#eugenics around that is iffy to say the least)

[aroaessidhe]

2023 reads

The Deep Sky

scifi mystery thriller

on a deep space mission traveling from an environmentally devastated earth with hope to restart humanity elsewhere

when they’re halfway, an explosion kills 3 crew and pushes them off course

the only witness is the Alternate who has no specific role, and she has to figure out who caused it & if they might continue to sabotage, while they're figuring out a way to get back on course with limited resources

flips between present and the past: of her childhood and training for the mission, her identity struggles, and relationship with her mother

questions the ethics of ‘restarting’ humanity elsewhere vs putting resources into fixing earth

[cookie-nom-nom]

since I don’t start arguments in reblogs:

hey guys. Hey. I’m all for critically examining the source of ideas that we teach within schools. Lord knows people throwing the tragedy of the commons around makes me twitchy! However. Researching the actual origins of theories is involved in that, not taking pieces out of context.

Specifically, I’m talking about Charles Darwin. Is he racist by modern standards? Assuredly. But given the fact he was staunchly opposed to slavery and some historians (not without critique! But still) argue that trying to oppose racist sentiments that White and Black people are entirely different species was an instrumental part driving force for On the Origins of Species…I find it a rather disingenuous stance.

So Darwin returned to England [from America] thanking God "I shall never again visit a slave-country." The events were seared into his memory. "To this day," he wrote in 1845, "if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco [probably in the old town of Olinda in Brazil], I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate."

^source

I feel fine in critiquing him from a stand point that he could’ve tried to do more, because we ALL can do more. But calling him racist? I think at the very least within the context of his times, he would be considered antiracist.

Specifically what was being called out was the full title, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The argument being he was talking about human races. But within the text of Origins, Darwin goes out of his way to not mention humans which I can rather understand given he was already hesitating on publishing the theory because of the expected (and received) societal backlash. So claiming it’s a racist text on just the title alone of a book that doesn’t go into human race at all? Decidedly shows a lack of research to me.

Maybe part of it is my personal pet peeve of ‘survival of the fittest’ being attributed to Darwin, or in fact any of the racism, classism, and eugenics involved in the Social Darwinism movement being attributed to Darwin, because it is a complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Like, looking at some of the uglier outcomes of people building off his ideas in horrible ways…yeah, I can see why someone might use that to conclude Darwin had ugly roots that others ran with. But also lots of awful racism was happening when no one believed in evolution and Black people were simply a [[[different, inferior species that is totally fine to enslave and torture and dehumanize (because they aren’t human beings like us)]]]. So I think racism itself has a practice of stealing science to justify itself (Scientific Racism yippee) and it isn’t so much the theory itself and more the racists using it to justify themselves. Than Darwin in particular. Especially because the idea that White and Black and other races have a common ancestor (HAVE THINGS IN COMMON) was radical to begin with.

I’m not a great men of history guy, personally. Charles Darwin isn’t even the only person who figured out evolution -say hello Alfred Russel Wallace!- and I definitely agree that interrogating the source texts and people credited to large scientific advancements is crucial in education. Buuuuuuut when the facts of the matter is that Darwin was an abolitionist, decrying him for being racist seems iffy to me. Moral relativity is a whole conundrum, and I’m sure, I’m so sure that Darwin had racist ideas and practices (and sexist ones too!), but not acknowledging that within his time he was radically antiracist….again, feels disingenuous.

Lastly, I would like to end on this quote from Darwin from his autobiography Descent because I think it displays the mixed bag well:

“The great sin of Slavery has been almost universal, and slaves have often been treated in an infamous manner. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves.”

Abolitionist? Yes, clearly against the horrors of slavery. Racist? It’s clearly influenced by the myth of ‘civilization vs barbarians’. Also because I wasn’t expecting the feminism from a man who is also noted as being sexist. Almost as if people’s ethics are not in black and white and full of contradictions. I think the flaw in marking people as all evil and irredeemably problematic and then discarding them thereafter is, well, we all exist within flawed cultures and you’ll throw out the good parts as well. And when someone is an abolitionist in the 1800s, I think that’s a pretty big thing to mention if you’re deciding they’re racist and we shouldn’t be teaching about them. Hold your heroes to scrutiny; but actually scrutinizing them requires research. Mine today is admittedly surface level, I’m a biologist not a historian, but I think the point stands.

Sources ^-^

^critiquing the anti racism cornerstone theory historians Desmond and Moore posed, but nonetheless agreeing he’s antiracist within his context

^counter argument, because yes, Darwin did say racist and sexist stuff! Again we embrace the complicated truths of history!

^discussing the mixed bag of Darwin

[dagasinfilo]

ummm i might be off the mark here but if someone is romanticizing poverty i don’t think “guys wear a condom” is the most appropriate response

[bellablue42]

Myself as a writer and Death of the Author

I’m trying to write a novel, and it’s really hard. I feel like I’m not getting anywhere, I’m on my fifth draft and trying to create a lengthy enough narrative that doesn’t feel like filler. It is difficult, to say the least, and I really admire people with the ability to write quickly and well. 

But there’s a lot about She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named going around again, and it made me think. We all know that she’s not the best person, but she is a writer, and she is a creator, and her works are widespread. And that... causes problems.

Is it ok to consume her work? How much do her opinions reflect in her work, and can we spot it? I have no idea, but here’s my best shot, as an aspiring writer and a high-school literature student.

Please be warned I have no experience, and I’m kind of making this up as I go along, but here we go.

Last year, at the start of the school year, in Literature, my class watched Midnight in Paris. The movie was written and directed by Woody Allen, who is... well-known for all the wrong reasons, namely allegedly assulting seven-year-old Dylan Farrow. One of the girls in my class pointed out this fact, and my teacher nodded and said that we were discussing Death of the Author.

Death of the Author is an interesting topic. It holds that an author’s intentions and background should have no impact on interpreting a text. It is interesting, and it is really bloody hard to do.

Keep in mind that if you pick up a book by a relatively famous author, you will know something about them. If you take Mrs Dalloway, for example, if you’ve ever heard of Virginia Woolf, you will doubtless know that she was a writer and that she committed suicide, even if you know nothing else. The fact that she did commit suicide will influence the way you read Mrs Dalloway.

If you read Lady Lazarus by Sylvia Plath, for example, you will probably know that Plath was not mentally healthy and committed suicide by sticking her head in an oven. And that will influence the way you read Lady Lazarus. If you read any of Lovecraft’s work, you will come to the conclusion that he is a racist. It’s not hard to figure out.

