring traffic, searching for drug crops, search and rescue, and gathering logistical information on natural disasters. What worries me is that they also readily admit to wanting to use the UAV for "Observing large crowds at community events." What bothers me is that nobody seems to care about what exactly that means; what events qualify for spying on, and what safeguards exist to protect peoples privacy when dealing with the video taken? I also believe there to be a pertinent question on the legality of searches conducted by the aircraft, which can operate at tree-top level if needed.
Safety Concerns The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is very concerned that the UAV is an unregulated vehicle, and is operating in regulated airspace. They believe that because of its small size, and it's inability to sense and avoid other aircraft, it poses too great a danger to be allowed to operate as-is. According to the AOPA, the FAA initially refused to become involved, believing it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who thinks something must be seriously wrong with the world when a government agency insists it doesn't have authority over something. Though the FAA did finally relent after the complaints reached higher up the food chain, the Gaston Police Department is still not required to follow safety regulations. They are currently following the guidelines voluntarily, but may choose not to do so at any time, for any reason.
The article here verifys my own personal concerns over possible abuse for state-level use of spy planes. "This isn't the first time law enforcement has flown the CyberBUG. The company claims it was used to watch for "unruly behavior" and "alert authorities about accidents" during the 12th Annual Southern Maryland "Blessing of the Bikes" in La Plata."
Is it worth the cost? The price of a single CyberBUG UAV is small compared to the cost of training and employing even a single full-time officer, but there is a world of difference between the capabilities of the two. The only thing a UAV can do is show you whats going on in a certain place at a certain time, assuming weather is good, and there aren't any buildings or trees obscuring the area. That's it. A human being can affect the situation, rather than show you what's going on. There are undoubtedly other places within the police force that could use the money as well.
Precedent The Gaston PD is the first police force on the East Coast to use the CyberBUG UAV, though others may soon follow the same path. The House of Representatives is hearing testimony from police (presumably Gaston County is representing); the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration are bothbucking hard for an entire fleet of unmanned drones to scour the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. Their night-sensing capability and range make them ideal for such a task, and private groups are also expressing interest in UAV's for the same reason.
With any new technology and authority comes the potential for abuse. The drive for security and capability must at all times be tempered with careful consideration of the potential aspects, negative as well as positive, that come with any new undertaking. City streets are becoming lined with surveillance cameras and soon may be overflown with unmanned aircraft that can follow you everywhere you go. It would be wise to think long and hard about this while there's still time to insure that the needs of the people in their privacy and liberty are considered equally with the needs of law enforcement.
Once things start rolling, there are not often second chances.
This is part two of a continuing series on Supreme Court rulings in the first part of 2006, analyzing the participation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
Case No. 04-848, DOLAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al.
In DOLAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al., Barbara Dolan tripped and fell over mail left in front of her door by the Postal Service, and sued for her injuries under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The suit was dismissed in District Court, with the Third Circuit affirming. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that "Here, both context and precedent require reading the phrase so that it does not go beyond negligence causing mail to be lost or to arrive late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong address."
What it means. Ordinarily, Federal and State employees enjoy a level of immunity when acting in an official capacity, though the FTCA waives this immunity for many Tort claims. The FTCA contains exceptions which restore that immunity, and the question is whether these exceptions apply in this case. The District and Appeals Court ruled that it does, though the Supreme Court disagreed, saying the exception was applied too broadly in this case.
How they voted. Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Chief Justice Roberts voted in the majority to reverse and remand. Justice Thomas dissented, Alito did not consider. Decided 7-1.
Justice Kennedy delivered the courts opinion.
Case No. 04-593, DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., et al., PETITIONERS v.JOHN McDONALD
"Respondent McDonald, a black man, is sole shareholder and president of JWM Investments, Inc. (JWM). He sued petitioners (collectively Domino's) under 42 U. S. C. §1981, alleging, inter alia, that JWM and Domino's had entered into several contracts, that Domino's had broken those contracts because of racial animus toward McDonald, and that the breach had harmed McDonald personally by causing him to suffer monetary damages and damages for emotional injuries. The District Court granted Domino's motion to dismiss on the ground that McDonald could bring no §1981 claim against Domino's because McDonald was party to no contract with Domino's. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that an injury suffered only by the corporation would not permit a shareholder to bring a §1981 action, but concluded that when there are injuries distinct from those of the corporation, a nonparty like McDonald may nonetheless sue under §1981." -- Unedited summary.
What it means. Because John McDonald was not granted rights by the contract with which he could exercise (regardless of what they may be), he had no standing to argue that the contract was illegal and/or unjust. The District Court agreed and dismissed, the Appeals Court did not, and reinstated the suit. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court that McDonald possessed no standing to sue, and reserved.
How they voted. The decision was unanimous, 8-0, with Justice Scalia delivering the opinion. Alito did not participate.
Case No. 04-1067, GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH
Scott Fitz Randolph was arrested after Narcotics were discovered in his home, subsequent to a search by police who were responding to a complaint of domestic violence. His wife invited the police to search the home, and indicated where the drugs were located, while her husband protested the search.
During trial, the court found that the warrantless search was legal, as his wife had given consent to search, regardless of her husbands objections. A Georgia appeals court reversed that finding, with the Georgia State Supreme Court affirming, holding that consent given by one occupant is not valid in the physical presence of another tenants objection. The Supreme Court affirmed.
What it means. The Supreme Court's majority reasoned that there is no law or precedent in which one tenant of a place of residence can be given priority over another, "Thus, a disputed invitation, without more, gives an officer no better claim to reasonableness in entering than the officer would have absent any consent. Disputed permission is no match for the Fourth Amendment central value of "respect for the privacy of the home," Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 610, and the State's other countervailing claims do not add up to outweigh it."
