as if nothing happens behind closed doors in coalition governments and nothing happens in the open in two party systems
as for multiple parties, if a third party latches onto a winning ideological formula to gain traction against the top two entrenched parties, then the major party closest ideologically to that third party has a choice: 1. coopt that third party's message as its own, therefore rendering the existence of the third party as pointless 2. don't change your message, and dry up and die and be replaced, like the whigs
either way, its two parties all over again
two parties is simply the fate of all democracies. its actually superior and inevitable in all democracies. heck: study mexico and japan: two party systems evolve even from one party dominant systems (that are open and submit to a fair and open contest of ideas rather than brute force)
it just happens evolutionarily: consolidation of smaller parties, and coopting of the messages of third and fourth and fifth parties that resist consolidation, until all that is left is the choice between two competing main messages on issues important to voters. since there is always an alternative choice on complex issues that is worth consideration to someone, two parties represents a stable balance. add a third party, and the two choices above play out. take away a second party, and the disparate voices of resistance congeal again into a valid second party again (in governments that play fair)
a two party system is simply the inevitable evolutionary result of politics playing out in democracies. why resist the inevitable, especially since it is superior on a number of measurements to the mess of many parties?
study mexico or japan: one part dominance has fallen apart into a healthy two party system in recent years
sure some countries are firmly held under one party dominance: but thats simply because those parties exert methods of control which artificially extend their dominance beyond the people's expression of their will. if a one party system does not submit itself to a fair contest of ideas with other parties, it is not a one party system, it is an authoritarian system that controls via coercion and force
that's about the voting system, not political parties
in fact, the most ideal situation would be two parties using a borda or approval only voting system (a range of candidates can exist under the umbrella of one party)
third parties just represent the loss of an election for whichever main political party is closest to them ideologically
in countries with a whole universe of parties, you don't get a superior system, you get chaos and coalition governments where out of pure greed for power, politicians get in bed with ideological opponents, thereby compromising their values far more than anything that exists in a two party system
otherwise, i will make a note that when i am in your neighborhood, i will point to your computer, declare that i wrote part of the os it is running, and therefore it is mine to do as i please. and then i'll take your computer
after you reclaim your computer, i guess you will be happy that that is the end of the matter. and that i deserve no punishment after the fact, for having deprived you of your rightfully owned property
i don't understand the point of a redundant set of 26 characters that does not convey any meaning besides convention. its also conventional in the usa, liberia, and myanmar to use the british imperial system rather than the obviously superior metric system. but just because a bunch of assholes do something that is obviously inferior does not mean i have to respect that. i do what is superior regardless, no matter the amount of laughter or hatred or derision
besides, i am not imposing anything on you. if i unilaterally decided to change your computer set up to only display lowercase letters, then you have every right to be angry at me. but back here in reality, the situation is simple: if you don't like my writing style, then it is perfectly ok by me that you don't read anything i write ever again
child's job description did not include the self-appointed position of deciding himself who should have access to the network configuration of a public utility. he is not bravely defending security from poor admins and petty politicians, he his protecting his own ego from the notion that other people have a rightful claim to power in what he has self-appointed as his private domain
i'm glad that he built the network and pored his knowledge into it and did a good job securing it: why does that somehow give him the right to assume final authority over it? i thought he was paid for doing a job? if i build you a door for your house, do i then get to decide when you use it? say i built into that door a good lock system, and you, out of laziness and stupidity, choose to fail to treat that lock system with the proper protocol to make it effective. ok... so the fuck what? its your fucking door, you paid me to build it. now my job is to fuck off. what childs built on the public dime is a publicly owned network
childs does not get to assume continuing final authority on that network no matter what he thinks of anyone else's capacity at running the network that the public owns. there is being attached to your creations, then there is a maniacal assumed sense of ownership of your handiwork forever more, even after you are paid for its creation
that childs does not submit to the simple truth that the network he built is not eternally his reveals that childs is a danger to security, not a protector of it
so work within the framework of democracy to improve it. but unless you have a system of government which offers less of the imperfections you describe, you have to accept the warts and work to improve them, rather than complain about the system as it is, since there is no superior system in existence
we are imperfect. therefore, the government composed of us is imperfect. it is still superior to a government composed of a class of people who assume themselves better than us, even if some of those people who think like that are in our government in a democracy
there is no class of people who decides who runs the place except for the common man. of course there is influence like money and celebrity which warps the process, but i would like you to create for me a democracy where celebrity and money do not warp the process. no democracy is perfect: it is made of imperfect men, therefore it is inescapably imperfect. that you point out to me that the democracy i live is imperfect is an observation of no value: its obvious to everyone, you are not telling us anything we do not already know, and already accept as unfortunate but unavoidable. we strive to improve it. what else can you do? no democracy will ever be perfect. and yet it is certainly better than any other kind of government you can offer me. so you embrace democracy, warts and all, or it is you who have issues, not the world you live in
just as soon as they give the cuban PEOPLE a voice in their own affairs
i respect democracies. i have no respect for regimes where a ruling class rules over the common man. simply because that regime has an agenda all of its own, and therefore does not respect the common man. only a democracy manufactures the legitimacy that a citizen of that country can respect, and therefore only a democracy is legitimate in my eyes as well, out of respect for the PEOPLE of that country on my part
concern for my fellow man does not abide petty things like tribal boundaries. i am not an american. i am a human being. this means i care about how other human beings are treated in this world. this allegiance is greater than my allegiance to any country. this allegiance gives me the moral right to oppose regimes that do not respect their own people they do not consider to have a right to their own voice in their own government
this is the only valid point of view for those of us who wish to be morally and logically coherent on questions of principles in this world
the poster you are responding to is correct. the movie was a warning about "precognition". that you walked out on it was a mistake on your part. just admit it and move on, or continue to resist the obvious out of nothing but blind ignorant stubbornness. the same bad instinct of yours that made you walk out on a movie you should have seen
now would you like to criticize the cuban government for being assholes at some point? or do you wish to do nothing but continually retry old grievances from a dead era?
at some point you are going to have to pick a side in struggles actually going on today
the reason for this is they live in democracy: their government is composed of people of their choosing. this means the american government is a legitimate representation of the will of the american people. so there's nothing to rebel against, because who is in the white house is who the american people want to have in the white house
meanwhile, in nondemocracies like cuba, north korea, china, and iran, the people are not consulted as to the composition of their government. so there is the agenda of the ruling class, and the agenda of the common man, and these are two different agendas. therefore the government has to oppress the people, because it fears the people will rebel
that's some intellectual charity for you. try to understand the fucking obvious next time. because currently, your inability to see obvious huge crimes by truly horrendous oppressive criminal regimes because you are so obsessed with prosecuting the usa's crimes only makes you look like you have some tribal hard on for the usa, and that you don't actually fight for anything like principals or a sense of justice in this world. we're glad you have a burning vendetta against the usa. who the fuck cares. when you are so blinded by your rage against the usa that you are ready to embrace far worse evil in this world, that just makes you pathetic and useless to whatever you think you are fighting for
vigilante justice is vigilante justice: no accountability. compromised positions (your brother owns the saloon that was shot up/ it was your head of cattle that was stolen/ etc). petty nepotism. corruption. a posse of yahoos acting as cop, judge, jury, and executioner is not justice
yeah, sure an improperly identified/ untried/ hastily executed cattle rustler may make for a quiet town, but its also an evil town
such that the imperfect but impartial imposition of federal justice is far, far superior. the level of injustice far, far reduced
i see you are feeding this weird mythology that governments and police are the source of criminal behavior in this world. the truth is that criminal behavior runs amok without some sort of police presence. of course a minority of police will always do bad things, but you're insane depiction of the wild west as crime free utopia until the government arrives is some sort psychotic delusion on your part
and the parallel holds, since the end of the real wild west consisted of the feds moving into lawless lands and taking over from vigilante, ad hoc systems of justice, just like this proposal. that was pretty much the historical end of the real wild west
so i'm waiting for the internet's version of "dodge city", where tourists can go and experience the vicarious thrill of driveby downloading, phishing exploits, nigerian email scams, and id theft, much like in the real "dodge city", gunfights at high noon and cattle rustling are now recreated for tourist's sake
"wow dad, i was browsing the dancing hamster website with the purple gorilla in the taskbar on the windows ME simulation, and like, i just got pwned! the simulation showed me as the payload modified the registry settings in the simulation! was it really like that in the bad old days?"
"that's right son, when your dad was your age browsing the internet, you always had your sidearm antivirus at the ready. craven desperate men and psychotic outlaws were always just around the corner, a click away. you had to deal with danger and treachery on a daily basis"
"gee dad, did you actually get an email from belarus claiming to be citibank asking for your security credentials out of concern for your security?"
"sure did"
"that's scary dad! how did the early internet pioneers ever survive in such a hostile wilderness. how did we ever make it this far?"
and always will be imperfect. the problem is in seeing the imperfections, as you do, in spite of the larger major part of the system that does actually work. expecting perfection before you will contribute to the system is a permanent impossibility, and merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of social reality on your part
the best that can be done to make the system better is that its citizens believe in it and work for a better system. the system you have is merely a reflection of the failures and problems of the society it comes from
in this regard, if the system has any problems, one of the reasons it fails is due to a reflection of the segment of the public it serves that demonstrates a profound lack of faith and a disturbing massive jumping to radically negative conclusions. endemic weakness of character such as this on a large enough scale will unavoidably affect the system in some way or another. and therefore be a self-reinforcing phenomenon with negative consequences for all of us, including citizens of good character
it is because of ignorants in the system that the system will fail us. ignorants who think much like you do. so clean up your own obvious large mental failures before criticizing that of your government, because i want the system to improve to. and i know the best way to do that is to clean up the idiocy in the society around me, some of which the system is composed
if the system has a problem, it is because of people with character weakness like your comment demonstrates
that's useful information for any prospective juror that i've never heard before: approach the bench with your answer in private. of course the lawyers will approach the bench with you, but then you only have to worry about a scumbag defense lawyer who would share private info with a scumbag defendant, which is even more rare than the cases of juror retaliation you rightfully cite as rare
that's when we got the new aspect ratios in the theatre, to get movies to stand out from television in the 1950s
then the vcr was supposed to kill the movie house. of course, the vcr/ dvd market eventually turned into a huge cash cow for the studios
and the now internet is supposed to kill the movie house
i call bullshit. with all of the cell phones and crying babies, the movie house is still going to rake in the cash. for many reasons, not least of which movies are actually better when viewed in a group (the gasps, the shrieks, the laughter, the shared experience: it heightens your enjoyment)
and now they are rolling out imax and 3D to stand apart from home theatre set ups (even though it seems home theatre set ups are now poised to get 3D). but even if they didn't do that, i have no fear that the movie house is never going to go extinct, no matter what happens in the technology/ legal landscape surrounding movie media. even if they released movies for free online at the same time as they did in theatres (not that i think that is ever going to happen) i still think movie house will rake in the dough
when you pay for a movie house ticket, you paying for, and receiving more, than just a movie: you are getting something psychologically akin to going to church in terms of being part of a community, and that means something that means the movie house will be with us for centuries
heck, sitting here near broadway in manhattan: the medium shakespeare worked in, live performance on a stage, is still alive and going gangbusters as well
but you always hear these weird simpsons comic book guy type assholes here on slashdot saying in high holy indignation that they'll never NEVER go to a movie house again because of popcorn prices/ rude people/ etc. of course, they're probably going to a movie house next week in spite of their haughty declarations, but even if they aren't ever going to a movie house again, this population of people is extremely small (however loud they are on slashdot) so they don't mean anything, there's always oddly acclimated types
and the case was a triple murder, drug related, in upper manhattan. this was being tried at the downtown manhattan courthouse
i was winnowed down to the final 20, almost an alternate juror. what surprised me was all of this personal identifying information was being disclosed, about me and a whole bunch of other people, while the defendant, ostensibly a triple murdering drug dealer, with obvious possible ties to organized crime, was sitting there hearing all of this personally identifying info about people who were going to judge him, and he was even taking notes. they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling? i never heard any further details of the crime after i was weaned out and put back in the snooze room)
so why is it, in the us court system at least, that the identity of witnesses and jurors is given so much free play with sleaze bag defendants who usually have no problem ordering hits for all sorts of reasons, not least of which the desire to avoid jail time. surely there can be more anonymity, no? i don't understand the status quo
ps: notice to anyone who wants to get off jury duty: when they ask you if you would consider other people's opinion when making up your mind, or if you would make up your mind on your own, answer (in my case honestly), that you wouldn't care what other people on the jury thought, that you would make up your mind on your own... booted
fascist propaganda is full of stories that are outright fabrications or contain only a tiny grain of truth, but are designed to amp up the emotional reaction of the reader to the max
and lo and behold: look at the reactions under this story. for all those reacting in high holy indignation: you're all fodder for fascism, as your mind is primed to overreact in kneejerk emotional ways and jump to absurd conclusions based on the sketchy details of a border dispute
none of you overreacting in this thread represent a protection from fascism. in your overreactions is a good representation of the soil in which fascism grows: jumping to angry and emotional based on flimsy sketchy evidence
Slashdot Mirror
as if nothing happens behind closed doors in coalition governments and nothing happens in the open in two party systems
as for multiple parties, if a third party latches onto a winning ideological formula to gain traction against the top two entrenched parties, then the major party closest ideologically to that third party has a choice:
1. coopt that third party's message as its own, therefore rendering the existence of the third party as pointless
2. don't change your message, and dry up and die and be replaced, like the whigs
either way, its two parties all over again
two parties is simply the fate of all democracies. its actually superior and inevitable in all democracies. heck: study mexico and japan: two party systems evolve even from one party dominant systems (that are open and submit to a fair and open contest of ideas rather than brute force)
it just happens evolutionarily: consolidation of smaller parties, and coopting of the messages of third and fourth and fifth parties that resist consolidation, until all that is left is the choice between two competing main messages on issues important to voters. since there is always an alternative choice on complex issues that is worth consideration to someone, two parties represents a stable balance. add a third party, and the two choices above play out. take away a second party, and the disparate voices of resistance congeal again into a valid second party again (in governments that play fair)
a two party system is simply the inevitable evolutionary result of politics playing out in democracies. why resist the inevitable, especially since it is superior on a number of measurements to the mess of many parties?
study mexico or japan: one part dominance has fallen apart into a healthy two party system in recent years
sure some countries are firmly held under one party dominance: but thats simply because those parties exert methods of control which artificially extend their dominance beyond the people's expression of their will. if a one party system does not submit itself to a fair contest of ideas with other parties, it is not a one party system, it is an authoritarian system that controls via coercion and force
that's about the voting system, not political parties
in fact, the most ideal situation would be two parties using a borda or approval only voting system (a range of candidates can exist under the umbrella of one party)
third parties just represent the loss of an election for whichever main political party is closest to them ideologically
in countries with a whole universe of parties, you don't get a superior system, you get chaos and coalition governments where out of pure greed for power, politicians get in bed with ideological opponents, thereby compromising their values far more than anything that exists in a two party system
therefore, he deserves punishment
what's so weird about that?
