Juror Number 5

Wow, I'm really on a roll with this blogging thing recently. I'm just overflowing with opinion and ideas right now. :)

Unless you were under a rock or had your head up your... you would know that last week the Michael Jackson verdict came in. Jackson was aquitted of EVERYTHING! I understand that the number one charge was Jackson supposedly holding the boy and his family against their will. Kinda a crazy charge and I can see a not guilty there. I can even see not guiltys on the molestation charges if the evidence wasn't there. Charges 7-10 were what really got me. Those were charges pertaining to serving alcohol to minors. I think the evidence clearly showed that Jackson served "Jesus Juice" to his young friends on more than one occasion. It just seemed like the jury was afraid to convict this guy of anything.

That brings me to my point in this blog. The jury. I've recently started to dislike our judicial system and how juries play a role in it. I know some of you are saying right now, "well the verdict wasn't what you wanted so you blame the jury and dislike them." Understandable, but here is some evidence. Tonight (June 20) the jury in the Mississippi Civil Rights Murder case came back after ONE hour...ONE! and said, "sorry, but we are split 50/50." The judge was like, "are you crazy? Take the night off and you got work to do tomorrow." This case dates back 40 years and evidently the first time this Baptist minister who alledgedly coordinated the murders of three civil rights activists he was cleared by a hung jury...11-1. The one who didn't convict him said "I just can't convict a minister."

Juror number 5 in the Jackson case is a 79 year old grandma, who apparently is know considereing writing a book...note to lady, your 15 minutes are up...In the interview following the decision, she was the one who said the turning point for her was when the boy's mom (who you gotta admit is strange herself for letting her child stay with Jacko) snapped her fingers at the jury. Her quote was something like, "you don't snap your fingers at me, lady." Here are my thoughts on that: Great! A decision was just made/a turning point was determined NOT because of evidence, but because the witness snapped her finger at you! Same with the Mississippi man's trial years ago. The evidence was obviously enough to convince 11 jurors of his guilt, but he walks because one just can't stand to send a minister to jail. Note to that person, the law is the law, whether you are a minister or an average joe.

It seems more and more, jurors (especially in high profile cases) are there for their own cause (a book, interviews, etc.) and make decisions that are not based on evidence, but feelings. Maybe that is just the result of having humans, with human faults, making these decisions. I like a jury better than just the one judge making a decision, but maybe we need to change a few things. One would be to let the jury hear the news, read the paper, etc. Closing them out from the world I don't think is good on their psyche. Second, I would say that instead of having a decision made with a unanimous vote maybe we can have like a 2/3rds majority be okay for a decision. This would rid us of those jurors who just want to be a pain/be different/be famous. On the flip side I could be way off on this point, just something that is bugging me right now. Later

China's New Medium

This weekend I went to Chariton to pack up some stuff and also catch some high school baseball/softball games. One was a team coached by a buddy of mine from Lineville-Clio and the other was some Lineville students playing for Mormon Trail in softball. Remember, L-C has no baseball or softball teams. It was nice to see some Lineville people and talk to them.

Anyways, on the way home this morning I was listening to the Kim Komando Show. Kim is a radio talk show host who doubles as a tech "know-it-all." She gives advice on everything from computers, the internet, high-grade televisions, you name it- she explores it. It really is an interesting talk radio show, especially for a time slot like Sunday morning.

One section of the Komando show (by the way, you can check her out at www.komando.com- she's also pretty attractive) was about China and the internet. The Chinese government wants to open up the internet to its people so they can "explore." Obviously, like any good communist country they want strict limitations. For instance, if a Chinese citizen goes to the Chinese version of Google and searches, oh let's say, "Democracy" they would get a page saying that that search cannot be executed. Another example. "MSN Spaces" is an MSN product (also available here in the states) that always for website creation and blogging. The MSN Spaces China-style does not allow certain words to be blogged. Those words are "Freedom," "Democracy," and various other anti-commie words.

What Kim Komando was debating/shocked about is that MSN even provide this service (with "word blockers" and anti-Google searches) to the Chinese government. As I was listening to her discuss her anger at MSN doing this for a communist country all I could think about was "it doesn't suprise me." Our country all too often likes to spout off words like freedom and democracy without really knowing what they mean, or compromising our beliefs in those ideals for the greater ideal in this country...MONEY. President Bush is a prime example. He may use "freedom" and "democracy" more than anyone since Thomas Jefferson, but look at Iraq. There is no "freedom" of choice in oil companies. The good Bush friends at Halliburton have been awarded a large majority of the contracts for work over there. Iraq has held their elections, but their first prime minister person was somebody appointed by us, same as Afghanistan (and that person is still in power, Karzai). Seems to me that when it comes to the almighty dollar and power...freedom and democracy get comprimsed alot...whether it be by a company like MSN or by our politicians.

I'm BAaaCK!

Play that intense theme music and have me entering through a smoke filled doorway because this is my triumphant return to Pardon the Interruption.

I didn't mean to be gone for so long, but after a week passed I started thinking maybe this little hibernation isn't such a bad thing. It let me collect my thoughts a little, something we all need to do from time to time. I am back in Algona for the time being and that contributed too. There was a time that my blog was the only form of letting out my thoughts. Now that I have mom, dad, and my sister here every night, I have a sounding board. It was this noon though when I checked my email and an article had been sent to me with the message "blog it up" that I thought to myself..."maybe it is time for a comeback."

So tonight I was sitting around watching the NBA Finals and thought to myself..."why am I watching the NBA playoffs?" and decided to "blog it up."

The article I was sent today was titled "Confessions of a white Christian Republican" It is James P. Gannon's (USA Today) reflections on Howard Dean's recent attacks on Republicans calling them the party of "white Christians" and how that resembles why Gannon left the Democratic party.

Gannon states he was a lifer Democrat until the party deserted him and his Christian beliefs. Now Dean, as Democratic National Party chairman, has solidified that move by acting like an idiot. Some may be shocked at this, including the person who sent me the article, but I can't disagree here. 1) Dean is an idiot. I admire his passion for politics, but he says the wrong things and attacks the wrong things about Republicans. You don't gain supporters by calling them (the Republicans) "the party of white Christians." He was elevated to this position solely because of his fundraising capablities, which are very good. 2) The Democrats, or at least a base of them, have abandoned a lot of their supporters. You can count me in that group. The Democratic party is being split in about 15 different factions right now with no solid platform, or the one they put forward is so far left that it leaves quite a few of us registered Democrats scratching our heads.

For those of you worried that I am going to go register as a Republican...don't worry, that isn't going to happen anytime soon either. As a grow more I notice that I am neither. I will most likely stay registered Democrat because it is what I grew up on and I hold the slim hope that the party will re-invent itself. An example of my not really belonging to either party is the religous issue. I'm a believer in seperation of Church and State...but I see where no matter how hard you try, your religous/moral values will have an impact on your political stances...I am against blatant religious bills though like President Bush's faith-based programs. For instance, the one-time vision of Bush to create vouchers to private (usually Christian schools) because that is an obvious breach of seperation of Church and State, giving government money to pariochal schools. But I see where an issue like abortion is impacted by religion and a bill can be passed ending this without violationg that Church and State line. It also bugs me when it seems like some politicians just use religion to gain a couple extra votes...and yes, those people usually are Republicans (especially now that they seem to control the "Christian vote"). People like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist and yes, even President Bush seem to overreact to issues in the name of "morals and values" just to gain some votes.

Well, I have rambled on quite well and probably bored/lost some of you...In conclusion, Welcome Back.