Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Perception, Reality and Truth
I think that mentality really has permeated all over the place and is at the root of just about everyone's sense of judgment.
This is an absolute truth.
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid
So true...I think its a tribute to the fundamental flaw in democracy, people as whole are poor decision makers...
did Reiser just have a lawyer that sucked that bad?
This would be a tribute to the fundamental flaw in Capitalism...buy yourself justice?
But given the inevitable nature of man, maybe that really is a good thing
Curious you say "inevitable nature of man" ...thats a spot on spiritual concept, the inherent evil within mankind.
RE: Perception, Reality and Truth
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid.
Yeah, when it's really the conservatives who are unpatriotic and stupid.
Just kidding. Well, only half so. I do find many conservative ideas to be irredeemably un-American. Especially when it's religious conservativism, not political conservativism.
What I do remember is that he seemed very sleazy ... the type of person that should not have been a cadet nor a future officer (assuming USMA didn't change him into a better person).
I think that's an interesting example. But I do think that, in that particular venue, it's not unreasonable to use standards that are somewhat different than the civilian legal standards. If his fellow cadets judge that he "should not have been a cadet nor a future officer", and they further judge that he's not the sort that will be changed into a better person by the Academy, then maybe he really doesn't belong there. That seems a reasonable place to evaluate and dismiss some undesirables. Military courts are just different than civilian ones.
But I do think there are a lot of civilian courts - and this Reiser case may have been one - where that kind of decision-making occurs, and it's clearly inappropriate there.
When it happens at such base, simple levels, ridiculous judgment is inevitable when the stakes are higher.
And that's the core of the problem. I really don't care if you end up with a crappy car because you feel you have to "buy American". But I docare if we all end up with a crappy president because you chose the guy it seemed like you could have a beer with (a common response to why Bush over Gore eight years ago - um... he's a oil millionare, idiot, you've got nothing in common).
I feel just a teeny bit sorry for an adult who's too stupid to go to a doctor to get an easily curable disease treated, but I'm beyond appalled when a family lets their eleven year old daughter die because they're convinced Jeebus will fix her.
The kind of mentality we're talking about here is distressingly common, and if I might indulge in a little equine necroflagellation, it's depressingly well correlated with religious belief. If you can't see through that shit, you're going to be in trouble when it comes to the real world.
RE: Perception, Reality and Truth
What disgusted me, however, was the remainder of the cadets found him guilty because they "felt he was guilty" and from his sleazy demeanor.
What you fail to realize is that most juries are swayed not by facts, but by emotion. Juries are made of people who are not formally trained in law, but rather they are simply 'ordinary' people. Preponderance of the Evidence is a fantasy; otherwise innocent people who fail to have the 'high powered' lawyers wouldn't go to jail. Lawyers (and I have several as friends0 are taught how to play on the emotions of juries; it's part of their bag of tricks. In truth, it is not evidence, but emotion that rules the heads of most juries. Much worse is the fact that, because of the preponderance of 'CSI' shows, juries have been asking more and more for forensic evidence of a type that only exists in the realm of TV Fantasy. Without said evidence, they often acquit--even though other evidence says otherwise.
I am not saying that people are too 'stupid' to understand, but rather that the majority of people are ruled by emotion and not fact.
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid.
Certain aspects of more 'liberal thinking' are, in my mind, quite unpatriotic--chief among those is the behaviour we recently saw in Berkley, where citizens were physically BARRED from entering a recruiters office by protesters. Other issues involve Energy Independence--most alternative technology won't be commercially viable for at least a decade--and it will take a decade beyond that before it pervades every aspect of society; and Health Care--Hillary is telling me that if I refuse to particpate in HER plan, she'll garnish my wages, even if I already pay into my own plan. There are numerous other items too.
You see it here when atheists are told they are the most immoral of the bunch just because.
Let's see..do any atheists here agree with abortion? pre-marital sex? drunkeness? Gay-Marriage? While certain of these are 'illegal in certain circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behaviour, you are acting in an immoral manner, and continuing in the behaviour makes one immoral--by the moral compass I believe in. When my mother grew up in the 1930's it was all immoral. When my brother grew up in the 1950's it was all still immoral. In the 1970's when I grew up only a couple of things on the list were still immoral, now only one is considered 'bad'..not immoral, but 'bad'. I've already put forth in a previous posting that there are no grey areas, so I'm not going there. Suffice to say that immorality is immorality; it is not re-defined as we age as a culture.
RSS
Perception, Reality and Truth
This verdict is a tribute to the failure of our system to look at a person independent of our perceptions of them and to judge them based on material fact.
This makes me think back to the Honor Code boards that were used to expel cadets from West Point. I remember one occasion when I was a member of the board deciding whether or not a freshmen had committed an honor violation. The charge had something to do with either documentation of sources or perhaps plagiarism. That part, I really don't remember. What I do remember is that he seemed very sleazy ... the type of person that should not have been a cadet nor a future officer (assuming USMA didn't change him into a better person). Anyway, despite the sleaziness, he presented a decent case and the evidence that he had committed the honor violation was very weak and subjective by the end of the trial. The next step was for the board to deliberate and I think I was one of two cadets that dissented, saying he was not guilty based on reasonable doubt. What disgusted me, however, was the remainder of the cadets found him guilty because they "felt he was guilty" and from his sleazy demeanor. Granted, I felt the same thing ... but that's not what our decision was supposed to be based on. I remember that case well because it made me extra cautious to sit on my hands and not get in trouble at USMA because now I saw you were guilty prior to the trial, guilty during the trial and short of some miraculous divine halo of light shining down upon you ... guilty pretty much no matter what simply because the board wouldn't have been called if you weren't guilty.
I think that mentality really has permeated all over the place and is at the root of just about everyone's sense of judgment. You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid. You see it here when atheists are told they are the most immoral of the bunch just because. When it happens at such base, simple levels, ridiculous judgment is inevitable when the stakes are higher.
So I wonder, given the sheer lack of evidence ... did Reiser just have a lawyer that sucked that bad? And for that matter, say he had a good lawyer. We like to look at the legal system with disgust thinking the lawyers are gaming juries, etc. But given the inevitable nature of man, maybe that really is a good thing (if he/she's your lawyer).
View Full Discussion