Nightingale

If you release GJ testimony after a conviction, and then something comes to light and the original verdict is thrown out, you've just potentially contaminated the entire jury pool with inadmissable evidence. Take a high profile case... Scott Peterson, for example, and let's play pretend... If there had been a grand jury indictment in this case (there wasn't), and the grand jury heard testimony that Scott Peterson had a violent personality, was rumored to have participated in two other unrelated murders, and a neighbor thinks he might have beaten up his mother, none of that would be admissible in a trial. It all violates the rules of evidence. But, hearsay and a lot of other stuff is admissible to a grand jury. So, say Mr. Peterson is indicted and convicted. The grand jury testimony is released, and is all over national news. The entire USA believes Scott Peterson is a Really Bad Guy. Two years later, the prosecutor is charged with prosecutorial misconduct, the officers admit to lying on the stand (Rampart Scandal, anyone?) and certain important evidence is found to have been planted or fabricated. At this point, it's realized that the prosecution did not, in fact, prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. Peterson is granted a new trial. The removal of the tainted evidence and testimony hasn't proved that Mr. Peterson could not have committed the crime (no exoneration by other DNA), but there isn't any evidence anymore to prove that he did. Now, remember, the entire USA has heard about Scott Peterson participating in two other murders, beating up his mother, and generally being violent in nature. These are the people that are going to be interviewed to participate on the next jury. They've heard inadmissible evidence, and the danger here is that they may convict him again, not on the current evidence, but on the basis of thinking he's a Really Bad Guy and belongs in jail, whether or not he really did commit the murder in question... because, after all, he's a violent guy who kills people and beats up old ladies. There's a reason we don't allow juries to hear this kind of testimony... but in this case, they heard it on the nightly news. The prosecution doesn't have to do much, because the media has already made their case for them. He's convicted again, dies in prison, and thirty years later, the murder is linked to a serial killer, and Mr. Peterson is exonerated. Testimony in front of a court, even a grand jury, is given a lot more weight than some wacko on the evening news chatting about his buddy being violent. If a reporter tells the public what official court documents and transcripts say, the public will give that more credence than they would information that isn't "official."

I think the only time I'd help someone parallel park is if I saw something they couldn't (small child/animal behind them below trunk level) or if they asked. Otherwise, let them muddle through, and with practice, they'll get better.

There's a lawyer down here that did the divorce proceedings for my friend's mom. Included in the divorce "package" was an agreement that both parties got certain concessions if they attended a year of family counseling (he got a small break on child support, she got the car). My friend said that her parents (who'd been making everybody's life hell) managed to learn some coping skills so they didn't put their kids in the middle of their issues. Apparently it was a deal that was brokered by the lawyers actually working together because both parents were really worried about their youngest daughter. Since the whole thing started, the kid had been in and out of mental hospitals for attempted suicides. It's probably really rare to find two lawyers who are willing to work with each other and their clients to make something like this happen. The usual response when counseling is suggested is "other party won't go." but if you dangle a carrot in front of both noses, in this case it worked. Even with that, this was more of a mediation thing than a ruthless court battle (probably would've been a ruthless battle if not for the youngest kid's issues), and the people who could probably benefit the most from the counseling would be the ones that are out for blood in the courtroom. I guess this is one case of a lawyer being able to look out for the "belonging" need, but the situation where people are really willing to learn how to get along and not put their kids through hell is probably pretty rare.

Sorry if I was unclear... I didn't mean so much the fighters themselves, as the general population backing the war. If a war is so incredibly unpopular that the people don't back it at all, the leader isn't going to stay in power very long. It's up to the leader to convince the population that the war is a good idea, and fear is usually used to do it.

I think that the box looks a lot like a libertarian form of government, as it's the only form of government that would give individuals the flexibility to live lives of their choosing. I think the only way for everyone to get along is if governments butt out and allow people to direct their own lives. It's the only way for everyone to maintain their own philosophies without stepping on the philosophies of others. In order for us to have world peace, I think the biggest thing people have to accept is that it is not their place to control how others live their lives. When people can live their lives and stop trying to control how others live, then we might have a shot at getting along. People by nature are control freaks. They want to control themselves and their surroundings, including their neighbors. I think realizing that the actions of their neighbors (short of causing others harm) are simply none of their business will go a long way towards getting along. You don't have to like what I do, but you do have to let me do it, just as I may not like your decisions, but I have to accept them because they're yours and not mine. If we can get that philosophy accepted on a world scale, I think things will start to work out.

Abby and Britty don't have two heads. They are two girls who share one lower half. They're really amazing kids. Each one controls half the body, and they somehow manage to coordinate things like riding a bicycle, even though Abby controls one leg and Britty controls the other. They're sixteen years old now... as if being a teenager isn't hard enough.

But they'll fight wars over whose education & what communication it takes. The relationship is not commutative. Relativism tolerates other belief systems, but most other belief systems reject Relativism. You'd have to conquer them first. But, if you truly make an effort to understand other belief systems, while you may not agree with them, you will understand how others can follow them. Understanding and education, by their nature, bring tolerance. If you truly understand someone, it's difficult to hate them enough to kill them. It's the whole "walk a mile in their moccasins" thing. The KKK used to be a lot more powerful, and now they're consdered ignorant fools that are to be laughed at rather than listened to, because an understanding has occurred between people of European and African origin, and we've figured out that we really aren't all that different. If the Muslims and Christians had understood why each side wanted to be in Jerusalem, and undersood why the other side considered which sites as sacred, maybe they would've found a way to work it out. If the German people truly understood the Jews, they would have understood that the Jewish people represented no threat, no matter what drivel Hitler was spouting. When you understand something, even if you disagree, you have an understanding of their perspective. Once that occurs, people spouting hatred and fear have no power.