How they voted. Justice Souter delivered the courts opinion, with Stevens, Kenndy, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining. Justice Stevens and Breyer also filed their own concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion with Justice Scalia joining, as well as writing his own dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas also filed a dissenting opinion. Altio did not hear the case.
This is the first case reviewed where C. J. Roberts voted with the minority, and the vote was much closer at 5-3. The majority opinion is clear, there are no precedents or laws for determining which co-tenants wishes takes priority over another, and in such circumstances, non-consent must be assumed, and a warrant is required.
Roberts begins, "The Court creates constitutional law by surmising what is typical when a social guest encounters an entirely atypical situation." Many cases the Supreme Court hears employ this logic, presuming the existence of a neutral typical person, an "observer" to the issues at hand, in order to determine what may be a reasonable finding and reaction. Roberts continues, "The rule the majority fashions does not implement the high office of the Fourth Amendment to protect privacy, but instead provides protection on a random and happenstance basis", essentially arguing that this case is setting a wide-ranging precedent for a narrowly defined situation, and interprets this decision as preventing police from entering a residence to prevent real-time domestic abuse as well as other police actions without a warrant.
"The correct approach to the question presented is clearly mapped out in our precedents: The Fourth Amendment protects privacy", Roberts wrote, "If an individual shares information, papers, or places with another, he assumes the risk that the other person will in turn share access to that information or those papers or places with the government." Here, Roberts is arguing that in the case of shared residence, one tenant habitating with another amounts to an explicit understanding by both parties that their shared privacy can be extended to others, even to the detriment of one; that because you share your privacy with one another, the person is entitled to share yours (and their own) privacy with others as well.
He continues ".. just as an individual who has shared illegal plans or incriminating documents with another cannot interpose an objection when that other person turns the information over to the government", although he does not address the fact that while no federal law prohibits such action, the Fourth Amendment does specifically address consent on searches.
His summary concludes, "A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it. Co-occupants have "assumed the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched." United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, 171, n. 7 (1974)." The majority found in its opinion however that Matlock did not specifically involve opposing co-tenants: "The Supreme Court of Georgia acknowledged this Court's holding in Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, that "the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared," id., at 170, and found Matlock distinguishable just because Scott Randolph was not "absent" from the colloquy on which the police relied for consent to make the search. The State Supreme Court stressed that the officers in Matlock had not been "faced with the physical presence of joint occupants, with one consenting to the search and the other objecting." 278 Ga., at 615, 604 S. E. 2d, at 837. It held that an individual who chooses to live with another assumes a risk no greater than " 'an inability to control access to the premises during [his] absence,' "
This reasoning seems consistent with the notion of strict interpretation of the law, so strict that the courts in fact have no latitude at all in finding not just within the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law.
I wrote something for this weblog about three hours ago, posted it, then reclassified it as a draft after being live for about half an hour or so. Though it wasn't my intention, I swung pretty hard at this fella in my home state that keeps popping off in a typical conservative/Republican way.
He posts a paragraph or two from a news wire piece and drops a line of his own at the bottom. That's enough to annoy me, to use somebody else's words like that, then tack a throwaway thought on it as if it proves something. And the latest one actually got me riled up quite a bit.
Most people know about the guy in Afghanistan who was facing trial and probably death for converting to Christianity. Given the bloody legacy which Christians often seem to forget, it seemed rather ironic to have them in such an uproar over persecution. Nature understands reciprocity.
I pulled down quotes, statistics, and information from Human Rights Watch which confirms the brutal lives that most Muslims endure in their countries, including our supposed allies in the Middle East, as well as other countries like Northern Ireland, Chechnya, and even the United States where religion and terrorism have been reshaping things for a while now.
The truth is there are very few places where religion and terrorism don't walk hand-in-hand, and it makes me wonder if the only reason we haven't seen a proliferation of Christian extremism/terrorism is because the religion is so dominant that we don't even recognize it for what it is, like the Crusades. Or we simply disassociate it from the extremists, like the KKK. If it's dealing with the good book then these guys are just fringe extremists, if it's Muslims, then it's all of Islam.
The post I've put on hold took these thoughts to the next level, putting Christianity on the defensive, and I found myself just playing the same old blame game. Look at these people over here, look at how they act and how stupid they are. Oh but look at you, you're pretty stupid yourself and how can you act like that? I fell into that hole and started digging deeper with everything I had, and pretty soon I had as much dirt on me as the person I was trying to throw down. And for what? So I could feel superior? I don't.
Persecuting someone because of their faith is bad, on that, most people can agree. What I wrote a few hours ago was an attempt at showing how irrational and deadly any religion can be when taken to extremes. The Crusades were extreme, the KKK is extreme, Al-Qaeda is extreme, and the reason is quite clear. There are no limits to what humans can do to each other when religion rules above all else.
Religion is not the foundation of civilization, rational thought is, and it's the only thing that's going to save this world.
It's been six months since John G. Roberts Jr. was sworn in as the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. A big deal was made of his ability to set aside any personal bias, and decide cases strictly on their merits according to the law during his confirmation hearings.
During his first six months on the bench, I've yet to see any substantive examination by the mainstream media of his opinions and voting record, even with nearly fifteen cases decided already this year. This post will be the first in a series where I will break down the core claims of the case, how Roberts voted, and provide a summary of his written opinion if one exists. I am not looking to prove he lied during his hearings, nor am I out to prove the opposite. I will examine his voting record, his written record of published opinions, and compare them to the other justices for those same cases. I leave the conclusions up to you.
