Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I got a jury summons today! Ugh....

This is topic I got a jury summons today! Ugh.... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004524

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 02-28-2006, 11:28 PM:

I know it's my 'civil duty', but I REALLY don't want to be on a jury! Has anyone every have the pleasure, or displeasure, to be on one? Granted, I haven't even been picked, and I have to appear next month so I may just be freaking out about nothing. Any comments on what I should expect, etc, would be welcomed.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-28-2006, 11:55 PM:

I got a pre-summons in the mail about a month ago that says I could be called in up to 6/1/06. Thats the penalty for being able to vote in this county [evil]

. I had to acknowledge it and mail it back in to them which I did. I wrote on it that they'd have to contact my employer in order to get ahold of me as I am out of town in Montana generally 50% of any month and I can't guarantee that I will get my mail in a timely fashion to know about it. So far we've not heard from them.....

And no... I will never register to vote again! Jury duty seems like a penalty for being able to vote. Heck... there is no politician worth voting for anyway. There are plenty of retired folk with alot more time on their hands and alot less on their minds than I for that task while it seens to be the "Civic Duty" of what ever county you live in to disrupt your daily buisness life! There are appropriate times in ones life span for this sort of civic duty and its in one's later years.

Mark

[ 03-01-2006, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-01-2006, 12:05 AM:

I served on a jury last April in a murder trial as the foreman. It was a very good, interesting experience (I was one of 13 they selected out of the pool of 50).

Posted by Stephen Frazza (Member # 2320) on 03-01-2006, 12:29 AM:

I don't think that not registering to vote will keep you out of jury duty. At least in for me in New Jersey;

How was my name selected for federal court jury service?

The names of prospective jurors were selected at random from the lists of registered voters, licensed drivers of motor vehicles, filers of state gross income tax returns and filers of Homestead rebate application forms of each of the counties allocated to the three divisions (Camden, Newark, and Trenton).

Also if you have ever been convicted of a felony you can't serve on jury duty.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2006, 12:33 AM:

I've been called to jury duty about four or five times and only picked to be on the panel once. I found it very interesting. In fact one time I didn't get picked but stayed to watch the trial anyway.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 03-01-2006, 12:40 AM:

quote: Stephen Frazza
Also if you have ever been convicted of a felony you can't serve on jury duty.

Well I can safely say I don't need to worry about that. Though I do have some facial piercings which of course means I'm a crazy drug-taking satanic worshiper who kills kittens for fun [Big Grin]

so maybe that will detract them.

In a way I would find it interesting to sit on a jury, I just wish they could pick me when I'm either retired or unemployed. I'm sure that there are plenty of unemployed people in the Peoria IL area who are in desperate need for a job that would love to do it.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-01-2006, 12:49 AM:

Here in Kentucky they can pull it from your drivers license not just your voter registration. Just go in with an Ozzy Osbourne shirt on from the early 80's. I can send you one if you need it. They'll never call you back [Big Grin]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-01-2006, 03:40 AM:

I've been called twice and served once. The first time I was called I was ineligible to serve, for the simple reason that I knew the defendant (he was the boyfriend of a colleague who was on trial for breaching the Health and Safety Act in his restaurant). As soon as I told the judge this during the selection process, he dismissed me straightaway.

The second time I did sit on an eight day trial, of someone who was accused of benefit (social security) fraud. The trial lasted eight days and we convicted her. She ran a B & B, and was accused of continuing to claim benefits even after the individuals involved had moved on. I can't say any more than that because, under English law, it is strictly illegal for a juror to discuss or even mention the facts of what went on in a jury room during the deliberations, or their personal opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, even after the trial is over.

I know that isn't the case in at least some US states, as evidenced by several televised juror interviews after the Jackson trial along the lines of 'I thought he was guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt'. The judge in the trial I sat on explained that the reason is that public comments made by a juror after a trial could potentially prejudice a subsequent retrial (or, in the case of an acquittal, a civil action arising out of the same case) if one is ordered. If we later voiced any opinion on the issue in public, she explained, we could be done for contempt of court.

I had two 'jobs' at the time (I was a postgrad student plus projectionist), and thankfully both employers had policies of allowing their staff paid time (or in the case of the university, deferral of studies with no penalty) for jury service. But I can understand that jury service can be seriously problematic for people who aren't in that position.

quote: Allison Parsons
I'm sure that there are plenty of unemployed people in the Peoria IL area who are in desperate need for a job that would love to do it.

There's been quite a debate about that here, after a research study found that high-earning professionals were more likely to be excused from jury service by claiming that they'd suffer hardship as a result. So doctors, business people etc. are repeatedly getting out of it, while the unemployed and retired form the bulk of jurors. There have been allegations that this has resulted in incorrect verdicts, especially in cases involving complex or specialised evidence (e.g. big fraud trials), but AFAIK this is more speculation than a balanced conclusion. If this demographic make-up of jurors is true then I think we do need to see a more balanced cross-section of society sitting on them, but that of course depends on employers eating the cost of that (which, in the case of highly qualified and/or paid workers, can be considerable).

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 03-01-2006, 06:45 AM:

I was called to "serve" last year. We showed up but the defendant didn't. We sat there for several hours and the lawyers showed but since the defendant didn't we got to go home. The judge issued a warrant for his arrest. The prosecutor was very unprofessional. He was not supposed to talk to us but he kept turning around and saying sarcastic remarks about the defendant being late which could have influenced people's outlook of the individual.

