The 8 who know nothing

Reg,

Normally, I would agree with you, but the greater problem with our local jury system isn't the 10% who said they didn't know anything about what happened.  That's about the usual.  And it's not about the 45% who have already made up their mind.  Unfortunately, it's probably split about 50/50 between "Hang Him" and "Hang the Cops."

I'm more concerned with the 38% (I think I got that right) who said they couldn't put what they've heard aside, because it implies that they have also made up their minds, and diverts from the first principle of what I call "Critical Thinking" - the ability to hold two contrary opinions in your mind, and acknowledge that both are viable, until you hear further evidence.

That's the first requirement, IMNSHO, of a representative democracy.  And we seem to be losing it every day.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't think I am.

Noyinzer

Reg, I'm surprised it was only 8. I know many people who never, ever read the newspaper or even watch the news on TV, and many who are somewhat isolated from society (I worked for years in community mental health care). What is scary to me is those folks are not who I would want sitting on a jury.

The defense attorney should have no problem in getting the 8 disqualified from sitting on the jury. They are obvious liars who want to get on the jury to convict.

Myooz, I respect your opinion and you may be right about some of these folks, but it is absolutely no stretch to imagine 8 folks who wouldn't know about this incident, wouldn't know we have a new president who happens to be biracial, who don't know their a$@ is on fire. I've met them.

Noyinzer,it seems like it woul be difficult not to have been predjudiced to some extent by what has already been public knowledge in the case. I could not honestly say that I could put aside my own conclusions to this point.I think that I am able to entertain more than one viable opinion at a given time,but I am not convinced that there is more than one viable opinion in this case.

I think that a change in venue or guest jury are reasonable requests by counsel.

Mr. Henry, I might think that I know who the woefully uninformed are voting for as well, but given your political leanings, aren't you looking a gift donkey in the mouth?

" I might think that I know who the woefully uninformed are voting for as well,"

We sure know who they voted for in 2004.

myooz:

You're right, obviously, but give mugsy his joke.  "Gift donkey" was funny.

In that spirit, some Sunday reading, just for fun:

“The United States just plain doesn't like Cuba . . . . From 1962 to 1964, the CIA compiled an exhaustive collection of plans to help topple Cuba . . . . One of the most prominent plans was Operation Northwoods, a proposal to create terrorism on American soil, blame it on Cuba and thus give the U.S. a reason to bomb the living *** out of Castro.

“There are nine separate, documented suggestions for home-grown terrorism plots, and they range from blowing up an American ship in Guantanamo Bay, to sinking a boatload of Cuban immigrants en route to Florida.  One instance even proposed that John Glenn's rocket should ‘mysteriously’ explode shortly after launch, and that the entire incident be blamed on Cuba . . . .

“We should also reiterate at this point that these were not fringe groups we're talking about:  The entire operation was approved by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Nobody saw a problem with it – except President Kennedy, who thankfully realized the implications of Northwood (i.e. that punching yourself in the face as an excuse to punch somebody else in the face was not a valid military strategy) and ultimately rejected it.  Most of the documents involving Operation Northwoods were de-classified in 1997, and are now serving out their life-sentences as conspiracy theorist porn all across the Internet.”

www.cracked.com/.../153_nuke-moon-5-certifiably-insane-cold-war-projects

To which a commenter wrote:

“Worked 8 years ago didn't it?  I still laugh my ass off that people are so gung ho in calling conspiracy theorists nuts when the precedents have already been set. But f**k it.  Go America!”

These are the same people that elect one party into office over and over and wonder why nothing changes. And as far as the election of eight years ago, history, written 20-30 year from now, with be a little more open mindedness  than the heat of the hate that exists now will tell us how good or bad it was.  I don't know what that history will say and you don't know what history will say about the election of 2008.  You can say what you wish now, but time will tell about both.

Callsigntourist, that is not unprecidented, or at least a long ago conspiracy theory suggests. In the late 1800's I believe it was the US Maine that blew up in a cuban harbor, an event blamed on Spain but thought by many to be an accident at best, or thought self inflicted by the more cynical of our forefathers. In any case, the explosion led to the Spanish American war, hero status and an eventual Presidency for Theodore Roosevelt (and perhaps later for his nephew Franklin, or was it cousin...I can never recall which was FDR and which was Eleanor) and American presence in the far East via the Phillipines, much to the chagrin of the Europeons already there.There's really not too much new under the sun.

As for the conspiracy theories about the WTC, I just find them a little unbelievable. I think that there may be a little unwillingness to believe on my part, but like most conspiracy theories they seem specious to me, as though they select an outcome then make the facts conform to it.I think that a strong debater can make anything look true, as long as it mostly is. All good lies are mostly true, but they're still lies.

mugsy:

“Not too much new” . . . you’re surely right.  I wasn’t trying to say anything about anything with that.  It just struck me as entertaining at the moment.  I do believe, however, that, while little may be new, the frequency of there being seriously more than meets the eye is higher than before (whenever before was).  I think more people were once more high-minded in trying to do the right thing, and more could be taken at face value, than is true anymore.  (How naïve is this?)

I also think it’s necessary to distinguish between full-blown conspiracies (or theories) and everyday “more to it” politics, and maybe also to figure out where outright lies/propaganda fit in.  I do not believe we know all that we should of what was known, done and not done prior to 9/11, but . . . the Pentagon was hit with a cruise missile?  The government blew up the towers?  I put those chances mathematically at zero.  

The Moon landings were faked?  The same.  (Even better:  The landings were real.  They found proof of aliens and are covering that up.)

JFK?  A different story.  I don’t know what happened and I’m not a nut about it.  But the official version leaves too many very good questions.  Let the conspiracists have at it.

Any other good ones?  

I'm not sure about the before and after highmindedness. I think that there may now be less people on both sides of the aisle that place the country above their political party, and if so, that's an enourmous problem. I also think, though, that we tend to think of history in a better light than what really happened. My favorite, president Reagan, had Iran-Contra. Carter was Carter . Ford pardoned Nixon and Nixon had Watergate. LBJ micromanaged Viet Nam into oblivian and the conspiracy theorists love to link him to the assasignation of JFK. JFK had the Bay of Pigs. Ike seemed to escape cleanly, and Truman's legacy survived even the nuclear age, but FDR was accused of premanaging Pearl Harbor to enter the war. The list goes on and on.

There are things that must remain secret, and sometimes fire has to be fought with fire. Where we draw the line on things we don't even know about seems to be a matter of trust in our leaders, and that trust has been eroded for quite some time now, again on both sides of the aisle.

Those eight no-nothings might be onto something, they probably sleep a little better.

OOPS...that should have been KNOW-NOTHINGS, not no-nothings. Given my grammatical errors, maybe it's actually nine.