I am neither a journalist nor a lawyer, and the opinions here are my own, based entirely on my personal study of court documents.
Each case will be presented in three parts.
A case summary: The core claims and brief history of the case.
What it means: Should the summary be technical and unclear.
How they voted: A comparison of how the justices voted.
What he said: My analysis of Justice Roberts written opinion, should one exist.
The case summary consists of my own summary of the one provided by the court, and as such will contain virtually the same information as the court document. All Supreme Court documents were obtained directly from the Supreme Court website. Other information on John G. Roberts may, in part, be obtained from Wikipedia.
Case No. 04-944 - Summary
In ARBAUGH v. Y&H CORP., Jennifer Arbaugh sued her employer, "The Moonlight Cafe", for sexual harassment in Federal District Court, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Y&H filed a motion for dismissal after a verdict had been entered against them, claiming that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction under Title VII's "15 employee minimum" requirement. The court agreed, and the suit was dismissed post-verdict, with a subsequent appeal affirming the district courts dismissal.
The Supreme Court Held: Title VII's numerical threshold does not circumscribe federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, the employee-numerosity requirement relates to the substantive adequacy of Arbaugh's Title VII claim, and therefore could not be raised defensively late in the lawsuit, i.e., after Y&H had failed to assert the objection prior to the close of trial on the merits.
What it means. The 15 employee requirement has nothing to do with whether or not the Federal District Court can hear the case, it is instead used to determine if the case has merits to be heard at all, in which case the claim must be filed before the trial ends. The decision to dismiss was reversed and sent back to the district court.
How they voted. The decision was unanimous, 8-0, with Alito abstaining for not having heard the case arguments.
Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the Court.
Case No. 05-379 - Summary
In ANTHONY ASH v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Anthony Ash and John Hithon were two African-American employees who sued their employer, Tyson Foods, claiming they were victims of racial discrimination regarding two open management positions that were later filled by white employees. The case was substantively technical, and did not address the core claims in the original lawsuit.
The Supreme Court determined that the Appeals Court, which itself had found errors in the district courts ruling, had also erred on two points in its decision. The Appeals Court decision to affirm in part, and reverse in part, was vacated by the Supreme Court and sent back with orders to reexamine the erroneous conclusions it had made.
What it means. The Appeals Court said the district court screwed up, and reversed parts of the district court rulings. Then the Supreme Court said the Appeals Court screwed up, vacated (made void) the ruling and sent it back with the reasons why.
How they voted. This decision was Per Curiam, meaning the court purposefully withheld vote counts and opinions as it considered the issue non-controversial.[Reference]
Case 04-1264 - Summary
In BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA et al., the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant which required all disputes involving the contact to be decided by arbitration, and not the court system.
Cardegna alleged that Buckeye was charging illegally high interest rates on their loans, and that the contract violated Florida law and was therefore illegal and void. When Buckeye filed a motion in a Florida court to compel arbitration as required by the contract Cardegna signed, it was denied by the trial court, which was later reversed by a state appellant court, only to be reversed itself by the State Supreme Court.
What it means. The Supreme Court held that "Regardless of whether it is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of a contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it, must go to the arbitrator, not the court." The case was reversed and remanded.
How they voted. Justices Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining. Justice Thomas dissented, and Justice Alito did not consider the case.
Chief Justice Roberts was with the majority, 7-1.
The first three cases summarized here were are the first in alphabetical order, not when they were heard or decided. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the majority in two of the three cases where that information was available, and he did not write any of the opinions. I'll review more of these cases on the 26th, tomorrow.
Kathleen McFarland has accused her opponent, incumbent New York Senator Hillary Clinton, of having photographs take of her house with helicopters and having people spy on her home through the window. The former Pentagon Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs is having a rough start to her campaign, with recent allegations of plagiarism surfacing just a day go.
Her spokesperson defends the performance as a poor attempt at humor, because we all know making fun of your opponent is a critical skill that qualifies you to be a grown up, and presumably a Senator.
Other people present at the event who were not paid employees of McFarland painted a different picture.
"She wasn't joking, she was very, very serious, and she also claimed that Clinton's people were taking pictures across the street from her house in Manhattan, taking pictures from an apartment across the street from her bedroom," said an unattributed whiteness. "The whole room sort of went silent when she said it," another said, according to the New York Post.
All of this should be taken with a grain of salt, as McFarland's spokesperson is going to spin the situation in the best light possible, regardless of what really happened. And the New York Post isn't exactly a trustworthy media outlet.
I have forty pages written for a spec script called Remnants, and the big finish for the fourth act has yet to be written, yet I've nearly written an hours worth of material. As one can tell, I have a problem.
One hour dramas (SciFi specs fit the mold) only run about 48 pages total. What it boils down to is I have at least 11 pages worth of material I need to delete in order to fit in the story's end, while still maintaining the three existing act breaks.
The double B's above represent where the act breaks are, essentially the last few pages of each act right before the commercial breaks, usually a miniature cliffhanger. The dilemma I have right now is there are 4-6 pages in the first act that aren't essential to the story. If I delete them outright, I have to replace them, or the act breaks will not line up anymore.
With pages missing from the first act, you can see all the act breaks now come far too soon, and the first act is too short. The only real options are to replace the deleted pages, or rewrite all subsequent acts so the act breaks come later than they did originally.
I thought perhaps that if I broke the script down into one line descriptions for each scene/group of joined scenes, I could better see what I didn't need to trim it's overall size, and shuffle them around to patch in the gaps I'd be creating in the process. It worked insofar as showing me the insignificant (though much loved) bloat that I could safely remove without effecting the story too badly. Unfortunately, I seem to write in too linear a fashion, and there isn't really anything that could be moved to another place without creating continuity errors.