otherwise, i will make a note that when i am in your neighborhood, i will point to your computer, declare that i wrote part of the os it is running, and therefore it is mine to do as i please. and then i'll take your computer
after you reclaim your computer, i guess you will be happy that that is the end of the matter. and that i deserve no punishment after the fact, for having deprived you of your rightfully owned property
i don't understand the point of a redundant set of 26 characters that does not convey any meaning besides convention. its also conventional in the usa, liberia, and myanmar to use the british imperial system rather than the obviously superior metric system. but just because a bunch of assholes do something that is obviously inferior does not mean i have to respect that. i do what is superior regardless, no matter the amount of laughter or hatred or derision
besides, i am not imposing anything on you. if i unilaterally decided to change your computer set up to only display lowercase letters, then you have every right to be angry at me. but back here in reality, the situation is simple: if you don't like my writing style, then it is perfectly ok by me that you don't read anything i write ever again
so fuck off
suffers from the same delusions as this man:
only i alone can protect the world from itself
child's job description did not include the self-appointed position of deciding himself who should have access to the network configuration of a public utility. he is not bravely defending security from poor admins and petty politicians, he his protecting his own ego from the notion that other people have a rightful claim to power in what he has self-appointed as his private domain
i'm glad that he built the network and pored his knowledge into it and did a good job securing it: why does that somehow give him the right to assume final authority over it? i thought he was paid for doing a job? if i build you a door for your house, do i then get to decide when you use it? say i built into that door a good lock system, and you, out of laziness and stupidity, choose to fail to treat that lock system with the proper protocol to make it effective. ok... so the fuck what? its your fucking door, you paid me to build it. now my job is to fuck off. what childs built on the public dime is a publicly owned network
childs does not get to assume continuing final authority on that network no matter what he thinks of anyone else's capacity at running the network that the public owns. there is being attached to your creations, then there is a maniacal assumed sense of ownership of your handiwork forever more, even after you are paid for its creation
that childs does not submit to the simple truth that the network he built is not eternally his reveals that childs is a danger to security, not a protector of it
so what?
can you offer me a better system?
so work within the framework of democracy to improve it. but unless you have a system of government which offers less of the imperfections you describe, you have to accept the warts and work to improve them, rather than complain about the system as it is, since there is no superior system in existence
we are imperfect. therefore, the government composed of us is imperfect. it is still superior to a government composed of a class of people who assume themselves better than us, even if some of those people who think like that are in our government in a democracy
there is no class of people who decides who runs the place except for the common man. of course there is influence like money and celebrity which warps the process, but i would like you to create for me a democracy where celebrity and money do not warp the process. no democracy is perfect: it is made of imperfect men, therefore it is inescapably imperfect. that you point out to me that the democracy i live is imperfect is an observation of no value: its obvious to everyone, you are not telling us anything we do not already know, and already accept as unfortunate but unavoidable. we strive to improve it. what else can you do? no democracy will ever be perfect. and yet it is certainly better than any other kind of government you can offer me. so you embrace democracy, warts and all, or it is you who have issues, not the world you live in
just as soon as they give the cuban PEOPLE a voice in their own affairs
i respect democracies. i have no respect for regimes where a ruling class rules over the common man. simply because that regime has an agenda all of its own, and therefore does not respect the common man. only a democracy manufactures the legitimacy that a citizen of that country can respect, and therefore only a democracy is legitimate in my eyes as well, out of respect for the PEOPLE of that country on my part
concern for my fellow man does not abide petty things like tribal boundaries. i am not an american. i am a human being. this means i care about how other human beings are treated in this world. this allegiance is greater than my allegiance to any country. this allegiance gives me the moral right to oppose regimes that do not respect their own people they do not consider to have a right to their own voice in their own government
this is the only valid point of view for those of us who wish to be morally and logically coherent on questions of principles in this world
...he said with rage and without a shred of humor
the poster you are responding to is correct. the movie was a warning about "precognition". that you walked out on it was a mistake on your part. just admit it and move on, or continue to resist the obvious out of nothing but blind ignorant stubbornness. the same bad instinct of yours that made you walk out on a movie you should have seen
it was a mistake
now would you like to criticize the cuban government for being assholes at some point? or do you wish to do nothing but continually retry old grievances from a dead era?
