About Me

Name: Marmot
Location: Bellaire, TX
Biography
Loading...

Lawlessness at the courthouse

  I had the unfortunate opportunity to spend the better part of the past week at the Harris County courthouse as a juror in the trial of a man charged with sexual assault of a child.  In this case, the child was his biological daughter.  I don't want to get into the details of the allegations or testimony, as they're not particularly relevent to my point with this post.  We heard approximately 5 hours of testimony over two days, and deliberated for approximately 16 hours before a mistrial was declared when we were unable to reach a verdict. 
 
  When the trial was over I was back in the friendly embrace of my regular lodgings, I reflected to my lovely wife that I was utterly horrified by what I had experienced.  I was appalled and sickened,  not so much by the testimony given as by the behaviour of my fellow jurors.  In this case, there were eight jurors out of twelve who were utterly lawless.  To these eight jurors, the long established and cherished legal concepts of presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, were totally foreign and ungraspable concepts.  Applying reason and logic to the facts of the case were never even attempted, and all attempts to do so were met with tears and emtional outbursts about personal feelings.
 
   During deliberations, I heard the following:
  • If he were innocent, we wouldn't even be here
  • Just vote with your heart
  • If there were points brought up that are inconvenient, but they were brought up by the defense, then they should be ignored
  • He looks guilty
  • I just feel that he did something
  • Examining testimony where it contradicts itself is a "distraction"
  • Shouldn't we just trust the prosecutor and the experts?
  • Upon being directed by the judge to continue deliberations, one juror stated that we should interpret that as the Judge knowing that he is guilty and begging us to vote as such.
  • One juror suggested "horse trading" guilty votes for a "gentleman's agreement" to a lighter sentence.
  • When confronted with an obvious logical fallacy, I was told that something can mean two different things at once.
  • A lie can be a part of a larger truth
  • A juror who admitted that there was reaonable doubt, refused to vote not guilty, even though the law demands it, because it "just didn't feel right"
   Most frightening of all, four of the sentiments above came from the mouths of school teachers.  I fear for the future of the country when 2/3 of a jury, consisiting of educated people cannot divorce themselves from their emotions or apply reason and logic to reach a coherent conclusion.
Tags: Justice  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate Scorecard

Having watched the debate tonight, here are my general thoughts and specific grades.
 
  As a panel presentation, the candidates provided a marvelously articulate alternative to the policies of the Obama administration.  An apolitical or undecided voter tuning in would have heard very thoughtful answers given to generally good questions.  As a medium for swaying public opinion in a conservative direction, the event was a success.
 
   CNN tried too hard to incorporate social media, ultimately to no effect, and the either/or questions were trite and insulting to the intelligence of the audience.  John King kept making horrible grunting noises during the candidates answers, but generally, they did a good job of asking relevent questions that weren't blatantly biased or "gotchya".  All in all, CNN made a good effort at serving the needs of Republican primary voters.
 
Grades:  (In my earlier post, I included Huntsman who wasn't in attendance, and left out Santoru who was.) I'll try to recreate the field as they were staning from left to right:
 
Santorum  B- 
  Santorum spoke well, but some of his responses were not to the question that was asked.  Overall, I think he failed to provide a compelling reason or issue for his candidacy.
 
Bachmann A
   Presented herself very well. Came across as well informed, passionate and articulate.  Her response to the gay marriage question relative to New Hampshire law was a clear principled defense of constitutional federalism.
 
Gingrich  B+
   Newt never addressed his staff situation, but he was classic Newt, only more mellow.  In the big picture, I'm not sure how he helped himself with the donor base or with the top talent to run his campaign, but he provided a thoughtful articulation of conservatism, which can only help the party generally.
 
Romney A-
   Although he never adequately explained the differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, he successfully parried Pawlenty on the subject.  He was consistently the most polished speaker, and gave consistently thoughtful answers that didn't sund rehearsed or as if they were sound bites.
 
Paul B+
   Dr. Paul was much more relaxed and affable than he sometimes is, and he provided terrific explainations of the Libertarian position, even to the question of foreign policy, where we part company.  His is a worldview not often heard in the broad media and culture, and he did a terrific job of explaining it within the confines of the format.
 
Pawlenty B
   He looked weak to me when he backed away from his ObamneyCare tag.  He did a great job with the abortion question of explaining how he put his principles into practice as governor of Minnesota.  I don't think he hurt himself, but he didn't help himself that much either.
 