I'm sure experience will help in stopping these situations from happening in the future, because it's a royal pain.
It seems ironic that with Ben Domenech resigning as a blogger for the Washing Post amid allegations of plagiarism, that a potential GOP challenger to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat has on fallen under the same suspicion.
Okay not really, maybe lying has just become so customary within the Republican party that it's almost second nature. If you play games with the truth, you will get nailed for it. A wire story is out saying that a speech on Kathleen McFarland's resume on the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, claimed to be written by herself, was in fact written by other people.
In all fairness, she is not the first, and certainly not the last person to fudge their resume. But this was outed by the NY Times, and with the Posts recent issues with Domenech, it can't help but paint a picture of Republicans as people willing to lie and steal to get what they want. Deserved or not, that's a reputation the GOP cannot afford to have with the midterm elections coming up.
I don't think it's even been 24 hours since I first heard of Ben Domenech, yet the guys name is plastered all over place. First it's just a move of pure bias on the part of the Washington Post, getting out the conservative message while ignoring any and all journalistic ethics (yes he's not a journalist, but the paper is, and it publishing him changes the rules.) Shortly thereafter, Media Matters is calling for the Post to fire him for being a bigot, and now theres a million accusations of plagiarism to go along with a healthy dose of "he's an ass". And just why the hell am I even talking about it, when it's been covered by every talking bloghead on the planet?
The controversy (if this even qualifies as such) reminds me of when MSNBC hired conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage in 2003 in a sad attempt to increase their ratings. MSNBC was warned by many public interest groups that Savage was a racist, bigot, sexist, and all around unpleasant goon. MSNBC defended him as a person that inspires lively debate, and the man certainly delivered. Despite all the warnings and protests, Savage made his way on the air with a happy MSNBC backing him all the way. Happy that everyone in the news circle were talking about them, and how they hired this disgusting human being to speak for them.
Michael Savage was fired on 7/7/2003. "His comments were extremely inappropriate and the decision was an easy one", says MSNBC's spokesman, Jeremy Gaines. Oh really, you think? Telling one of your callers they should get AIDS and die only offends gay people right? I thought MSNBC wanted hatred and sensationalism. Well, you got it. And now so has the Washington Post.
Both MSNBC and the Post decided to go out and get themselves a bad boy to get attention, and they got exactly what they wanted. It's just pathetic that both these so-called news organizations aren't more interested in just telling damn news, but instead only want the newest and most obnoxious talking head to stir up crap just for the sake of it.
It's of little surprise to me that the Washington Post would hire a conservative analyst/blogger/pundit to increase their readership, though. It's the only thing keeping MSNBC and FOX News afloat anymore and they probably well aware of that fact. These tools pull in the ratings because they are sensational, but in a totally mean spirited way. You can be sensational without being a jerk about it, though this fact seems to escape these people.
I'm not going to associate Domenech's actions as an accused plagiarist with his conservative ideals like some people have, but I think the lesson here is that his issues went far beyond being an ass, and the due diligence that comes with that catchy phrase "journalistic integrity" could have, and should have, made sure this guy was never a valid option for publication. But I suppose when you stop caring about journalism, and start caring solely about having the loudest voice in the room, this is what you get.
And for something completely useless, here is Ben Domenech interviewing Jon Stewart not too long ago.
Not real sure what to make of this. A North Carolina blog called BlueNC lead me to it. Someone on BlueNC made comments that the Bible is fictional, and Marcus Kindley's only retort is a cheap shot at an entire party. It's just astounding to me that someone could be that ignorant. Sad as it may be, there's just as many people of faith in the Democratic party as there are in the Republican party. It's probably the reason the two sides never get along.
"Interesting point of view, is this the point of view of the majority of Democrats? Maybe what they say about the Democrat Party is true."
Maybe what they say about the Republican party is true:
The party of deficit hawks: that wrung up the greatest deficit ever.
The party of morals: and also bribery, bigotry, and lies.
The party of states rights: unless it comes to either the environment or civil rights.
The party of the compassionate conservative: unless it comes to starving homeless children and the elderly. (I'm going to expunge on this because I saw a Senate vote last year where the Democrats put up an amendment that would create a fund to fight child poverty by raising the the taxes of the richest 1% of Americans (think Bill Gates). It was voted down on party lines. That's indefensible. I was ashamed to be an American that day.)
Shall I continue? Our parties can go back and forth with this bull, and just what the hell is it doing for the people? Sure, it was pretty fun to point out what horrible people a ton of Senate Republicans are (a lot of Senate Democrats are just as bad), but it's not making the country better. It's making our parties look like stupid highschool kids, and I'm sick of it.
I'm not helping things, and neither are you. This countries elected leaders need to grow up, seriously. Stop acting like children. Don't spend 5 minutes on your crappy blog (so I don't have to spend 20 minutes on my crappy blog) telling us how stupid you think we are. We already know. Try doing something useful, like starting a debate between the opposing ideals about how we can stop being opponents and start being partners to building a better state and country.
I was browsing rec.gambling.poker a couple of days ago, looking for solid information on how to deal with the IRS' record keeping guidelines for gambling. The sticky point is them wanting you to document the real names of every person at any given table you are playing at. In person this is going to be difficult enough as it is, I'm not sure I'd want to give a stranger my full legal name in a place like that, identify theft and all. Online, it's totally unreasonable. Nobody in an online tournament is going to give you their real name, and the cardroom would be insane (and legally liable) to give up that information. It's also not practical as online tournaments can have as few as eight and as many as ten thousand players in them.
For the most part, all I found were suggestions that you request any and all records that the cardroom is willing to provide you with, up to and including things as detailed as hand history, and pray it's going to be enough should you ever be audited by the IRS. I suspect it's not.
Though I did find some insightful posts by the FossilMan himself, Greg Raymer, the 2004 WSOP champion, the newsgroup is overwhelmingly useless. There is a ton of spam, a lot of people who think they are great and really aren't, lots of amateurs, jerks, and of course more spam. One post that was particularly ugly suckered me in though, and I laid something on the line.
It cost $2400.00 per month to play poker on the Internet. Tim Montgomery (supposedly) did the math, and figured that if you play poker online 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, you'd be losing about $2400.00 a month to the cardroom in rakes. A rake is a small amount of the pot that the cardroom gets to keep, and is how they make their money. How big the rake is depends on how much money is in the pot, what the blinds are (mandatory betting), and how many players there are (presumably in the hand, not at the table.)
At pokerstars for example, when the blinds range from $2/$4 up to $100/$200, the rake is 50 cents for every $20 in the pot with 2-3 players, and maxes out at $1. The biggest the rake can ever get on that site is $3, and it's really not that bad. The rake for a $5 pot in a low-stakes game is probably only going to be about a quarter.
I told Tim that if you play poker 8 hours a day, every day during a business week, you should be more than able to afford the rakes, and if you can't, you probably shouldn't play. I also suggested that if he was so dead set against the rakes, he should start his own online cardroom with lower rakes, and have fun trying to take business away from the big players. I even offered my services in software development, if he were truly interested doing something rather than complaining. And I had everr intention of following through, should he have the guts.
He didn't, in fact I didn't get a single reply. But I like to be ready in all situations, so I carefully thought about what I would say next, should the conversation continue. This is what I came up with.
Starting an online cardroom is starting a business, and you have to account for every aspect of a startup or you're going to flounder and die fairly quickly. From my little corner of the world, I started thinking about the assets I'd need to develop the software. Java is my first choice in programming language because it has awesome support across many platforms (I don't know of any online poker clients for Linux, do you?), it's extensive class library (premade code) can be leveraged for accelerated development and fewer programmers, and it's something I already am familiar with.
Writing both a client and server is a huge undertaking for a single person, even with the development speed advantage you gain from using Java. I wouldn't expect a single person to be able to go from scratch to production on either the client or the server in anything less than six months to a year each, and that's totally a guess. Right off the bat I'd have to have at least one more programmer, preferably two or three, none of whom would work for free.
The website is not a small component that can be factored into the job of one of the client/server coders. A person with serious professional skill in website design, backend support, server administration, database administration and other misc skills would be required. For a business that will be conducting support for financial transactions, it's not something to be taken lightly. I could foresee no fewer than two people for these jobs.
Any business that takes money from customers needs an accountant. Not having one is a great way to go to jail really fast. Tax law is especially complex when it comes to online gambling. A lawyer, though not a must have for a startup, would certainly make things much easier.
Then theres running the business. An outsider with real-world training in business administration would be a must in my opinion, though many technology startups did just fine without them...at first. And then of course you would need enough technical support staff to handle all your customers 24/7.
All these people would have to be paid, anyone willing to work on such a project without being paid is probably going to be substandard quality, and finding them is no easy task either.
These are just a few of the things that came to mind when I started thinking seriously about what it would take to start an online cardroom. It's hard and risky work, and I'm glad Tim didn't take me up on my challenge. There are better things to do in life than trying to climb a mountain with stupid people.
"The culture of entitlement is starting to damage the open source community," says OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt. Gee, you think?
Sometimes I wonder what's going through the minds of people like de Raadt. Where is the logic in giving something away for free, then getting pissed when nobody gives you money for it? I've released a few things under the GPL in my time, though nothing as substantive as an operating system. I didn't do it to make the world better, and I didn't expect anything in exchange for it. I did it because there was no compelling reason not to. Theo has a pretty compelling reason, he has an entire operating system that could be worth quite a bit of money if it were commercial, and there are quite a few people that use and adore it.
It's funny how open source licenses like the GPL and BSD license were created to level the playing field between free code and commercial code, yet in the final analysis, it actually devalues the free code. It has become literally worthless.
What troubles me isn't that OpenBSD is in trouble, it's that OpenSSH may also be in trouble. The world doesn't care about OpenBSD, but it does rely heavily on OpenSSH for secure remote management. I would happily see OpenBSD sacrificed so that OpenSSH keeps going; an operating system dies so that an application lives, because there is no good replacement for OpenSSH. There are many good alternatives to OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Linux (of which there are far too many distributions) come to mind.
Is entitlement damaging the open source community? No. It's own ignorance is. They spend a serious amount of time and effort on their projects, then give them away for free, and then come to the sudden realization that working for free sucks. If you are just now coming to this conclusion, you deserve the headache. If you want money, sell the crap and quit crying about it.
...is the title of a new Dixie Chicks song, which you can hear for free by hitting their website. Two quick things here, I found this on AMERICAblog which is someplace I've been going to a lot lately. It's liberal, no doubt about that, and the people over there are really blunt. Sometimes it pays not to be so blunt, because it can cause people to dismiss you outright without ever hearing what you have to say. I have no intention of just whoring other peoples blogs on mine, but this is an exception. They found it, they deserve kudos. Also, I want to point out that I'm not a fan of the Dixie Chicks or country music, but this worth hearing.
Those things aside, the song has resonant tones with the things going on in the world. People getting death threats just for speaking their mind, intolerance of people because they are different, things like that. Just five or six years ago I see myself thinking how great it is to live in this country where people are more enlightened than that. Sure, the fight against civil rights in this country was a black eye, but we survived it. We're a better country because of the fight to transcend senseless bigotry. And now it's all back again.