Death of the Author means separating these facts from the way you interpret a work. It is really hard, trust me.

Because we look for links, everywhere we look for these links. We know that Sylvia Plath committed suicide, so when you read Lady Lazarus, you make connections. Go read Lady Lazarus now, go read it knowing that Plath committed suicide, and keep that fact in mind. Here’s the link: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49000/lady-lazarus

Now read it again, and try to forget it, all the connections you made knowing that Plath stuck her head in an oven. It is really hard to do, because you know, and you remember. Death of the Author is forgetting the context of the author, forgetting their impact on the text.

Here’s a thing, I write a lot. Like, a lot. Not published, obviously, but I write about as much as I read, and that is a lot. And I believe, that when you write, you put a bit of yourself into it. It doesn’t have to be obvious, maybe just the way you connect to a character, or your views on a topic. I can’t say I don’t do this - my main character is an asexual lesbian who panics a lot and loves her girlfriend. Her competence doesn’t come from me, but the gender, the sexuality, the panic? All of that is inspired by, you know, me. My experiences, my opinions. I am conscious in my word choices, I’m trying not to use gendered language for the soldiers, because they are men, women, non-binary, genderfluid and others, all together, so my main character can’t call them her men, they are her soldiers. It’s hard. I’m aware that I have biases, and my reading experiences are usually texts that ... do not do this. 

Sorry, I’m rambling, and no-one wants to know. 

But I as a writer, put a bit of myself in my work. And I think that’s what makes Death of the Author so hard to do, so hard to remember. 

And now onto HER. I can’t remember what brought my attention to her in the first place, maybe a post about a Harry Potter tv show?

The problem about JK Rowling is that she wrote Harry Potter. And Harry Potter is... huge. The problem is that we grew up on Harry Potter. 

Looking back, there are big problems with the series; plot holes bigger than my fist, a lack of original plot lines, and little creativity. Harry Potter is a mishmash of already well-established genres and archetypes, and it... doesn’t fit together particularly well. 

(Take Dumbledore, at once the mentor archetype from the fantasy genre and the authority figure in the boarding school genre. The problem is that being both causes a bit of dissonance. He mimics the typical ‘wise old mentor wizard’ from fantasy, like Gandalf, but he is also a school headmaster. He is a grandfatherly teacher who takes an interest in the son of two of his past students, nothing particularly new, but at the same time, he’s a figure out of legend, an incredibly powerful man, both magically and politically. It is hard for my brain to fit them together well because they are two different archetypes and they don’t mesh. They belong in different genres, because the way he is written can’t seem to decide which one he is. I might write more on this later if anyone’s interested)

But Rowling’s a TERF. And she’s been on Twitter and said all sorts of bizarre things about the odd mish-mash of genres she’s created. I’m not really a fan of Harry Potter anymore, I grew up with it. I have seven books in a shoebox under my bed. I have read far better books, I have read many, many books with more interesting stories, better internal consistency and characters with actual depth, who don’t need fandom to be interesting. 

And yet I still have all seven books in a shoebox under my bed. It’s hard. I genuinely liked the books - when I was twelve. I’d sooner recommend the Discworld books by the late great Sir Terry Pratchett than Harry Potter, and not just because of HER. They’re better books. Harry Potter is average. 

But we loved them. 

And Rowling’s a TERF. Her views on trans people are... not okay, by any measure. I don’t have words for ... how great the cognitive dissonance is. She wrote a series, a seven-book, eight-movie series, about the power of unconditional love. Over a million words, just under 20 hours about acceptance and tolerance. And yet she doesn’t believe that trans women are women. 

The problem is that it is hard to apply Death of the Author. Once you know that JK discriminates against transgender people, it is hard to read Harry Potter without remembering that. 

Then you get into other issues about how all of the endgame couples are straight. And Dumbledore’s only gay when the series is ended. And there’s a lack of diversity in the books and the movies. And once you start reading into it, it gets ... iffy. Because it’s not meant to be read into, not meant to be analysed. It’s a children’s series. But it’s problematic, not for the things it says, but fo the things it doesn’t say.

The thing is that SHE is impressive. As a writer, at least, not as a person. Because it is hard to write, and she managed an extensive, relatively-coherent storyline across seven books, released over ten years. But her first book got rejected, again and again. 

Her net worth is somewhere between 650 million and 1.2 billion. And she earns all that money off a book series whose main themes are friendship and love. And she’s a TERF.

I can’t say I hate her - I don’t know her. She might be a genuinely nice person, but she’s a TERF. She doesn’t believe that trans people are the gender that they say they are. I cannot understand how you can believe that, but. She does, apparently. She wrote so much about love conquering all evil, and friendship saving the day, but she doesn’t think that trans women should be allowed into female bathrooms.

I hate her ideology. 

Go read Discworld instead. Think about Death of the Author, then read Night Watch. It’s a great book. Or go read Good Omens, because Pratchett co-wrote that. 

The thing about Discworld is that you can tell what Pratchett thinks is worth paying attention to. Small Gods is primarily about religion, about belief, and about people. The last one is the most important, because Pratchett believed that the greatest thing you can be is human and kind, and he’s right. The witches on the Discworld are... perhaps not nice, but they are decent, and they are fundamentally people. They are human, and they are kind, and that is what makes them good people. 

The thing about Harry Potter is that “Muggle” sounds like a slur. There’s all this attention paid to the whole “mudblood” thing that people forget that behind all the blood purity nonsense - which sounds a lot like eugenics - the purebloods, the rich entitled kids, believe that non-magical people are less than animals. The Wizarding world is stuck in the Middle Ages, not even the bloody Renaissance. Human history has passed them by. It is so hard now to read Harry Potter without finding problems, like how all the magicals are fundamentally stupid, how a literal one-year-old is praised for supposedly killing an extremely powerful mass-murdering psycopath. A one-year-old. The Wizarding World is not a functional society, and it’s not meant to be. It’s not meant to hold up to scrutiny.

Look, Harry Potter is average, at best. Ask me for good kids books and I will point you in a dozen different directions, and I will point you in a dozen different directions - but not there. 

Because Death of the Author is hard. Not taking the creator’s intentions and background into account when interpreting a work is hard. You can know that an author is queer, or a person of colour, or of a certain religion, but once you know it, it is hard to not see it. 

