re. Soviet law - I took a semester-long course on the topic in the mid-80s.  On paper, Soviet law was quite enlightened in a number of ways.  Reading just the codes, one could easily believe in truth, justice and the Soviet way. 

The practical reality, of course, was a different matter.

Sveika, Anita,

That wasn’t directed at you, at least not in that way, but I’m still struggling with the parallel (between translations of texts about Cubism). It is, as Mikus suggests, a really loaded parallel. There was no justice in the USSR, but there is in America. This is not to say that America cannot be horrifically unjust; personally, I experienced the trial of a black friend in Kalamazoo and it changed my perspective forever. On the one hand, one could draw some parallels. Many have; there were speeches in the Saeima in the 1920s comparing Letts to emancipated blacks, for instance. You could find another parallel in the eagerness of some to defend, um, every drunken Lettish murderer. But—in the main? This is about belief and about the institutions, is it not? If we compare the institutions—where do you draw the parallels? If the point is that Latvians will root for Latvians in an unfair system—well, no. I don’t think O.J. cuts it and I think most Latvians aren’t very fond of wife-beating murderers. If you look at that type of reaction—attitudes towards “snitching,” say—then there isn’t any comparison, ever. Most Latvians think criminals should be punished, whether they are Latvian or not.

Vysu lobu,
/P

This conversation is really taking me back!

The parallel was never perfect… that’s why I was saying it was in perception.  I don’t think the Letts in 1920 were like emancipated blacks, neither do I think 1980s blacks were experiencing what Latvians were under the Soviets.  But that aside…

First of all, I know a number of people cheering that day really did believe that O.J. was not guilty… that it really was the cops and racism, etc.  Those are the ones who had the better parallel - that the “white system” worked for an unjustly accused black man.  I think the similarity if a Soviet jury (imagined jury - let’s just say “court”) had actually done justice to a Latvian person who was unjustly accused of a crime by Soviet police and Soviet prosecutors who were going full out to convict, is quite strong.

The parallel that you don’t seem to like is - the black folks who were cheering for O.J. who figured he WAS guilty, but were still glad a black guy was freed.  Does that translate to a few/some/many Latvians would have been happy to see a Latvian go free under the Soviet system even if the Latvian were guilty?  And there I don’t know… I wasn’t in Latvia during Soviet times, and by now have figured out that trimda Letts often think quite differently.  (And we were comparing it to Soviet times - not Latvia at the actual time of the O.J. trial)  But I imagined there would be quite a few who would celebrate that a system that was generally unjust actually freed a Latvian, even if he wasn’t a good example.  That the implications to the people were more important than the conclusion regarding the particular person.

I’m not saying the U.S. system vis a vis blacks was equivalent to the Soviet system.  But I think the cheering you heard was from those who did see it that way.

Since Mikus wants someone to fess up (and wouldn’t be nice if he at least once specify what he is accusing the alleged fesser up of doing?), I’ll confess to being the originator of that argument.
To answer Peteris its not about the specific comparsion between the two systems or even of any specific case. Iits about the perception of the individuals of each system.  In that case I see very little difference between how the average Latvian might have perceived Soviet justice and how the average African American perceived the American justice. I am not even arguing whether or not those respective perceptions were accurate since its obvious that each system and each case is unique. It was about the psychological reaction to the verdict and most whites claim that they couldn’t understand how anyone could possibly cheer such a verdict. Frankly its not that hard to understand if you try to look at it from an African American perspective.
This in no way means that I would have been my reaction. Like I said. OJ did it if you ask me.

Andrejs

Before Anita fesses up - I think Mikus really needs to get that monkey off his back and fess up first. His fess up is likely bigger than Anitas.

PS. Fess up.

Vidas

Despite the “urban legend” of racism being the primary factor in the OJ murder trial acquittal , the sad truth is that political correctness doomed the trial from the start . An incompetent chief prosecutor and her worthless assistants blew it! The sorry little bench mouse failed to control the trial and some mediocre defense lawyers became “stars” for years to come.

Anita replies:

Mikus, you’re trying too hard to argue.

No, Anita you are the one “hard”, the jaded.

The point is that the judge can indeed over-rule jury decisions. Whether this over-ruling is later upheld can only be answered by subsequences. (—-Well, at least you partially acknowledged the distinction between the jury and the judge!)

Mikus E.

P.S. Shameful though that you might ever be considered as an “JD”.—- Especially by your history of “hate” directed posts.

So then Anita predictability insists?...

You certainly weren’t in the hallways of the Cook County courthouse at the moment of verdict.

Hmmm, didn’t the hallways of old Virginia “ring” of the same sounds when they decided to declare war on the “north”.—-A war that was very wrong and a war that they later lost?
...No Anita, her nation did not approve of that “hallways” decision.

P.P.S. Whether Anita realizes it nor not, she will always make my point. BTW, ...so please still fess-up!

P.P.P.S. Vidas though defends?:

I think Mikus really needs to get that monkey off his back and fess up first. His fess up is likely bigger than Anitas.

...And here I thought you knew of the “real” Anita‘s, Andrejs‘, and… “old” posts!
(Vidas.. Sadly, the only thing that I can ever possibly fess-up to, is the fact that I didn’t bring this up before.—-For I should had very early verbally noted “what was going on”. )

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

Don’t make me get my vorpal sword!