at some point you are going to have to pick a side in struggles actually going on today
the reason for this is they live in democracy: their government is composed of people of their choosing. this means the american government is a legitimate representation of the will of the american people. so there's nothing to rebel against, because who is in the white house is who the american people want to have in the white house
meanwhile, in nondemocracies like cuba, north korea, china, and iran, the people are not consulted as to the composition of their government. so there is the agenda of the ruling class, and the agenda of the common man, and these are two different agendas. therefore the government has to oppress the people, because it fears the people will rebel
that's some intellectual charity for you. try to understand the fucking obvious next time. because currently, your inability to see obvious huge crimes by truly horrendous oppressive criminal regimes because you are so obsessed with prosecuting the usa's crimes only makes you look like you have some tribal hard on for the usa, and that you don't actually fight for anything like principals or a sense of justice in this world. we're glad you have a burning vendetta against the usa. who the fuck cares. when you are so blinded by your rage against the usa that you are ready to embrace far worse evil in this world, that just makes you pathetic and useless to whatever you think you are fighting for
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694
i say tomato
and you say tomatillo
or rutabaga
vigilante justice is vigilante justice: no accountability. compromised positions (your brother owns the saloon that was shot up/ it was your head of cattle that was stolen/ etc). petty nepotism. corruption. a posse of yahoos acting as cop, judge, jury, and executioner is not justice
yeah, sure an improperly identified/ untried/ hastily executed cattle rustler may make for a quiet town, but its also an evil town
such that the imperfect but impartial imposition of federal justice is far, far superior. the level of injustice far, far reduced
twas 5-7-5
mine was 7-9-8, yes?
troll has haiku win
technology tames the law
the law never tames technology
not for want of trying of course
i see you are feeding this weird mythology that governments and police are the source of criminal behavior in this world. the truth is that criminal behavior runs amok without some sort of police presence. of course a minority of police will always do bad things, but you're insane depiction of the wild west as crime free utopia until the government arrives is some sort psychotic delusion on your part
and the parallel holds, since the end of the real wild west consisted of the feds moving into lawless lands and taking over from vigilante, ad hoc systems of justice, just like this proposal. that was pretty much the historical end of the real wild west
so i'm waiting for the internet's version of "dodge city", where tourists can go and experience the vicarious thrill of driveby downloading, phishing exploits, nigerian email scams, and id theft, much like in the real "dodge city", gunfights at high noon and cattle rustling are now recreated for tourist's sake
"wow dad, i was browsing the dancing hamster website with the purple gorilla in the taskbar on the windows ME simulation, and like, i just got pwned! the simulation showed me as the payload modified the registry settings in the simulation! was it really like that in the bad old days?"
"that's right son, when your dad was your age browsing the internet, you always had your sidearm antivirus at the ready. craven desperate men and psychotic outlaws were always just around the corner, a click away. you had to deal with danger and treachery on a daily basis"
"gee dad, did you actually get an email from belarus claiming to be citibank asking for your security credentials out of concern for your security?"
"sure did"
"that's scary dad! how did the early internet pioneers ever survive in such a hostile wilderness. how did we ever make it this far?"