You see, all the main characters in Harry Potter are white. They’re also all straight. Everyone not Harry Potter is flat. There is very little depth to anyone in those books, because they don’t matter. Hermione is defined by her relationship with Ron because her relationship is the most debated part of her character. Ron - in the movies at least - is seen as stupid because he is written stupid, he is written as comic relief. Book-verse Ron is a strategist, but that’s only really shown in the first two books. They’re not written with depth, they don’t need it. Harry’s the protagonist, Hermione’s the smart one, Ron’s the dumb-but-loyal comic-relief best friend. Ginny is the love interest, Luna’s the crazy one, the twins are comic-relief pranksters. Draco is the racist antagonist, Voldemort is a more extreme mass-murdering version. There are exactly zero trust-worth adults in a whole seven-book series, there are three? characters with depth in the whole series, everyone else is defined by a role and a single characteristic.

It is so hard to look critically at Harry Potter and not see everything that relates to Rowling. It is problematic as a series, and problematic as content created by a TERF. It is problematic as literature in the first place. It’s written as a kids book, but for all its ‘adult’ themes, it can’t stand up to scrutiny.

This got long - I got a bit carried away. Sorry.

Tell me what you think, tell me your opinion. I’d love to discuss this with you because it so hard to write about. Argue with me, tell me I’m wrong. Tell me I’m right if you think I am. Have I said anything problematic? Please lets start talking about this because it’s interesting and a difficult topic, and I think we need to start looking closer at authors and content creators. 

[dangermousie]

Drama ramble that takes us from Touch to Mr. Sunshine to The Heirs - the good, the bad, and the ugly - but which is which, you may ask

I guess my dilemma whether to check out Touch is solved for me. I was kind of iffy on it because I like Joo Sang Wook but am not familiar with anyone else in the cast, I find make-up artists and idols not professions I am interested in as a setting outside of some true cracky set-ups not present here, and while I can deal with a large age difference in either a period setting or if it somehow makes sense in the story, I wasn’t sure that would be the case here. But it’s out of my hands now because I am pretty sure nobody is subbing it (viki bought it but it’s at 0% for days with no team set) and I am certainly not invested enough to watch raw.

I am also six eps into Mr. Sunshine and it’s such a quality drama. Not to mention visually stunning - the scene with Eugene at his parents’ graves is poetry. Plus the acting is top-notch: say what you will about Lee Byung Hun on a personal level, as an actor, he is uniformly excellent and the rest are equally good. 

I don’t have much of a ship in this drama, which is unusual for me. I like Ae Shin x Eugene just fine but I think it’s because the drama and the characters are about so many other things first, over love.  

I do think Kim Eun Sook is one of the most consistently solid kdrama writers out there. I’ve seen almost every one of her dramas - the Lovers trilogy, City Hall, On Air, Secret Garden, A Gentleman’s Dignity, the Heirs, Descendants of the Sun, Goblin, now Mr Sunshine. (The only one I haven’t watched is her very first one, South of the Sun, which I’d love to because I adore both melos and Choi Min Soo.) They vary wildly in genre from romcom to melo to fantasy to sageuk (and within those divisions they are still on very different ends of the spectrum - City Hall with its political sophisticated banter and 30+ protagonists is miles away from e.g., bratty high school hijinks of The Heirs) but they almost uniformly work for me. 

The only exceptions are The Heirs and (sort of) DOTS. And DOTS is not even a proper exception - it’s a solidly-written and directed drama with good chemistry between the leads. I probably would have enjoyed it immensely if it wasn’t so hyped by the time I got around to it, that no drama could have lived up to the expectations. Also, that setting made me want an intense melo, which is a purely personal preference (think Swallow the Sun), while this drama stayed lighter throughout. But still, it was a pleasant enough watch. 

The Heirs is the sole one of her dramas that didn’t work for me - I didn’t loathe it like a number of tumblr peeps, but it was a blah drag that I finally dumped. But I think it’s a combo of things. There was all the miscasting - I adore Lee Min Ho but a Rui-type guy is not a role that plays to his strengths; quite the opposite. It would have been much better to cast someone like Lee Jong Suk, though the School 2013 reunion with him and KWB would certainly switch any shipping focus from the heroine. Park Shin Hye is not an actress I am enthusiastic about but she’s worked for me in other dramas; however she tends to be better playing spunky or forthright - her poor heroine character in The Heirs was so mousy, she disappeared into wallpaper, so she needed an actress who can take over the screen by sheer charisma even if the role is underwritten (think Jung So Min or Park Min Young, though the latter would have been hella awkward for all concerned.)  Kim Woo Bin was excellent (about the only excellent job in the cast, IMO) but his character was pretty much Baek Kyung from Extraordinary You, if BK didn’t figure out he was a character in a comic book, and the appeal for that sort of thing is limited for me. There was a bunch of other actors, ranging from OK to not good to good but so wasted in the role. And they were all much too freaking old!!! I still have no idea why the drama wasn’t set in college at the very least - if we take Lee Min Ho alone, he played a high school student after he portrayed an almost-30 year old general in Faith (!!!) or a definitely-adult killing machine assassin in City Hunter (!!!!). I kept expecting hoping for him to snap out of it and start breaking necks!   

But the thing is, while the casting was blah, the story was the real problem for me. I think it’s pretty significant that the sole KES drama that didn’t work for me at all is the sole drama she has done where the protagonists are not full-fledged adults. I think her narrative thrust and her verbal ticks and character beats work best when she is writing grown-up people. Teen drama is not her forte, to put it mildly. The setting of The Heirs has neither life and death stakes sageuk/fantasy/adventure dramas have, nor even the emotional stakes of grown ups coping with really grown-up issues that have more heft (in City Hall for example, it is about fight against corruption, Kim Sun Ah being able to achieve her ideals and Cha Seung Won saving his soul but even in such a light trifle of a drama like AGD, it’s pretty clear, for example, that at 40-something, it’s Jang Dong Gun’s last chance for true love and lasting relationship.) I am not saying a story about teenagers in a non-period or non-fantasy setting cannot have real genuine stakes, but The Heirs does not manage to create them, or convey it effectively. Some of it is that my sympathy for rich brats is limited, but even when there is genuine issues like with Kim Woo Bin being abused by his father, it’s really not handled in any way that’s likely to engender interest and investment...

OK, I have no idea where this rant is going so I am going to stop... 

[tartagilicious]

my dangerous fellows headcanons

LAWRENCE:

1. They touched a little on this if you played his route, but it only said that his parents didn’t really pay attention to him. But, I think that there’s a possibility that he could have been abused as well. He always said that he studied for himself, not them. And he wanted to get into a good college for himself, and maybe that was his way of trying to detach from them and live the best life as possible. He has a pretty tough and kind personality, but there are obviously parts of him that are a little out of place. And, I think it might partially have to do with something like that.

2. It was Lawrence who was out in the field. around chapter 16 or so, mc goes out into the school years because she thinks she sees Scarlett leaving. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that it was Lawrence out there instead, because the only thing she said was ‘that it moved too human-like’ to be a zombie, she didn’t identify it or anything. And, with how fast he got to her, I don’t think it’s impossible

4. At one point in the story, MC mentions how because of how kind lawrence is and all of the leadership skills he has, she thinks that he could’ve easily been popular before the outbreak. I think it’s totally a possibility, but it’s still iffy. I mean, it could always be something the popular guy with a disastrous home life cliché, but I don’t really think so. If any one of the guys were to be popular, I think it’d either be Zion, because of obvious reasons, or Ethan, because of his skills in sports.

ZION:

1. He and Scarlett have been together for a while. And I don’t mean like in a relationship, I mean just generally. They seem like a pair that knows the other well, whether they like it or not. I think that it might be something like she took a liking to him when they were young, gripped onto him, and just hasn’t let go since. But, either way, I think it’s been a while.

2. Zion has a deep voice. The game doesn’t share the character’s voices, but if it did, I’m s u r e that his would be deep. I mentioned this in my dangerous fellows as kpop idols post, and it seriously stands. Like, the best example I can come up with is is you listen to Zuho’s voice in sf9’s song ‘let’s hang out’ that’s sort of what I imagine it as sounding like. (@1:49)

3. Zion and Harry know morse code. Look, hear me out. This sounds absolutely insane, and sort of is, it’s just that in that one scene before they go investigate the basement, and they blink to each other, I think the game makes too much of a deal of it for that just to be a small detail. Maybe it’s something like Zion telling Harry that they’ll catch up after he talks to mc? Because if you decline when he asks you if you have a minute and say you just want to get back to your classroom, this doesn’t happen. It’s a little far fetched, I think, but not impossible

ETHAN:

1. Idk why but I personally think that Ethan has younger siblings?? like, he somehow gives off that older brother vibe. he’s a pretty protective and mindful guy, and I think it’s totally a possibility that it came from having considerably younger siblings. ugh, but just imagine that. Ethan trying to teach his younger sibling(s) baseball.

HARRY: 

1. We all already know that Harry is a plant dad, but my brain can’t help but think that he’s a big animal person too! I’m not sure why, but I can seriously imagine Harry just cuddled up with a few cats, with plants hanging from holders on the ceiling around him, reading a book or something (!!someonemake the fanart!!)

2. This isn’t really a headcanon, but i’ve sort of always wondered why he’s so kind to MC. I mean, I get that it could just be for the plot of the game since they need at least one nice guy, but maybe there’s another backstory to it. idk, maybe we’ll find out in Harry’s second ending or smth (the new update in the ~foreseeable~ future)

EUGENE:

1. this guy’s a total romantic. I don’t know if I’m being dramatic, but even in other routes, i think you can see how much eugene ends up caring about MC. like, the thing that sticks out the most to me is that one time where eugene left to bring Ethan to his classroom, and then she went outside because she though she saw Scarlett. How he casually mentions that he’ll come back after is character development if I’ve ever seen one. Also, the little detail of him being a little upset that MC has left when she said she would wait for him, idk, I can’t help but think that if you would be in a relationship with him, he’s be the type to give everything he can to you.

[itsclydebitches]

Preacher Review: Damsels

AKA  “Cats screwing. At an airport. Under an ice cream truck.”

Week two, episode three and we’re stARTING OFF WITH EUGENE,

Now I’ll be frank. Despite my enthusiastic caps my feelings regarding Eugene are… ambivalent at best. Initially I got swept up into the general fandom feeling of, “What a poor baby protect him!!!” Then we (supposedly) learned about him shooting Traci and I lost 99% of that sympathy. I wrote a paper on that exact woobie fandom response that ended up killing my last 1%, and now I love Eugene like I love Snape: you’re a great character, but you’re an absolute asshole of a person.

Then this episode happened.

As far as we can tell based on Eugene’s cyclical hell (a common enough trope) he didn’t, in fact, shoot Traci himself. Rather he’s painted very much as the naive hero.  After receiving a call from Traci saying that she “needs him,” Eugene races to her house on his bike, accompanied by superhero-esque music—clearly reflecting how he views himself in this moment. He finds her sobbing because her boyfriend cheated on her with a “5”  and has decided to kill herself over it. Traci has Eugene read through her suicide note which contains such gems as starting it with both “To Whom it May Concern” and “Dear everybody,” making sure her room remains a shrine after her death (which, ironically, it does), her brothers still aren’t aloud inside, and there’s a list of all the other men she’s had sex with, just to make her boyfriend jealous. Despite all this, Eugene manages to talk her out of the act.

Until he kisses her. Poor Eugene receives a shocked “ew” in response and that act is what tips Traci over the edge. She shoots herself, only managing to survive through Eugene’s quick actions, and when her mother comes home and starts freaking out about the locked door, Eugene inside, Traci not answering… he panics and shoots himself next.

This is what a lot of fans assumed last season: that the story we heard around town wasn’t what really happened. Now this goes a long way towards ‘redeeming’ Eugene (if, of course, we take these memories at face value) considering that beyond a quick, unwanted kiss that he thought might be appreciated, he didn’t actually do anything wrong. If anything, Eugene actively worked to keep Traci alive. The superhero music fits him in this scene.

And that’s what bugs me.

See, there’s a difference between Preacher being offensive and Preacher being offensive. There’s a difference between over the top insanity/violence that doesn’t hurt anyone because it’s just insulting to everyone and changing the narrative in ways that actively push against “hot topic” social issues. To give another example, no one really cares if Jesse beats the shit out of people to an extreme degree because worrying about whether your local preacher is going to break your arm isn’t an everyday concern (to say nothing of the fact that Jesse often engages in violence for ‘good’ reasons—like protecting a child from abuse). On the other hand, it’s important that Jesse doesn’t respond to the club singer’s advances because husbands/boyfriends cheating is a huge problem in the U.S. So having Jesse looked bored as hell while she sings all sultry, turning away as she changes, and telling her to stop before she kisses him sends a particular message. He’s a bad dude without being ‘bad’ particular ways, ways that are more likely to have an impact on the average viewer. There’s a distinction.