Sorry can’t resist. Well. I can. But I choose not to. Guilty I guess. Of something.

Andrejs

Chapman: Trouble at mill.
Cleveland: Oh no - what kind of trouble?
Chapman: One on’t cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.
Cleveland: Pardon?
Chapman: One on’t cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.
Cleveland: I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Chapman: [slightly irritatedly and with exaggeratedly clear accent] One of the cross beams has gone out askew on the treadle.
Cleveland: Well what on earth does that mean?
Chapman: *I* don’t know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that’s all - I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain [Palin] enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles [Jones] has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang [Gilliam] is just Cardinal Fang]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*...no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.

[The Inquisition exits]

Chapman: I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals burst in]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Cardinal Biggles] I can’t say it - you’ll have to say it.
Biggles: What?
Ximinez: You’ll have to say the bit about ‘Our chief weapons are ...’
Biggles: [rather horrified]: I couldn’t do that…

[Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again]

Chapman: I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals enter]

Biggles: Er…. Nobody…um….
Ximinez: Expects…
Biggles: Expects… Nobody expects the…um…the Spanish…um…
Ximinez: Inquisition.
Biggles: I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
Ximinez: Our chief weapons are…
Biggles: Our chief weapons are…um…er…
Ximinez: Surprise…
Biggles: Surprise and—
Ximinez: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! ... our chief weapons are surprise…blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church. ‘My old man said follow the—’
Biggles: That’s enough.
[To Cleveland] Now, how do you plead?
Clevelnd: We’re innocent.
Ximinez: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]

Biggles: We’ll soon change your mind about that!

[DIABOLICAL ACTING]

Ximinez: Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless—[controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Cardinal—the rack!

[Biggles produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Ximinez looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger]

Ximinez: You….Right! Tie her down.

[Fang and Biggles make a pathetic attempt to tie her on to the drying rack]

Ximinez:Right! How do you plead?
Clevelnd: Innocent.
Ximinez: Ha! Right! Cardinal, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn.

[Biggles stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]

Biggles: I….
Ximinez: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can’t. I didn’t want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.
Biggles: I…
Ximinez: It makes it all seem so stupid.
Biggles: Shall I…?
Ximinez: No, just pretend for God’s sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!

[Biggles turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack]

[Cut to them torturing a dear old lady, Marjorie Wilde]

Ximinez: Now, old woman—you are accused of heresy on three counts—heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action—*four* counts. Do you confess?
Wilde: I don’t understand what I’m accused of.
Ximinez: Ha! Then we’ll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch…THE CUSHIONS!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Biggles holds out two ordinary modern household cushions]

Biggles: Here they are, lord.
Ximinez: Now, old lady—you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly—*two* last chances. And you shall be free—*three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Wilde: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Ximinez: Right! If that’s the way you want it—Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!

[Biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture]

Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn’t seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Ximinez [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch…THE COMFY CHAIR!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Zoom into Fang’s horrified face]

Fang [terrified]: The…Comfy Chair?

[Biggles pushes in a comfy chair—a really plush one]

Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

[They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair]

Ximinez [with a cruel leer]: Now—you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. [aside, to Biggles] Is that really all it is?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Ximinez: I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess
Biggles: I confess!
Ximinez: Not you!

P.S.

Guilty baby I’m guilty
And I’ll be guilty the rest of my life
How come I never do what I’m supposed to do
How come nothin’ that I try to do ever turns out right?

You know you know how it is with me baby
You know, I just can’t stand myself
And it takes a whole lot of medicine
For me to pretend that I’m somebody else

No surprise here , as Andrejs is jaded as well…

Mikus E.

P.S. Anita though now threatens with her “vorpal sword”...
—- Either stay off the excess wine (...sure, everyone normally wants to live longer) or in the near future, only use the synthetic version of the “secret” of wine.

P.P.S. My, who else will “lie” for them?

Mikus asks

“P.P.P.S. Vidas though defends?”

Defends ? Defends what ?

”...And here I thought you knew of the “real” Anita‘s, Andrejs‘, and… “old” posts!
(Vidas.. Sadly, the only thing that I can ever possibly fess-up to, is the fact that I didn’t bring this up before.—-For I should had very early verbally noted “what was going on”. )”

So, Mikus - what’s going on then ? You regret not bringing up what before ?

I know the “real” Anita and Andrejs - no air quotes required. We see each other regularly. We met for dinner just last week to send home a good Latvian friend visiting from Riga.

What concerns me is that you accuse Anita of “hate” directed posts - by posting your own “hate” directed posts Mikus ?

It’s very much still you Mikus who needs to fess up here.

Vidas

So intent in “lying” for them?!!!

Mikus E.

Which lie or lies is it that you are accusing me of? Seriously. I’d like to know. The memory ain’t what it used to be. I’ll save it for my records so I’ll remember the next time.

If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.- Mark Twain.

Andrejs

Andrejs mocks?:

The memory ain’t what it used to be.

Hey, hack into some “modern” Russian site and you will find exactly what you don’t remember!

Mikus E.