Missing the Paigow (et al.) [sniff]

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally posted by Fugee
(Quantities on ice wine are usually small; maybe the Canucks want to keep all the good stuff for themselves.)

Can't be true, we got GWNC?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mr. Man
1. W looks good.
2. SW to Oakland about $160? American to SFO for $190.
3. Weather is cloudy.

Did you all take a vow of silence at home or something?

And ncs, I'd think you'd have noticed I don't even CARRY a wallet. Or a purse, generally. Plus it could not have been me because that person had his cell phone with him.

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I thought Chef was in DC?

I've been known to be in New York every now and again.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive

2. Where close to the business district of SF should a person stay? Any good Starwood joints? W? Westin? Or any boutiques the person should try instead? Assume the person lacks the budget for the Mandarin Oriental. Assume also that the person's business will be paying for one night and the person and his or her companion might just stay for a second night and foot the bill (or use Starwood points!) themselves.

The W, if available, is the way to go.

For boutiques, the Kimpton hotels in SF aren't bad. The Triton (on Grant below the Chinatown gates) is fun with good character.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Today as I was standing waiting for the light to change, a short man beside me was chatting on his cell phone and he said "I just want to make love to you and stick my 12 inch dick in from behind." He said it so mechanically I think that he was not actually talking on his cell phone and just walking around saying shit like that to get attention.

Shit. Oversold again.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by Fugee
Ice wine is yummy dessert wine. I read an article recently that talked about the good Canadian ice wine but that it was hard to find inthe US. (Quantities on ice wine are usually small; maybe the Canucks want to keep all the good stuff for themselves.)

You need better Canuck friends.

Or to come visit me. I have a couple bottles we can finish off together.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sort of poll:
[LA Story]

It's LA.

Next to, perhaps, Kuwait, LA seems to have the most formalized form of class hierarchy that I've seen in a very long time. This has nothing to do with layability. It's where she was on the strata (and clearly, not working the Starbucks on San Vicente).

[Fugee]

Originally posted by c2ed
Or to come visit me. I have a couple bottles we can finish off together.

I'd love to visit sometime, but that would put me in the same area code as my crazy uncle. He hasn't made oblique threats against my mom or aunt in awhile but he's none too fond of me after I had his doctor haul him in to see if he posed a danger of harm to himself or others.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Fugee
And when I first saw the trailer, I hoped Kline would be Clouseau and Martin would be Dreyfuss.

Dissent. Kline hasn't been funny since "Soapdish" and hasn't been really funny since "Wanda."

Besides, remaking any Peter Sellers movie is recockulous. What's next, Owen Wilson as Chauncey Gardiner?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
What you want is a smoking gun. It's easy to say, "You can't stand there and tell me, 'That man is racist!' so, our system works.'" It's harder to take a deeper look at the problems our system has. And when I point out that it seems fucked up that black men overwhelming seem to be the ones who are rotting in jail for no reason, you tell me, "Well, that's a system that works." Pardon me if my response is: You can suck it.

While there is much I agree with in your post, including the logical position that DNA fingerprinting should be used to the fullest possible extent on cases based primarily upon victim identifications, I cannot agree with the above. Saying trials were flawed before DNA evidence became admissible is like saying medicine was flawed before penicillin.

I really am at a loss to understand what you propose to do to make eyewitness identifications more fair to the defendant, other than taking the witness credibility determination away from a jury and giving it to a panel of critical race theorists. Yes, most criminal defense attorneys suck, and most juries are stupid and credulous. But I really don't see how that makes the judge or DA or system morally responsible for the conviction of men who were positively identified by a crime victim who apparently convinced a Batson-qualified jury and whose conviction, by apparently being upheld on appeal, was judicially determined to be nothing more than a credibility determination in favor of the victim who, in turn, honestly believes s/he is testifying truthfully. Got any better ideas about how to avoid that perfect storm?

It really sucks when someone gets convicted for a crime they didn't commit. But it also really sucks when your wife or sister or brother is raped and the DA, flying in the face of 800 years of Western jurisprudence,* tells you that her testimony isn't enough to go on because the victim is presumptively incapable of successfully IDing the perp because, OBTW, she's a latent racist. I'll give you a time machine to 1982, or for that matter any point before DNA became admissible evidence in 1989 (and again I note that when it did, it did so over the objections of defense attorneys, not because of them). Can you seriously say (in 1982) that the system is flawed because it relies heavily on eyewitness identification? I'm asking seriously, because I agree with you that factually wrong trial results suck, but I am honestly incapable of imagining how it could have been done any better under the circumstances, other than grossly differential treatment of cases based on the race of the complaining victim.

I'm all for taking a deeper look at the problems the system has, especially by improving the quality of criminal representation. Maybe I'm just seeing this from a very blue part of a very blue state, but I'm not seeing a lot of shaky criminal prosecutions where the DA persists in spite of evidence of factual innocence, and you're grossly overstating your case to say they do. It's fun to think that DAs try to convict the innocent for sport, but the reality I see is that they dismiss cases when they themselves start to think the D is the wrong guy because, even if they took sick pleasure in pursuing cases where they believed the D was innocent, it's hugely fucking embarrassing to these guys to lose to a schmucky PD at trial -- it's worse than taking the heat for dismissing the case. When they're concerned about the effect of strong exculpatory evidence on their win percentage, it's simpler to dismiss the case and not count it toward their batting average.

*I suppose we could adopt the sharia law and require four adult male witnesses, but I think the experience of the Western world is that presumptively disbelieving a rape victim creates some social ills, like, um, more rape. Lucky us that DNA fingerprinting is uniquely helpful in solving cases that tend to involve leaving your genetic material at the crime scene.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I kind of wish I had brought up other issues such as failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, coerced confessions, coerced/unreliable confidential informant testimony, tainted evidence, soliciting perjured testimony from law enforcement officers, etc., in supporting an argument that some -- not all, not most, but some (and in my opinion, far too many) -- criminal defendants are "railroaded" by the system. Live and learn.

Live and learn indeed. What kind of moron would continue to live in a jurisdiction knowing that it gleefully prosecuted people it knew were innocent?

What kind of moron, Flower?

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The W, if available, is the way to go.

For boutiques, the Kimpton hotels in SF aren't bad. The Triton (on Grant below the Chinatown gates) is fun with good character.

Both the Hotel Union Square and the Hotel Dive are worth a look.

I used to love the Diva when I traveled for business.

I've also stayed at the Steinhart (which used to be called something else) which has great kitchens in each room, should you ever find yourself in SF for several days.

http://www.personalityhotels.com/

eta link

[sunnybunny]

and I need them in grey.

[dtb]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Both the Hotel Union Square and the Hotel Dive are worth a look.

I would think that naming a lodging establishment the "Hotel Dive" isn't the best way to get customers. But what do I know?

Like naming a car "Nova". Not a big seller in Spanish-speaking countries.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by dtb
I would think that naming a lodging establishment the "Hotel Dive" isn't the best way to get customers. But what do I know?

Like naming a car "Nova". Not a big seller in Spanish-speaking countries.

What about "Caliente"?