Now how does this apply to Eugene? They changed his story from a depressed kid shooting himself to emulate a rock star to a “friendzoned” kid shooting a girl and then himself because he was rejected—and they should have stuck with that. Because that story right there is something our society is dealing with: the insane number of women who are harmed or killed because they won’t have sex with some creep. That’s the story that’s worth telling and ultimately sending Eugene to hell for. Traci represents real life victims. Or at least she did. Now she’s just a blonde stereotype who’s suicide is used as freaking man-pain for Eugene, even more than it was last season. I honestly really hate that and alongside the supposed deaths of DeBlanc and Fiore, I think it’s the most insulting thing that Preacher has done to date.

Anyway. Enough about Eugene.

The trio is on their way to New Orleans and Jesse is making them listen to “A Walk to the Peak” an untold number of times. I think that’s a great choice because to the untrained ear (aka mine) it honestly doesn’t sound… appealing. (Sorry, Jazz fans.) We of course know that Tulip’s anger comes from a fear about stepping back in her old hunting grounds, but to Jesse she’s just complaining for no real reason. Cue lots of tension.

We get a fantastic, party-hard introduction to New Orleans that emphasizes the crowds and neon lights—a sharp departure for the beige tones and deserted wide shots from season one. As the trio wanders into the first club they find and asks for god, receiving an iffy, “All three of you?” in response, I think to myself, “Oh wow. Oh no. What if this is the fucked up Dalmatian from the trailer?” 

Guess what. 

IT’S THE FUCKED UP DALMATION FROM THE TRAILER.

Called it.

Beyond just acting as another strange and shocking moment that we’ve come to expect of Preacher, this little detour also establishes how out of their depth the trio is now. No one would call them sheltered, by any means, but none of them have any idea what’s being implied until it’s staring them in the face. This is new, fucked up territory to them. As mentioned above, it’s a BIG world, and the trio have flung themselves into it full force. 

We meet Dennis, the fast talking French “friend” of Cass’ who is (unwillingly?) acting as their host. 1. Does anyone have a translation for that fantastic rant? 2. If they were at one point buds, I love that they made Dennis on the older side. It serves as a great visual reminder that Cass is over a freaking century old. Of course his friends are going to be hitting their golden years. And 3. Good on Cass for calling out Tulip for the “idiot Irish sidekick” treatment. It’s also (hopefully) the writers calling themselves out. There’s a whole lot you can do with Cass beside making him the comic relief.

Jesse continues his quest alone—“A preacher looking for God, that’s a joke!”—and kicks a whole lot of ass as he does. We get a lovely little twist where the singer he courageously saves and hustles off to the airport is in fact an agent working for—

—THE GRAIL. THE GRAIL. THE GRAIL IS HERE I’M SO HAPPY AHHHH—

Ahem.

I mean working for the super secret organization that no one knows anything about yet.

Jesse may be following a false lead now (the mysterious man who knew god had left, washing up in the swamp), but I truly doubt it will distract him for long. Between the final scene with Victor finding Tulip and Jesse spotting a poster with his family’s symbol, there are much bigger fish to fry.

And we get our first good look at Starr. Yes. We are blessed, friends. VERY blessed. 

Until next week <3

Other Minor Things Worth Noting

I do like Eugene’s Mary Poppins reference. It tells us that his belief in God has been with him for a long time. It’s not just a result of him needing something to turn to after this tragedy.

Also, did anyone else hear him say “Darn it” after Traci first shoots himself, this strange pause where he stands there looking bored instead of panicked?? I honestly didn’t quite catch that moment, but I’m wondering if it had something to do with the fact that this is not, in fact, a real memory but rather a punishment within hell. Idk.

I’m adding the strange chandelier hell thing to the list of technologies I’m discussing in some future paper. That thing was cool.

“You are now leaving Texas – Your loss dipshit”

Tulip’s description of a “sharp grabby” pain in her stomach is reminiscent of her “smoky hand brain thing” in the premier. She certainly has a way with words. What a dork.

Joe with his tattoos and facial hair + that sparkly butterfly shirt is now my definition of aesthetic.

Let’s talk about the passive aggressive lesbian lady who recognized Tulip by her “cute little backside.”

Eugene is in a cell next to Hitler. Don’t they deserve to be on different levels or something? I have issues with Eugene, but I’m just saying. And now that we see hell as this prison environment, how exactly did the people working there react to him. He just… showed up?? I really hope the show goes into all this.

“It’s the end of the world” – nice tie to “Till the end of the world.”

I like Tulip giving up $100 for $5. It shows her single minded, fuck it nature; touches on addiction, and harkens back to Traci. She the 100 who was thrown away for a 5.

The guy talking to Jesse in the club is George R.R. Martin. This is why he isn’t getting his writing done. Pass it on. Expose him. 

[oselatra]

Thorn in the LRPD's side

Civil rights attorney Mike Laux has spent years taking on the LRPD over fatal shootings of suspects. He isn't done yet.

The fact is, no matter how heinous the circumstance, no matter how damning the proof, no matter how clear the video, no matter how sympathetic the person who died, America just does not like to send cops to jail for killing in the line of duty.

According to a massive database of police use-of-force incidents since 2005 compiled by Bowling Green State University criminologist Dr. Philip Stinson, American police officers kill somewhere between 900 and 1,000 people every year while on duty. While it's pretty much a statistical certainty that at least some of those shootings aren't by the book and on the up-and-up, Stinson's research also shows that cops who kill suspects in the United States are rarely charged for crimes related to those killings. They're even more rarely convicted. Stinson can find only around 80 police officers who have been charged with murder or manslaughter after a fatal on-duty shooting since 2005. Only 29 of those officers were later convicted, with all but five convicted of the less serious crime of manslaughter.

The difficulty of securing a conviction against a cop played out in Little Rock in recent years, with former Little Rock Police Department officer Josh Hastings twice put on trial for second-degree murder in the 2012 slaying of Bobby Moore, a 15-year-old who was shot to death by Hastings as Moore and two friends tried to flee in a stolen Honda from a West Little Rock apartment complex where they had been breaking into parked cars. After two long and expensive trials in which prosecutors and experts alleged that Hastings shot Moore even though Hastings' life wasn't in danger and then he lied extensively to cover up what had happened, the jury hung twice, unable to reach a verdict after days of deliberation.

With anger about police killings of suspects — 748 nationwide so far this year, according to a running tally kept by The Washington Post — boiling over into popular culture in the form of the Black Lives Matter movement and the President Trump-fanned controversy over NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest police brutality, the federal civil rights lawsuit has become the strongest pry bar for those seeking justice, or at least some financial semblance of it, when official investigative channels and criminal prosecutions fail after questionable police use of deadly force. While criminal juries may be reluctant to put cops in jail following the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, civil juries, which only have to decide whether a plaintiff's claims are more likely to be true than not, seem to have no problem meting out punishment to municipal pocketbooks over iffy police killings.

When it comes to civil suits against the Little Rock Police Department, the biggest thorn in its side right now is civil rights attorney Mike Laux. Laux (whose name is pronounced like "low") has sued the city over questionable use of deadly force five times, including a recently filed lawsuit over the death of Roy Richards, a 46-year-old Little Rock resident shot in October 2016 after Richards pulled out a BB gun during a drunken fight with his uncle. From those lawsuits, Laux has won a string of settlements and judgments for his clients, including a $415,000 personal judgment against former LRPD officer Hastings in April over the Moore shooting, and a rare apology from the city and a $900,000 settlement related to the death of 67-year-old Navy veteran Eugene Ellison, who was shot to death by LRPD officer Donna Lesher after an altercation in Ellison's apartment near Colonel Glenn Road and University Avenue in December 2010. The Ellison payout is the largest settlement in a civil rights case in state history.

Preparing for those cases meant deposing dozens of LRPD and city officials and plowing through reams of departmental documents related to past police shootings. In the process, Laux has taken a deep dive into the history of the LRPD's use of deadly force and how the department handles cases where a suspect winds up in the morgue. Though he's definitely got a profitable dog in the hunt when it comes to his opinion of how the LRPD uses deadly force, Laux believes that in most cases, official attempts to insulate an officer from responsibility begin the moment a fatal round is fired. Laux also believes that Little Rock's pattern of resisting apology and defending cops in court at all costs, sometimes for years, following the questionable use of deadly force is a wedge that drives blacks and whites in Little Rock ever further apart.

A call from Little Rock

Laux knows what it is to walk a tightrope between worlds. Born to a white mother and black father in Milwaukee, Wis., in 1973, Laux said it was hard growing up biracial in a city he says is still one of the most racially divided in the country. But the diplomacy skills he had to cultivate as a kid have made him a good trial lawyer, and help him understand the push-pull that keeps race relations in Little Rock on edge. "I know that tension," he said.

Laux said he wanted to be a lawyer because of his Uncle Elliott, the only attorney in his family. His uncle was the person his extended family called on in times of trouble, a calming force who always seemed to have the answers when his loved ones found themselves in a jam. As he got older, Laux realized that not every family has a person like that. "There are people in society who are disadvantaged, and who don't have a voice," he said. "We had Uncle Elliott. Some people don't have an Uncle Elliott. Some people don't even know a lawyer. They don't know where to go."

Laux went to law school at the University of Wisconsin, graduating in 2002. In school, Laux came to love the symmetry and predictability of the law and the notion of reasonableness as a standard. After law school, he moved to Chicago and joined the firm of Johnson and Bell, specializing in medical malpractice defense. He did that for four years, but always felt something was missing. A chance meeting with attorney Johnny Cochran, famous for his defense of O.J. Simpson, changed Laux's trajectory.

"We had a real nice conversation, and he said to me, 'Mike, what are you doing with the defendants? You've got to come to the plaintiff's side, son,' " Laux recalled. At the time, Cochran was forging relationships with black-owned firms across the country, including a loose partnership with the civil rights attorney Jim Montgomery in Chicago. Laux signed on as an attorney with Montgomery's firm in 2006 and started working on civil rights cases.

Laux was working there in January 2011 when he got a call from brothers Troy and Spencer Ellison in Little Rock, both veteran officers with the Little Rock Police Department. On Dec. 9, 2010, their father, Eugene Ellison, was sitting in his apartment near Asher and University when Donna Lesher and Tabitha McCrillis, two off-duty LRPD officers working security at the complex, noticed Ellison's door ajar and stepped inside. After Ellison told them to get out, a fight ensued, with Lesher and McCrillis both later testifying that Ellison had used his walking cane as a weapon. With the two officers unable to subdue Ellison, they called in backup. Though the facts of the case are disputed, after two other officers arrived on scene, the four officers were standing on the balcony outside Ellison's apartment door when Lesher pulled her department-issued Glock and fired through the open door, shooting Ellison twice in the chest. He died at the scene.

Vincent Lucio, one of the backup officers, would later testify that at the time Lesher shot, he didn't believe Ellison represented a deadly threat to the officers on scene. Another officer, veteran detective J.C. White, would later testify that it was his belief that the department and the city had made Ellison out to be "a monster" in the wake of the shooting. Nonetheless, in May 2011, Pulaski County prosecutors ruled the shooting justified and announced they wouldn't be filing criminal charges against McCrillis or Lesher.

"[Spencer and Troy Ellison] were so credible that I didn't have any reason to doubt them," Laux said. "The facts were incredible to me. Shot in his own home? No crime, no call, not even, 'there's a suspicious person hanging around'? Just a routine sweep at an apartment complex and a man is dead because of a walking cane? Those facts are what drew me to it ... . I basically just trusted these guys, and it just seemed like an important case in a historic city. It was really the caliber of those two men, and the hurt they were experiencing. The betrayal they felt — the true betrayal."

Through Laux, Troy and Spencer Ellison declined an opportunity to comment for this story.

Right off the bat, Laux noticed a number of glaring abnormalities in the police investigation of the Ellison shooting. Lesher's husband, Sgt. James Lesher, was the head of the section that investigated officer-involved shootings at the time. Laux would eventually learn that on the night of the killing, James Lesher had picked his wife up from the crime scene and drove her back to department headquarters, staying with her for four hours until she was officially interviewed. It was one of dozens of troubling things about the investigation. For example, Laux later learned that of all the DVDs containing footage from surveillance cameras in the complex that were collected as evidence by the LRPD, only the DVD containing footage from the camera pointed at Ellison's door — footage that should have showed Lesher firing the shot that killed Eugene Ellison — was damaged. Though the LRPD use-of-force continuum, a kind of ladder of escalating force with deadly force on the top rung, stipulates that pepper spray should be employed if possible before shooting a suspect, and Lesher later stated that she'd used pepper spray on Ellison, not a single report filed in the case mentioned the odor of pepper spray in Ellison's apartment. After it became an issue in the case, almost a dozen LRPD officers submitted supplementary reports saying they had, in fact, smelled pepper spray at the scene that night. Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper and others would later confirm there was no pepper spray on Ellison's body.

It was an autopsy report, however, that revealed what Laux believes is one of the most damning bits of evidence in the case. Though the official report said Lesher shot Ellison as Ellison rose from the couch to confront officers again with the walking cane they say he'd been using as a weapon, the autopsy found that the trajectory of both bullets through Ellison's body entered his upper chest and ran the length of his torso before exiting at his lower back, as if he was bending over, on his hands and knees, or falling forward onto his face when he was shot.

"If you could only ask one question of Donna Lesher," Laux said, "it was this, 'If Mr. Ellison was standing upright when you shot him, like you say he was, why did the bullets go the length of his body? Answer that question.' Because if I shoot somebody, and I say they were approaching me standing up, and the bullets go up and down — vertical and not horizontal [through their body] — I'm in a lot of trouble. I dare say there's a lot of people doing time right now because their stories don't match the physical evidence. That's a question that was never asked of her. It was never asked of her until I took her deposition, and she had no answer for it."

In preparing for the case, Laux made what he called "a very, very big document request" from the city of Little Rock: the prosecutor's file on every fatal police shooting in Little Rock since 2005. The resulting files filled 30 packed bankers boxes. In between other cases, he started plowing through the reams of paper, learning the ways the LRPD investigated their own when a suspect wound up dead.

"I swear to God, there was not one file that I looked through that was, 'OK, that's legit,'" he said. "It was always something. Sometimes it was huge. Sometimes it was curious. But there was always something. A witness said something extremely provocative that no one followed up on. Or, 'Where's the video these guys keep talking about?' Or, 'Why didn't they dust for fingerprints?'" Laux said there are a number of troubling themes that pop out from the police questioning of witnesses, suspects and officers following officer-involved shootings. "Let's say someone's cousin gets blown away before their eyes. They question the cousin," he said. "You'd think the cousin is the criminal. They're hard-assed with the cousin. They're like, 'You didn't see that, right? You didn't see his hands, right? Well, I think I did. Well you said before you didn't. Now you're changing your story? Well, I didn't see it at the time ...' Treating him like an asshole. What they try to do is, they try to rule out that any particular witness saw the victim's hands at the exact time of the shooting."

Laux said that what the witnesses don't realize about a conversation like that is, it's a sort of de-facto deposition, which Laux believes is designed to insulate the officer from responsibility should the shooting ever be the subject of official scrutiny or a lawsuit.

"Sometimes these people are barefoot and still have bloodstains on them," he said. "They literally saw someone blown away an hour and 40 minutes ago. Now they're being threatened with charges of perjury. They tend to not be the most sophisticated citizens. The cops know where they live. It's a terrible situation. Fast-forward to the officers and it's like night and day. Open questions, vague questions, no follow-ups."

In October 2011, Laux and the Ellison brothers announced they would be filing a federal civil rights lawsuit over the shooting of Eugene Ellison. Over the next five years, Laux would spend over $200,000 and untold hours on the case, deposing almost every officer or city official who ever came near it. After years of back and forth between the parties and thousands of hours of work, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller refused the city's request to dismiss the case. The city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it, which allowed the Ellison brothers' lawsuit to go forward. On May 6, 2016, the Friday before the case was set for trial in Miller's court, Laux announced his clients had reached a historic settlement with the city that included a $900,000 payment, an apology to the family and the installation of a bench dedicated to the memory of Eugene Ellison. The city refused to admit liability in the death of Ellison. An undisclosed settlement reached on April 27 with the owners of the apartment complex where Ellison lived when he was killed pushed the total awards in Ellison's death to well over $1 million.

Even though the settlement benefited both Laux's pocketbook and his practice, he said it's an expenditure of money, time and resources the city could have easily avoided. "If they had told Spencer and Troy, 'We're mortified by what happened. This is a terrible shooting. We're not going to arrest her, but we're going to discipline the shit out of her and she'll never be on the street again, and can we make a $10,000 donation to the U.S. Veterans fund?' those guys would have said yes and turned the page. That's the kind of guy those guys are. But instead, they spent all kinds of money fighting this. They created all kinds of discord and division fighting this ... . They wound up giving $900,000 anyway and suffering a black eye, and made me a folk hero of sorts, deservedly or not. They created me. Now they're bitching about me. But they created me."

$415,000

Laux eventually sued over two other LRPD shooting cases: the July 2008 death of 25-year-old Collin Spradling — who police say was killed after he pointed a gun at them, though a witness said that at the time he was shot, police had him on the ground with both hands behind his back — and the November 2009 death of Landris Hawkins, a mentally ill man whose family called police after Hawkins put a knife to his throat and threatened suicide. Hawkins was shot four times, 98 seconds after the first officer arrived on the scene. Laux settled the Hawkins case. The Spradling case is still pending.

In the summer of 2014, Laux was contacted by the family of Bobby Moore, which was frustrated after two mistrials and an announcement by the Pulaski County prosecuting attorney's office that Josh Hastings wouldn't be put on trial for a third time. In April this year, arguing before an all-white jury, Laux won a $415,000 personal judgment against Hastings in the case. "I've never had an all-white jury before and certainly never in the Deep South," Laux said. "To be able to get them to see the light and focus on what's right and what's wrong is very important to me. I was very proud of that."

Sylvia Perkins, Moore's mother, said that she believes her family would have never been able to reach a successful conclusion in their case without Laux's help. She believes part of the reason Laux is successful is because, being from out of town, he isn't part of the Little Rock system. "Mike Laux don't know nobody here," Perkins said. "He works for his clients. He don't work for himself. He don't work to make himself look good, he works to make his clients feel good. ... When I got into the civil suit, there was a lot that I heard and found out that I didn't know nothing about from the other trials. Mike showed me a lot. He put a lot in my face that I feel like was hid from me. I fault Little Rock. I fault the police department."

Laux said Perkins is a very special client who reminds him a lot of his late mother. While Bobby Moore was a different kind of victim than Eugene Ellison, Laux believes Moore didn't deserve to die for breaking into cars.

"No one likes that. That's a total breach, and Bobby did that. That's what he was doing. I've had cases like that with clients before, with clients who weren't doing good stuff," Laux said. "But he was 15 years old. On the one hand you say, 'What the hell is a 15-year-old kid doing out there?' Which is a legitimate question. But we all do the best we can with the resources we have. Sylvia was working 65 hours a week. She was the woman who cleans up your hotel. She did the best she could with her boy."

These days, Laux has only a handful of cases pending in Chicago and California, where he splits his time. The lion's share of his work is in Little Rock. While he said Little Rock is full of fine civil rights attorneys and more than its share of excellent African-American attorneys, he sees being headquartered elsewhere as an asset. "If you really take racial injustice to the mat here, no holds barred, the way you should advocate for your client, and you happen to be an African-American lawyer, you can run into big problems," he said. "I believe that I am invulnerable to a lot of the pressures that can be placed upon the great, well-intentioned black lawyers in this town. ...