I think what a lot of people don't get is that these specific issues of sexual preference, creed, politics, race, and whatnot are not the true problems we have to overcome. It's hate that we have to overcome. It doesn't really matter why you hate someone, it's that you hate them at all. No good has ever come from hating another person.
I disagree with bigots and racists and stupid people, and I try very hard not to hate them for it. When you throw hate out of the room, you're letting rational thought back in, and rational thought can take care of its self.
The deadline for the 75th Annual WD competition is May 15th, and times a wasting.
I came in 11th place in the script writing category in last years competition. I believe I could have, and should have done better than that, so I'm looking forward to this years competition to see if I can improve my game. I was pretty harsh on last years winner, and while I do feel that most of what I said was true, I could have been nicer about it. She won, I didn't, so I'm bitter, but I can be a better person than that. Congratulations again Catherine.
Last year I entered the first 15 pages (that's all they want) of a spec script for Stargate: Atlantis. Sadly (and I mean that as in pathetic) it's just not done yet. It's a concept that could and probably will span three episodes or more. I know that's a big no-no for spec writing, but it's a project worth doing, and hence a story worth telling. Nothing could stop me from doing this, because I'm doing it to do it, not to win a job or someones approval. I have 45 pages out of 48 written for part 1 with two eps to go. I have it all in my head, I just need to get it down.
This year I've decided to write a spec for an original movie. It being original will force me to be more creative, and hopefully I can inch closer to first-place. I do have a multitude of ideas for scripts that fit this constraint, though one sticks out in my mind more than the others do.
The race to win the Ansari X-Prize stirred something inside me. I love space science, if I had any ambition at all, I'd be in the space program. There's zero doubt in my mind about it. I'm lazy though, and writing seems more conducive to sitting on your rear all day. Nevertheless, it's always something that is foremost on my mind. My love of SciFi is just a natural extension of that.
The premise is that a young girl, perhaps thirteen or so, is incredibly brilliant. Off the scale brilliant. The difficult life that comes with being so intelligent at such a young age is made worse by the loss of both her parents (I don't know how or why, just that they are gone.) Without her parents to guide her through life, her intellect becomes the driving force. This is established fairly soon, and we come into her life at the beginning of her obession to be the first private citizen to design, build, and fly a rocket/space vehicle alone. The odds are against her from every possible angle. She's so young she can't even drive, nobody believes she can do it, even for someone as brilliant as her, it's an overwhelming challenge.
The movie is her struggle to beat the odds, come to terms with her personal loss, and..whatever.
It's not a bad idea, but it's not original either. There's nothing new about brilliant kids in movies, and we've already seen the first privately achieved trips into Earth orbit. But that's not what matters, it's not the idea, it's the implementation of the idea. The story, what happens and how; that's all that matters.
I think it could be very moving and very enjoyable if done well, and I look forward to taking it head-on. I start work on it very soon. When I have something, I'm sure my ego will compel me to post it here.
Of course I don't mean this in a negative way, that's just how it feels. On Monday he's okay with his acting on Star Trek, on Tuesday he's not. But on Wednesday, he's okay with not being okay with the job and the experience, and on Thursday he's fine with being fine with it. Know what this reminds me of?
Poker.
What do I have and what can I get with two cards coming? What does he have? What does he think I have? What does he think that I think he has? Sometimes it's just a complex mind working out a complex process, and sometimes it's detrimental over-analyzation. Right now is a great example, because I'm (a nobody) analyzing him who's constantly analyzing himself, occasionally analyzing others. I love analyzation because it's more precise than trial and error for learning. The more you understand things, the easier it is to deal with them.
I look at Wil and see somebody that I admire. Regardless of whether or not his books are any good (I haven't read them, in case anyone hasn't told you yet, being a writer isn't exactly the best paying gig around), and he's written several of them, and had them published. That's no small feat by any means. Writing anything is difficult, writing a significant amount of anything is even harder. Writing something as long as a book that's any good takes dedication and a fair amount of passion and talent. To write more than one? That's something special.
Not much needs to be said about his acting ability, that's been firmly established.
And then theres his poker game. I love and play it myself, but you can see an incredible difference in how I talk and write about the game, and how he does. I talk about leaving the multilevel thinking behind and trusting a marriage of gut instinct and smart play, he embraces the complexity that requires the kind of analyzation I'm trying to talk about.
The problem is that over-analyzation tends to suck the life out of you. I don't use it in poker for that very reason, I reserve it for things that matter the most like finding out who I am and why the big things in life are the way they are, and just let things be everywhere else. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, you know?
When I read Wil's weblog posts, I see someone constantly analyzing everything, and I wonder if sometimes that isn't causing more angst than it need be. Sometimes you get your ass whipped because the other guy was delt better cards than you, and you just gotta beat your first on the table, scream an expletive (or five) at the world and go eat some tums.
Will Wheaton is a psych class because listening to him (sometimes) is enough introspective to drive you crazy (at least in this post.)
Or maybe I'm the one over-analyzing...Only Mal knows for sure.
I decide to test my skills in a higher stakes play money Sit & Go. The action should be tighter, and if I place well, maybe I build up the nerve to play for real money.
There are 17 people left out of 27, my chip stack is about 8th best. The blinds are small and I'm eager to make a move. My cards are A9 unsuited, and the flop is A-x-A. I flopped a set; I'm in business. I'm in the blinds and first to act, so I check to see if anyone else is carrying. Three or four guys to my left and above me check, on my right side one guy bets $200 with the player to his left calling. One or two fold around to me, and I come over them with a re-raise to $1400. Everyone folds but one, who pushes all-in. When it comes back to me, I have two choices with two cards still to come:
1. Fold away trip aces and $1400 worth of chips leaving me with about $600. 2. Call, and be all-in the rest of the way.
I don't know the pot odds, but there's no straight or flush within sniffing distance and a set of Aces is the nuts for a set. I peg him on two pair, Aces and ??. I call.
The table: A-x-A-?-?
Me: A9. Him: AT.
I'm dominated, with a ten kicker. A poker pro could certainly tell you that he's a 12832783328:1 favorite to win, with only a 9 that could save me for a full house. I don't get it, and finish in 16th. I walk away with nothing. Even though it's play money, it still stings. It was something like an $11000 buy-in, which I hoped would be close to the kind of action I'd be seeing at a real money table, and I whiffed so far out of the money I couldn't even smell it.
I've wanted to write something about poker (No Limit Texas Hold'em, specifically) for a while. It's not the easiest thing in the world when you accept the fact that you aren't the most knowledgeable, and certainly far from one of the most skilled players around. When I listen to my gut and stick to my strategies, I can hold my own. Put together a tournament of 6,000 people and I can finish on the top 3.5% most of the time. In the 18-45 player Sit & Go's, my average finish is 3rd, with a couple of wins.
I could improve my game considerably if I put more effort into the finer points of poker, and specifically No Limit Hold'em. There can be a tremendous amount of math involved if you're up to it, and there are multiple levels of thought that can go as deep as three levels (what do I have, what does he have -- what does he think I have, what does he think that I think he has, etc.) I'm not interested, it's too much work for one, and the more you involve yourself the harder the losses hit you. It's one of the few places where I want to have fun as equally as I want to win.
And this is why I don't play for money.
Losing money hurts a hell of a lot more than losing your pride, because replacing pride is free, replacing money isn't quite so easy. And there is no point in trying to argue that there is no difference in the action. People who play with play money treat it for what it is, worthless. They take many more risks than they would otherwise (though I do not.) It's harder to get people to fold and bluffing is almost impossible with a small stack. But it still takes skill to win. The people who don't care will play themselves out of tournaments pretty quickly, and there are plenty of people with skill who practice in the play money games.
But there are other reasons I don't play for money. I know I'd start winning the small buy-in S&G's right off the bat, but I'd be frustrated in not making very much money back. The prize money is based entirely on the buy-in, and the number of people that play in them. I pick 18-player S&G's because I'm playing the numbers to my advantage. With only 18 people, the odds of more than a couple skilled players being present are fairly low. With only two tables, they go pretty quick, and that's significant when a 45-player S&G can last anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 hours. If you can't play enough of these per day, you won't be making much money even if you win a majority of them (you won't.)
18-play S&G's take about 1.5 hours to play, and first-place for a $5+0.50 buy-in will only get you $36. My average finish in a recent 7-game stretch was 3rd (all 2-table 18-player) which would have netted me only $126 if they were all $5+0.50 games. Taking roughly 10.5 hours, I'd be making about twelve dollars an hour. I don't find that particularly alluring. 10.5 hours per day, every day, is a lot of time spent playing poker. More than I'd really want to spend.
Sure, if you played in a $20+2 game with 18 players, that $126 turns into $504, but what if my average finish of 3rd doesn't hold up? Only 1st through 4th pay in a 18 player S&G, which leaves about 78% of the field twisting in the wind.
Thirty minutes ago, I was called a pussy for playing in the freeroll games. Though I could undoubtedly make money doing otherwise, it's not what drives me to play, so for now it's out of the question. Most likely, the few people in the place that agreed with the accusation are part of that 78% that walk away empty handed from these tournaments.
I'm proud to be a pussy, because I'm winning. I'm having fun, and I'm not a prick. Not many people can say that.
I received the 74th Annual Writer's Digest Writing Competition Collection from Outskirts Press yesterday afternoon. It's a small soft cover booklet of about 85 pages, containing the grand-prize entry, as well as the first-place winners in each category, and the names of the top 100 in each category (I'm on page 85.)
I'm proud of the work I did for that contest, yet I know I could have done so much better. There were inexcusable spelling errors, due to my inability to get the damn thing finished right up until the day I mailed it. That should have never happened. I also had other factors weighing against me. I wrote a teleplay; first-place was a screenplay. I wrote a spec script for an existing series; first-place was an original. I choose a Science Fiction series and naturally first-place was so grounded in reality it kind of makes me want to choke somebody. What follows are my thoughts on the first-place winner of our category.
*
When I saw that the story was based on Iraq, I was instantly disappointed. Iraq is all we ever hear about in the news, and it seems like it's in every conversation, almost inescapable. Iraq is the last thing I want to hear or read about, especially when I'm expecting and looking for entertainment.
The title of the screenplay, "OFF THE FOB", made me pause. It's not very catchy and I had no idea what FOB stood for. It's a minor gripe, but with all the effort that goes into writing these things, a little more time for the title can't hurt.
There were quite a few things on the first page that bothered me. Some of them are stylistic, some of them are syntactical, all of them are subjective. That's the business, no two scripts look the same. I was expecting a script more consistent with my vision of a professional and well written property, and it didn't fit with my preconceptions. That doesn't mean, however, that it's a bad script.
A quick thing here, and this will definitely fall under opinion: character names are much harder to create than you think, until you've actually tried to do it. But the Arab names in this script are so abused for creative purposes that it's almost a cliche to use them. A little research on the web should have made it possible to come up with better alternatives.