Personal disagreements between rulers may spark the conflict, but it's fear and lack of understanding that gets people to follow those leaders into battle. You can't have a war without people willing to fight it. Hitler could have as many issues with Poland as he wanted to, but he couldn't have a war until he could convice the German people to allow him to lead, and the German army to follow him into battle. He did this by fostering fear of a threat, and advancing the idea that he could do something about that threat. He made people scared and then offered to remove that which he'd taught them to fear. Pope Innocent III could hate the Ayyubid dynasty as much as he wanted, but until he managed to convince a bunch of knights that they were a threat, the fourth crusade couldn't have happened. Leaders may have issues with other leaders, but ordinary men seldom have issues with other leaders that are strong enough to make them want to kill. A leader can't have a war until he's convinced his people that there is an enemy, and that is done through fear and lack of understanding.

It'll be communication and education that ends war, not violence. Violence on a mass scale is usually a product of fear (WWII) or a lack of understanding of another point of view (the crusades).

LOL. If that were the case, you'd have people addicted to karate class too, and ballet, and pretty much any activity where you're in a group setting.

LOL. I don't understand the feigning illness thing. I don't like being the center of attention, and I don't usually like being fussed over. I'm more likely to pretend I'm fine when I'm really sick. If I'm just a little sick (head cold, paper cut, etc...), I'll whine about it a bit, but when I'm really sick or injured (broken bone, sprained ankle, flu) but have stuff I want/need to do, I'm good at pretending I feel fine, unless it's to the point where I physically just can't manage (four days of food poisoning followed immediately by a really nasty flu leaving me too dizzy to get out of bed...I did actually call my parents for help during that one). Feigning illness for sympathy is stupid, but I do admit that walking on a broken bone for days before admitting that the foot was more than "a little bruised" and going for an x-ray is equally dumb.

Seems to me that kids raised in an extremist environment tend to end up exactly the opposite of what their parents expect. Just in my own life, I've seen: Children of hippies ending up corporate lawyers Children of athiests ending up finding religion Children of strong conservatives ending up ACLU members Children of born-again Christians ending up Wiccan Children of academics ending up high school dropouts Children of people afraid of risk ending up jumping out of planes (that'd be me) I think it's that so much parental pressure comes from a single direction that sooner or later, the kid has to push back or roll over. Most of the kids I know pushed back. YMMV.

I think it's a good idea. It's annoying to see runway clothes that nobody except models and actresses can actually wear. Nothing wrong with having a fashion show where you show what the fashion will look like on real people. Maybe it'll get designers to stop designing women's clothing that only fits women who look like little boys.

This is one of the problems with gender classification... people who are transgender/intersex can fall through the cracks in our system. So, here you've got someone in a male body who is psychologically female. I'd bet the situation for her in prison isn't safe. So, do they send her to a woman's prison? Somehow that doesn't sit right either if she's still biologically male. So, they give her the surgery and put her in a woman's prison where she'll probably be a lot safer, or they don't give her the surgery and leave her in a male prison where she'll be in danger from people who don't understand people who are transgender. People get very freaked out by someone who is different, and in prison, that kind of freaking out can be deadly.

Ever tried El Jimador anejo?

The lack of a paper trail with the new voting machines is the reason I'm voting absentee.

If you need help, call me. =)

My mom used to comment that my thighs were fat. Nevermind that I was working out six days a week and had less than 10% body fat, and what she was looking at was actually muscle from about 30 hours of karate every week. It was so frustrating because I knew I wasn't overweight, but she judged me by size rather than by health. I just kept hearing "your thighs look fat" no matter what I was wearing. To this day, I don't like to wear shorts or short skirts; it makes me feel self-conscious, and I hate shopping.

If you're interested in trying the Perris wind tunnel, maybe we can split a block of time?

I'm assuming the kid is a juvenile, as he's in high school. He SHOULD be arrested on assault charges, and better he learn now, while he's a minor, than later when he's an adult and has a chance of spending a lot of time in prison. After he's an adult, he can apply to have his juvenile records sealed.

Try making the ramen with the beer, it's much more interesting that way. I will borrow your guinness cookbook, then. I'll eat cheap food, but I won't drink (or cook with!) cheap beer.

When someone stole my photo, I emailed their web host and explained that the site was using copyrighted images without permission, and that I demanded the images be removed immediately. They emailed me back and asked me to prove it. I sent them a link to my site, which has "all content and images copyright Kris Koenig, 2005. Do not use without written permission" across the bottom of every page. The next day, the photo was gone from that website. If there's no copyright notice on the original site, email them and ask them to put one.

It's good to know that you haven't been that hungry in the last ten years. LOL. the only thing in my fridge is beer, and the only thing in my cupboard is ramen. I just hate ramen.

Ramen. "Best used by July 12, 1997" ROFL. That doesn't just mean I've had the stuff for ten years, but also that I've managed to bring it along on at least three moves in three counties.

A national day of mourning, yes. A national day of relaxing at the beach, no.