Socially, politically, all of the above." His current caseload includes a civil suit filed in August over the shooting of Little Rock resident Roy Richards, 46, who was killed on Oct. 25, 2016, on E. Eighth St. by LRPD Officer Dennis Hutchins with an AR-15 rifle during a drunken altercation with Richards' uncle, Derrell Underwood. Though the official report claims that Hutchins fired the fatal shots because he feared for Underwood's life after seeing Richards pursuing his uncle with a rifle — a rifle that turned out to be a BB gun — Richards' family, including Underwood, contends that at the time Richards was killed, Underwood had already gone into his house, locked the door and had gone to a back bedroom to wake a sleeping relative. Video from LRPD cruiser dash cams shows Hutchins and another officer arriving on scene without even their headlights on, much less blue lights and sirens, then approaching the scene in the dark. Though the actual shooting isn't captured on the footage, the audio is, and no verbal command or announcement of the officers' presence can be heard before the fatal shots were fired.

Another high-profile case Laux has pending is a First Amendment-based suit on behalf of Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen, who was stripped of his ability to hear cases associated with the death penalty by the Arkansas Supreme Court after Griffen participated in a 2017 Good Friday vigil at the Governor's Mansion, which saw Griffen lay down on a cot while members of his church and protestors with anti-death penalty signs stood nearby. The vigil happened the same day Griffen had ruled against the state in a claim filed by the drug supplier McKesson, with his ruling temporarily halting a raft of executions scheduled by the governor. Though initial news reports said Griffen was emulating a condemned inmate on a gurney, the judge has since said he was actually acting in solidarity with Jesus, with the Governor's Mansion chosen because of the similar role played by Pontius Pilate in the crucifixion.

Griffen said he chose Laux to represent him in the case because Laux is "the real deal," and is carrying on the work of longtime Little Rock civil rights attorney Rep. John Walker (D-Little Rock). Griffen believes civil suits over police shootings, like those filed by Laux, have an important role to play when internal investigations and criminal trials over questionable police shootings bear no fruit.

"The civil remedy does allow oppressed people who have been victimized by abusive and homicidal police conduct to recover what damage has been done to them," Griffen said. "Eventually, taxpayers and voters ought to get tired of having part of their revenue stream being used to basically defend and to pay damages for abusive and homicidal conduct. This is money that is being spent in the name of the public for conduct that the public has every right to detest. I think eventually people ought to say, 'We can figure out how to stop this. If we have to fire some folks, we can fire folks until they learn how to not get sued.' "

Griffen said the $900,000 settlement in the Ellison case should send the message that people who have been victimized "are not going to tolerate this kind of conduct." He said he's seen no evidence that it's a lesson the city has learned yet. "There is something systematically wrong with the way the city of Little Rock does policing that cannot be cured by business as usual," Griffen said. "You can't keep doing the same thing you've always done, expecting different results. So, I think these lawsuits and these recoveries show that people are fighting; secondly, that the fights are going to be waged seriously; and third, that the fights are going to succeed. The question is whether or not the Little Rock Police Department is going to get the message and change their ways."

A Theory of Everything

Here's news that should send a shiver through the powers that be: Mike Laux, having forged friendships and relationships here, has considered moving his growing family to Little Rock. He's been on TV enough now that he gets honest-to-God "Rocky" style shouts of encouragement while walking down the street, with people rolling down their windows to shout and honking their horns to give him an attaboy. He's been coming here for seven years now, and he has seen the city develop an energy to it like Austin or Nashville, becoming what he called a "complete place," full of aspirations, dreams and talented people, ready to bloom. But he also believes that energy, and attempts at healing the city's racial divisions, is being held back by an old guard who doesn't really want things to change.

"This place could pop like nothing if you took the shackles off of it," he said. "People don't like to do business where there's corruption. People don't like to do business where there's bad vibes and bad headlines. I feel like maybe in a generation, it'll be different, but it's like there's this old claw that won't quite let go." That claw, Laux said, belongs to a select few grasping at power, squeezing tighter as it slips through their fingers. He believes that struggle touches every facet of life in the city. Call it Mike Laux's Theory of Everything.

"It's about control," he said. "If you want to talk about an overarching situation that affects everything — Wendell Griffen, the LRPD, Roy Richards, I suspect the [Little Rock School District] — it's about controlling resources and power. ... Everyone can feel it percolating — diversity. But this place is stifling that diversity because I think it's threatened by it."

While Laux believes breaking that stranglehold is a complicated puzzle, he said it could start with truly changing things at the LRPD, including requiring independent review of police-involved shootings by an outside agency, possibly the Arkansas State Police, with civilian input.

"I've said to [LRPD officials] so many times in depositions: 'If you trust your training, if you trust your people, if you trust your curriculum, if you trust your officers, why would you be adverse to independent review? If you've trained them the way they're supposed to be trained, if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, why not say, 'Bring it on'? But it's a power thing. They don't want to relinquish that power."

Another piece of the puzzle, Laux believes, would be the city admitting fault and moving to atone for mistakes when the evidence clearly shows a police shooting has gone wrong. During the Ellison case, Laux said, he told attorneys for the city as much, and tried to convince them that a protracted legal fight could only deepen the city's divisions, whereas offering an apology and settlement would help heal them. It's an argument he's prepared to make again in the Roy Richards case.

"If the city apparatus as it were really wanted to make a statement and really wanted to signify something," Laux said, "they should come out and say, 'This was a bad shooting, and we're sorry, and we want to make it right.' Not only is that the right thing to do for the family and the right thing to do for that officer, but do you know what a political boon that would be for them? Do you know how refreshing that would be to this city?"

By fighting every lawsuit over a police shooting tooth and nail, Laux said, Little Rock further alienates the black community, making African Americans feel more adversarial to the police and divorced from ownership of their city. "Citizens need to feel like they have a stake in the game," he said. "Again, it's all inter-related. If you don't feel like you have a stake in the game, if black folks get killed and nothing happens, you're not going to feel like you're a participant.

If you don't feel like you're a participant, then who gives a shit? 'I'll vandalize anything, I'll steal from anyone, I'll jack anyone.' I really feel like that about the city as a whole."

As for his practice, Laux is keeping track of police shootings in Little Rock. He's currently doing research on a number of shootings that have crossed his desk and will be filing more suits in the future, trying to dig deep enough into the city's purse that officials finally get the message that things need to change. He believes he owes it to a city he has adopted as a second home. "We're talking about universal rights in my opinion," he said. "So I'm not going anywhere."

Thorn in the LRPD's side