Cain C
   I was most disappointed by Herman tonight, as he was my preferred candidate after the South Carolina debate.  His answers were too general and too rehearsed.  When he was extemporaneous, as in correcting John King for his blatant mis-characterization of his position, he resembled the Herman Cain that I was hoping to see.  His good humour and optimism did shine through, and his closing statement about the strenght of the field was gracious and heartfelt.  That said, the field is much better for his presence, and I want to see more of him in the coming months.
 
Tags: GOP debate  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Presidential debate

   Ridgway.com has been quiet for almost  ayear and a half now.  I have moved twice in that time, and have settled into a new job in Houston in that time.  I am planning on posting much more frequently as the political season moves towards the primaries and the coming election.  With that in mind, here are my pre-game thoughts on the GOP debate this evening:
 
 While I definately have preferences at this time, I am open to (almost) all of the candidates, and am anxioust to see them on stage this evening.  One of the interesting subtexts to this debate and all of the other events that will follow is that viewers will be looking at the candidates not only as potential GOP nominees, but will also be making conscious and subconscious comparrisons between the candidates and the current president..  As a whole, I think that this is an impressive field, and that together they will likely come across as smart, thoughtful, passionate and credible alternatives to President Obama.  In that vein, I don't think that the Obama campaign can be too excited about the next six months of debates and forums.  I suspect that as the primary season draws closer, that President Obama's favorability rating will tick downward due to the breadth and strength of the Republican field.
 
  Anyhow, here is what I will be looking for tonight.
 
Mitt Romney - Can he effectively explain RomneyCare.  He really only has one shot to do this, and that is tonight.  I know that he has and likely will make the federalism arguement, but he has to address how RomneyCare differs from ObamaCare, and explain why the former works and the latter will not. 
 
Tim Pawlenty - Must explain his record of leadership in Minnesota.  I like and respect that he demonstarted the politcal courage to oppose ethanol in Iowa, and entitlement reforms in Florida.  Governor Pawlenty is never going to be Captian Charisma, but he can explain how his tenure in the Minnesota governorship delivered much needed reforms in a tough environment for Republicans.  Political skill coupled with good policy is a strong hand.
 
Michelle Bachmann - Needs to provide a unique rationalle for her candidacy.  Her conservative credentials are well known, and she is well enough known among politically active conservatives that she doesn't need to prove anything from a position standpoint.  She has a great opportunity tonight to tell people why she should be President.
 
Hermann Cain - Has the most to win.  People who know him, really like him, and his positions.  His problem is that a lot of people including a lot of Republica primary voters don't know who he is.  He needs to make the most of his limited opportunities tonight.  He also needs to explain how his career largely outside of politics qualifies him for the Presidency.
 
Ron Paul - Needs to demonstrate a real world seriousness in regards to foreign policy.  Dr. Paul is at his best when explaining economics, and issues of liberty, and often come across as a crank when the subject turns to foreign affairs.  I'm anxious to see and hear Rep. Paul this evening because he is such a compelling speaker about libertarian ideas.  His thoughts and ideas are heard too rarely, and I hope that he can reach people who have never heard him before.  That said, he still has a huge hurdle to cross with primary voters to prove his seriousness on foreign affairs.
 
Newt Gingrich - In light of the mass resignation of campaign staff last week, Newt can do himself the most good by addressing the defection directly and honestly.  He has to explain why he should be president, and why people should invest their money, time and enthusiasm in his campaign when his own staff decided to take a pass.  Newt really has to thread the needle tonight of being grounded, sensible and believeable, while sufficiently explaining a rationalle for his candidacy that doesn't come across as petty or egomaniacal.  If he succeeds, then he can conceivably stay in the race till labor day, and by then, who knows.
 
John Huntsman - Admittedly, I know the least about Governor Huntsman, and I suspect that I'm not alone.  Even though I lived in Western Colorado all the years he was governor of Utah, I was never really aware of him, at least until he became ambassador to China. So, I'm hoping to learn a lot more about him, who he is, what he's done, and what talents, skills and beliefs he would bring to the oval office.  Barring a major unforced error, I don't see how Governor Huntsman can do much to hurt his campaign tonight.
 
Dinner, then the debate.  I'll be back later to post my thoughts.
Tags: GOP debate  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »