At Reason, Julie Stewart of Families Against Mandatory Minimums goes head on against Bill Otis, the guy who never met a defendant who wouldn’t benefit from a sentence of life plus cancer. And she rips him a new one.
Over the past two decades, Bill Otis has become the Paul Ehrlich of criminal sentencing reform. He is always certain in his convictions and nearly always wrong. Moreover, like Ehrlich, Otis likes to scare the public with predictions of certain and impending doom, and he is immune to feelings of embarrassment or humiliation despite being proven spectacularly wrong over and over again….
In fairness, my issues with Bill Otis aren’t sanitary and academic. I think he’s a dishonest, disingenuous, dirty sack of shit, who panders to the angry and fearful with distortions, ignorance and prejudice. Why Otis chooses to take this path is beyond me, but for people like Julie, and me, this isn’t some game to screw people for fun and self-aggrandizement, but real people with real lives, real families, real suffering. I don’t like Otis.
So Otis responds to Julie’s personal but substantive attack:
I think it unbecoming and unwise to get caught up in this sort of thing. If you hold a controversial position, you can expect some heat. And if you spend all your time answering your critics, you’ll never do anything else. You’ll certainly abandon any hope of making your own points. Accordingly, with the exceptions noted below, I am not going to engage with Ms. Stewart. (If she seeks a live debate with me, that would be another matter).
I’m quite sure she is sincere. But, for reasons stated in hundreds of things I have said on this blog and elsewhere, I believe she is in error.
Classic Otis. If he can’t manipulate the discussion, he manufactures some excuse to run and hide from it. It’s “unbecoming,” a fascinating concern for the poster boy for mudwrestling.
That people who hold “controversial positions” expect “heat” is nothing new, and it might be meaningful except that Bill Otis is a liar. The only time he will “answer his critics” is when he’s absolutely certain they will treat him gently, so he can play dirty and they won’t be able to fight back. When he’s up against someone who will call out his bullshit, he makes up an excuse and runs away. Like a schoolyard bully.
This is what cowards do. And make no mistake, Bill Otis may be smart, he may be manipulative, he may even be sincere in his own perverted way about his “controversial position.” But he’s a coward.
And Julie Stewart made him run away, hide in the corner, curl up in a quivering ball and weep like the little cowardly baby he is. Because that’s what people like Bill Otis do. Hey Bill, you got beaten by a girl, Bill. And we’re laughing at you, Bill, because the tough bully got his ass kicked by Julie Stewart and ran away crying.
H/T Doug Berman
2 quick edits needed in 3rd para: “. . . angry and fearful with distortions, ignorance the prejudice.” (ignorance and prejudice) & “. . . some game to screw people fun and self-aggrandizement, . . .” (people for fun and)
Thanks. Fixed.
I got the captcha of 3-3. Which equals Stingray?
And, I do think this is the first time you have used “a dirty sack of shit”.
Bubbling Buds of Flavor.
This is a tune you should have in our play list!
Have a weekend… You need one.
Well, that’s only because a “big back of dicks” seemed wrong.
What’s with the “you got beaten by a girl” comment. It’s an intellectual battle not a physical one. Why even bring her gender into it?
Because I’m being childish and goading him, since he’s such a tough guy with people who won’t fight back.
I probably shouldn’t have, but I did. I’m sure someone will beat me up for it, and if so, I’ll take my lumps for my choice.
Beaten up by Julie – gets your point across adroitly.
Being beaten by a girl – denigrates girls.
Still if your goal is to goad him until his vagina weeps, you go.
Have a great weekend 🙂
E
I was still behind my choice until this comment. Now, you’ve convinced me I was wrong, and that it sends the wrong message. I’ve stricken it (though left the strike=out in the text so Otis can still point to it and call me “unbecoming”).
Didn’t Otis once say your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries?
Seriously, you do realize he’s going to seize on the “beaten like a girl” language to justify dismissing you, right?
Could be. Sounds vaguely familiar.
Seriously, do you think if I hadn’t included the “beaten by a girl” language, Otis wouldn’t find some other nonsense to avoid dealing with someone he can’t bully? Did he not dismiss Julie by calling her post “unbecoming”? If it’s not the “beaten by a girl,” it would be something else. He’s a bully and a coward. Any excuse to avoid confronting critics who won’t let him get away with his sleaze will do.
I guess the point is that in the context you made the comment it made it seem like Julie’s argument should intrinsically be easier to defeat because she is a girl.
I’m not the PC police, and don’t really care, was just noticeably weird and out of place coming from you since your writing is usually so god damn good and artfully done.
Yes! I too wish to dive down the rabbit hole. Greenfield! How dare you put schoolyard taunts in your post taunting Bill Otis. This is the internet. Have some sense of proportion.
Sometimes my childishness goes a bit too far, or too tangential. I think this is such a time, internet aside.
See my reply to Ehud. I’m persuaded it was a poor choice.
I knew there was a good reason I gave FAMM thousands of dollars years ago when I actually had an income.
Julie has been at this for several decades and the money was well spent just to read that article. (Sorry , Scott, I don’t pay by the word)
FAMM is a far better use of donations than I am.