RE: "Hey Portland, Go See Stephen Chow's The Mermaid" [Blogtown, Feb 29], Erik Henriksen's review of the latest comedy from the Chinese filmmaker.

The Fox Tower was mobbed with Chinese kids going to see this on Saturday night. I think some of the PIFF-goers waiting in line for A War felt a little out-international'd.

posted by Carl


RE: "Oregon Lawmakers Vote to Strike Down Statute of Limitations in Rape Cases" [Blogtown, March 4], Megan Burbank's post about how "state lawmakers voted to get rid of the statute of limitations for first-degree sex crimes like rape, striking out the 12-year time limit for victims to file charges against their attackers."

What I don't get is how would you prove a case that is five, 10, or even 15 years old? What type of evidence will be presented—just a testimonial from the alleged victim? Is this removal more of a symbolic gesture?

posted by OnlineSearcher

From a symbolic perspective, I am all for this. From a practical perspective, OnlineSearcher is pretty much on point—unless we're talking about a statute of limitations that has expired on a case with an untested rape kit, it's extremely unlikely there would be a successful prosecution from an evidentiary standpoint, and this is problematic from an allocation-of-resources perspective.

Every alleged victim deserves to have their case heard, but prosecutors are required to assess the likelihood of conviction when deciding whether to bring cases, and time and resources are limited in our current system. Better that these legislatures should be voting to provide more resources to rape kit testing, intake training, and prosecution of new cases—the more zealous the system gets at prosecuting rape cases, the higher the deterrent factor will be.

posted by FlavioSuave


RE: "Dan Saltzman Wants to Give Developers a Cheaper, Quicker Path to Affordable Housing" [Blogtown, March 2], Dirk VanderHart's story about how "the city's housing commissioner wants affordable housing projects in two swaths of the city to be able to dodge the sometimes-lengthy scrutiny built into the city's permitting process." Saltzman's chief of staff, Brendan Finn, told the Mercury that "Dan thinks that housing affordability is an issue that we're going to be struggling with for the next generation."

Why don't you make it mandatory then?

posted by TheOnlySanePersonInTheWorld


RE: "The Mercury's Guide to 2016's Presidential Merch!" [Feature, March 2], in which Erik Henriksen reviewed wares sold by presidential candidates—including a dog bandana emblazoned with the words "Ben Carson Fur President" and "Heel. Inspire. Revive." "This dog looks very sad, which, in turn, makes me very sad," Henriksen wrote of the sad dog wearing the dumb bandana. "I wonder what made this dog so sad."

Of course the Ben Carson dog looked sad. He knew he was going to be put to sleep as soon as the campaign was suspended.

posted by AlaskanNow


RE: "Do Some GOPers Hate Donald Trump Enough to Vote for Hillary Clinton?" [Blogtown, March 2], in which Megan Burbank discussed Marco Rubio adviser Max Boot's interview with Vox, in which Boot noted that Clinton "would be vastly preferable to Trump." Conservatives voting for Clinton, Burbank writes, would be "a fascinatingly weird potential outcome."

I doubt it, considering how much she has damaged national security by compromising classified material via her personal email server. More likely they would simply not vote, or vote for a third-party candidate. Interestingly enough, there are polls that say up to 20 percent of Dems would cross party lines not to vote for Hillary. They seem to be Sanders supporters with a healthy dislike of Clinton's corporate ties and financial support.

The popular view is that the GOP is committing suicide by choosing Trump. The Dems are guilty of equal recklessness by choosing a person very likely to be indicted for mishandling classified material in her care. I'd like to know what the DNC's "Plan B" is if an indictment is issued.

Either way, it's going to be the weirdest presidential election in our lifetime.

posted by Jarhead

You're right about one thing, Jarhead—this election is already weird, and it's gonna get even weirder. You win this week's letter of the week, which means you get a pair of tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater—where, starting this weekend, they'll have Demolition Man, Sylvester Stallone's non-award-winning classic from 1993. You know, just in case you want to take a break from America's current political dystopia to see America's future political dystopia.