Consistency in writing is important, and scripts are certainly no exception. In fact, it's even more important than in other forms of writing for a very simple reason; scripts aren't meant to read like books are. They are blueprints for a very expensive play. It's hard to read one from cover-to-cover and be into the story the entire way without having small mistakes or bad decisions pull you out of the story. Inconsistency in slug lines can do this. Writing a single location two different ways is a no-no, and abusing the time-of-day is as well. There's no need to state the time of day more than once unless you are either changing locations, or intend for the time-of-day to change. "EXT. BOB'S HOUSE - NIGHT" for your establishing scene, and "EXT. BOB'S GARDEN" is all you need.
On page 1, there are two action elements that are about 95% description and 5% action. In some circumstances this is fine, and there are tricks you can use to make them more readable, such as breaking up the action with dialog snippets, or being more brief in description. But scripts are not books, description in action elements are not there for you to "show the director/cast/crew what you see", because the director couldn't care less what you want visually. Everyone involved with making a film wants to exert their creative influence, from the set designer to the wardrobe people. There's just no point in excessive description. I've been taught that you write primarily in master shots unless there's something you don't believe will be understood otherwise. Oddly, most of this script doesn't suffer from this problem, but it's evident from the first page that it may be an issue for this writer at times.
There are also places where the author goes a bit too far in describing things that aren't going to be evident to the audience, and are too technical. "The soldiers wear desert camo uniforms and full battle rattle", from page 1, instantly drops me out of the story. What is "full battle rattle"? Is part of the story going to be confusing to me now, given that I don't understand this? Are the people producing this going to bother to find out? That they are in desert camo and battle gear is more than enough here. The same goes for "Huxley has a breach kit on his back". I don't know what a breach kit looks like, and I'd bet the barn that the majority of the audience isn't going to know either.
The problems with description continues: "AHMED, an Iraqi man wearing shorts and a wife-beater". I don't have any clue what a "wife-beater" is, so it's hard to know what to even make of this. It's every bit as important to be clear as it is to be brief in description, and there's no guarantee that the character will be dressed this way just because it's in the script. It's better to be as generic as possible, and save the specifics for when it really counts.
The story moves along with four U.S. soldiers gaining entry to an Iraqi's home via plastique explosives attached to his door. This is a story problem; nobody, including the military, is going to use explosives just to get through the front door of a residential home. The damage to the building would be significant, possibly killing anyone near the door on the inside. The specialized knowledge the author seems to posses about the military seems to fail her in this particular instance. The sad thing is that given Hollywood's love of the explosion (the more the better, right?) this may actually make it a more marketable. Consistency takes a hit again, as the soldiers raid another home just minutes later, but this time they kick the door in. No explanation is given for the discrepancy.
As I said above, the first raid is written as almost entire page of solid action, broken into many paragraphs. Sometimes you want to break away from a paragraph with a sentence by itself, or just a word, purely for effect.
The smoke is hanging in the air like fog, hardly anything in the room is visible. He walks along the wall, slowly, until his feet run into something. It's the missing son.
Dead.
Sometimes though, when you aren't doing it for effect, it just makes reading the darn thing more tedious. Every little movement doesn't have to be choreographed in the script, the less you do, the better. Consider breaking it up with some dialog, even if it seems inane. It helps.
I'm not a big fan of excessive profanity, even though I swear, sometimes more than I should. In moderation, they are weighted words which can express things an entire monologue can't. But when excessive, the meaning becomes blunt, and soon looks like nothing but a lack of vocabulary. While some people do swear constantly, I don't buy into what this person is trying to sell me on, that almost everyone does. Soldiers in war or not, it's not working for me.
When it comes to dialog, the most subjective of all the elements, there are still rules to consider. People talk differently because they are different, but also because of the mood they are in, and the situation. People also speak different languages. Nobody expects you to write a French characters dialog in French, but if the person they are speaking to doesn't understand French, then you've got a real problem. In the first two raids, there are two speaking parts by Iraqi men. We know they are both speaking English, because the translator that the raiding party is dragging around isn't really doing anything but reading documents. I don't buy into it.
The last nine pages were no better than the first six. The excessive unbroken action is replaced by unbroken dialog that left me wondering what the author was trying to accomplish with it. A suicidal burned out soldier is nothing new, and it isn't being pulled off convincingly enough to get me interested, much less keep that interest over the course of an entire script. That sequence is complete, and this is where the script ends.
Only the first 15 pages were wanted for the contest, but even so, I still can't understand what this script is supposed to be about. Having only the first 15 pages is a handicap, so there is every possibility that the story may pick up steam later on, and the introduction simply needs more work, but I can't tell. A small group of marines raid two Iraq homes looking for bad guys on their list, destroy some property, and chat about it. I'm just not interested.
There are no blaring mistakes in the way the script is structured or executed, but the problem is serious non-the-less. The story is boring, it's just that simple. I'm surprised it won first-place, I was really expecting something of greater quality.
But it did win. So, congratulations to Catherine Ross. She undoubtedly worked hard on this script and unlike myself, many people did think highly of it. Enjoy your success, and I wish you more of it in the future.
Ever see a thread (or 50) on a forum, asking for prayers? Have you ever made one yourself? Don't. Just don't. Very few of you religious people actually pray like you are supposed to, so stop trying to offload that burden onto other people. I'm sure that your story is sad, and you would most likely have my sympathy for whatever, but one thing you will not get from me is a prayer. You people may constitute 90% of the population on this planet, but 80% of you also believe in aliens too (polls prove this over and over.) Belief doesn't make something reality. 90% of the world believed the Earth was flat too. Makes me proud.
Sympathy asked for is not sympathy at all, it's you trying to make yourself feel better. Don't do it, it's rude to beg.
...is the title of a new Dixie Chicks song, which you can hear for free by hitting their 
