There are very few shows, outside baseball games, that my wife and I watch together. Last baseball offseason I watched all of Breaking Bad, but only when my wife was in bed asleep as she refused to watch it. She, on the other hand, watched The Bachelor (or Bachelorette, whichever one it was) with her friend, usually at her house.
So when I told her I was ready to watch Making a Murderer and asked if she wanted to watch it with me, I was fully expecting a "no thanks" and would be able to watch when she went to bed. Well, much to my surprise, she said she'd give it a shot and was instantly hooked.
That was good and bad, I thought.
Good in the sense that it meant I'd get to watch a show with my wife.
Bad in the sense that she doesn't tend to watch shows as quickly as I do.
And with each show being an hour, I thought there was a decent chance I'd be able to finish the 10-episode series by late February. But much to my shock, she's been really good about wanting to watch. We watched two episodes on Friday, two more on Saturday and one and a half on Sunday (I really appreciate the Panthers blowing out the Cardinals so I didn't miss anything there.)
So with the understanding that I'm a little more than halfway through the show, here are two thoughts I've had about it.
First, I would be a terrible witness. Knowing I'd face the threat of perjury for potential misstatements, I'd be hedging everything I said.
Lawyer: "Mr. Martin, does 2+2 equal four?"
Me: "Well, I've been taught that and it seems to be the case, but not being a trained mathematician, I'm not sure I can say with certainty that is the case."
Lawyer: "You don't know if 2+2 equals four?"
Me: "I think I do, but I'm not willing to risk my freedom over something like that. There was a time if you asked me if Pluto was a planet and I said 'yes,' I'd be right, but then it changed and now it's not. How do I know what mathematical concepts are true and what might change? So I'm reasonably confident 2+2 equals four, but as I said, I can't say with certainty."
Lawyer: "You're excused."
The other aspect of the show that's caught my attention is the portrayal of the local television news media. They don't come out looking all that good in this case, at least through the 5.5 episodes I've seen. Not that I didn't already know that local television news can be sensational for the sake of viewers, but seeing all the different clips about this one case crystallizes just how bad it is.
I've got a couple friends who work in television news and I know they work hard at what they do. It's just that the format does not lend itself to hard-hitting analysis, especially when you're given 60 or 90 seconds.
And now the articles I found interesting over the weekend:
Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and the New Dark Age: The fundamental trait of an advanced society is not the sophistication
of the vehicles in which its citizens travel or the consumer products
which are or are not readily available. Rather, it’s the ability for
people to communicate and transfer knowledge and information to others
in an efficient system.
Who Poisoned Flint, Michigan? - Obviously this story has captivated me as I keep reading and linking to it, but it's important.
The National Review Makes Its Case Against The Republican Party - I, likewise, find the Trump candidacy fascinating.
Thanks for reading.