"sometimes i wonder myself son"
and always will be imperfect. the problem is in seeing the imperfections, as you do, in spite of the larger major part of the system that does actually work. expecting perfection before you will contribute to the system is a permanent impossibility, and merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of social reality on your part
the best that can be done to make the system better is that its citizens believe in it and work for a better system. the system you have is merely a reflection of the failures and problems of the society it comes from
in this regard, if the system has any problems, one of the reasons it fails is due to a reflection of the segment of the public it serves that demonstrates a profound lack of faith and a disturbing massive jumping to radically negative conclusions. endemic weakness of character such as this on a large enough scale will unavoidably affect the system in some way or another. and therefore be a self-reinforcing phenomenon with negative consequences for all of us, including citizens of good character
it is because of ignorants in the system that the system will fail us. ignorants who think much like you do. so clean up your own obvious large mental failures before criticizing that of your government, because i want the system to improve to. and i know the best way to do that is to clean up the idiocy in the society around me, some of which the system is composed
if the system has a problem, it is because of people with character weakness like your comment demonstrates
you're the problem, fool
that's useful information for any prospective juror that i've never heard before: approach the bench with your answer in private. of course the lawyers will approach the bench with you, but then you only have to worry about a scumbag defense lawyer who would share private info with a scumbag defendant, which is even more rare than the cases of juror retaliation you rightfully cite as rare
that's when we got the new aspect ratios in the theatre, to get movies to stand out from television in the 1950s
then the vcr was supposed to kill the movie house. of course, the vcr/ dvd market eventually turned into a huge cash cow for the studios
and the now internet is supposed to kill the movie house
i call bullshit. with all of the cell phones and crying babies, the movie house is still going to rake in the cash. for many reasons, not least of which movies are actually better when viewed in a group (the gasps, the shrieks, the laughter, the shared experience: it heightens your enjoyment)
and now they are rolling out imax and 3D to stand apart from home theatre set ups (even though it seems home theatre set ups are now poised to get 3D). but even if they didn't do that, i have no fear that the movie house is never going to go extinct, no matter what happens in the technology/ legal landscape surrounding movie media. even if they released movies for free online at the same time as they did in theatres (not that i think that is ever going to happen) i still think movie house will rake in the dough
when you pay for a movie house ticket, you paying for, and receiving more, than just a movie: you are getting something psychologically akin to going to church in terms of being part of a community, and that means something that means the movie house will be with us for centuries
heck, sitting here near broadway in manhattan: the medium shakespeare worked in, live performance on a stage, is still alive and going gangbusters as well
but you always hear these weird simpsons comic book guy type assholes here on slashdot saying in high holy indignation that they'll never NEVER go to a movie house again because of popcorn prices/ rude people/ etc. of course, they're probably going to a movie house next week in spite of their haughty declarations, but even if they aren't ever going to a movie house again, this population of people is extremely small (however loud they are on slashdot) so they don't mean anything, there's always oddly acclimated types
and the case was a triple murder, drug related, in upper manhattan. this was being tried at the downtown manhattan courthouse
i was winnowed down to the final 20, almost an alternate juror. what surprised me was all of this personal identifying information was being disclosed, about me and a whole bunch of other people, while the defendant, ostensibly a triple murdering drug dealer, with obvious possible ties to organized crime, was sitting there hearing all of this personally identifying info about people who were going to judge him, and he was even taking notes. they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling? i never heard any further details of the crime after i was weaned out and put back in the snooze room)
so why is it, in the us court system at least, that the identity of witnesses and jurors is given so much free play with sleaze bag defendants who usually have no problem ordering hits for all sorts of reasons, not least of which the desire to avoid jail time. surely there can be more anonymity, no? i don't understand the status quo
ps:
notice to anyone who wants to get off jury duty:
when they ask you if you would consider other people's opinion when making up your mind, or if you would make up your mind on your own, answer (in my case honestly), that you wouldn't care what other people on the jury thought, that you would make up your mind on your own... booted
fascist propaganda is full of stories that are outright fabrications or contain only a tiny grain of truth, but are designed to amp up the emotional reaction of the reader to the max
and lo and behold: look at the reactions under this story. for all those reacting in high holy indignation: you're all fodder for fascism, as your mind is primed to overreact in kneejerk emotional ways and jump to absurd conclusions based on the sketchy details of a border dispute
none of you overreacting in this thread represent a protection from fascism. in your overreactions is a good representation of the soil in which fascism grows: jumping to angry and emotional based on flimsy sketchy evidence
fucking pathetic
science makes great strides towards achieving the forthcoming zombie apocalypse