We were on notice for the whole week. We had to call in and listen to this recording everyday to see if our number was called. Mine was only called the one time. The part that sucked about it was I was moving to a different county in just a few weeks anyhow but they got me before I could get away. It's like they knew. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-01-2006, 07:45 AM:

Called 3 times --- Served on 3 juries - All not guilty.

In my area, you are called for 2 weeks. You sit around until all the cases for the day are underway, then you can go home.

Common Pleas court is not fun...you just sit in a room all day waiting and waiting. There is TV, but usually on a boring station. So, you get lots of reading done.

Municipal Court is another matter. We have one of the best jury commisioners in the country who goes out of his way to make sure the 2 weeks is interesting and educational. He arranges judge visits and courtroom trips. Usually in the morning, there are 3-4 courtrooms available for viewing cases that will not come before a jury during our term You get to see all of the legal system from a very upclose point of view, and the judges are VERY gracious to the jurors, allowing them to ask questions between trials or even visit chambers. Judges are very aware that jurors are voters. Real court is nothing like TV, and you get to see exactly how things work. I would go again to Municipal court any time.

Its amazing how a group of people can come together to make a joint decision, then separate and never see one another again.

Oh, pay is $12.00 per day, which barely pays for parking and lunch.

Posted by Cory Isemann (Member # 2517) on 03-01-2006, 09:23 AM:

I got one at the end of last year. Never heard anything back.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-01-2006, 09:35 AM:

Up here it is approximately every 7 years you can get called up
It is getting harder to plead business hardship to get out of it in fact once the judge warned all of the panel at selection that anyone claiming a booked vacation would get a contempt of court sumouns (the panel was during the school march break and many had prepaid vacations that they would loose) and he gave one women 5 days for trying to use that excuse
Here the data base is the voters list on city municaple provincal and federal elections, the passport applications, and income tax and property tax roles so they will find you one way or another

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-01-2006, 10:02 AM:

Did jury duty a few years ago. The defendant was a big male that slapped the piss out of a 18 year old girl at a pizza place here. It was an interesting case. The bad part was all the waiting and waiting...

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-01-2006, 11:17 AM:

Dallas County pulls its Juror list from drivers license registration. So theoretically anyone with a driver's license is subject to being called for jury duty, though a randomized list. However I have been called 3 times in the past 5 years, and I know people that have never been called.

Fortunately Dallas has a 1 trial, 1 day policy. If you are selected as a juror for a trial, you do not have to serve jury duty again for at least 6 months. Just indicate that you've served on a jury on the summons that is sent to you.

Alternately, if you are summonsed, and appear for jury duty, and are not selected, and are dismissed at the end of the day, you are not eligable for jury duty for at least 6 months.

In the US Jurors are free to talk about the trials that they sat on, as the trial is a matter of public record. There may be a few exceptions where the trial, and or outcome is sealed, and jurors on those trials may possibly be instructed not to discuss the trial after its completed. Of course the jurors cannot talk about the trial at all while it is ongoing.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-01-2006, 03:52 PM:

quote: Jason Burroughs
In the US Jurors are free to talk about the trials that they sat on, as the trial is a matter of public record.

UK trials are public in that anyone can attend in the public gallery, but video and audio recording is not permitted in any courtroom (so no actual TV coverage of the proceedings; all you see on the news is a reporter describing them from outside the court building). The judge explained the reasoning behind the 'no comment' law to us with the following examples.

Scenario 1 - defendant is convicted and lodges an appeal; between the two hearings a juror goes on the record as having changed his mind and now thinks the defendant is innocent; appeal results in a retrial being ordered; retrial jurors may have heard the original juror on TV, and so may be prejudiced.

Scenario 2 - defendant is acquitted but is then sued for damages by alleged victim, because the standard of proof needed in a civil case is lower (on a balance of probabilities) than in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt). Between the two cases, a juror goes on the record as saying 'I think he's guilty, but was not sure beyond a reasonable doubt', thereby potentially prejudicing the jury in the later civil case.

quote: Gordon McLeod
in fact once the judge warned all of the panel at selection that anyone claiming a booked vacation would get a contempt of court sumouns...

Good. Travel insurance policies should cover that sort of thing, and if a juror is so stupid as to not take one out, that's his or her problem (it probably also suggests that (s)he is too thick to be on a jury in the first place, but that's another issue).

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 03-01-2006, 07:49 PM:

I just had jury duty last November here in Dallas County. This was my first time ever being summoned and I got selected. The trial lasted for 8 days and it was boring as hell. It was a breech of contract case. It was two companies that nobody's ever heard of that had a contract together. The plaintiff accused the defendant of breeching the contract. We deliberated for 8 and a half hours until we finally ruled in favor of the defendant. Man, I thought I was never gonna get out of there. I thought I was gonna end up living at the courthouse. It was not a fun experience to say the least.

Next time I get jury duty, I'm definitily gonna try harder to get out of it. Last time, I dressed kinda conservatively. Next time, I'm gonna roll up in there sporting an Insane Clown Posse T-shirt, baggy jeans, and covered in spikes and chains. Every time one of the lawyers or the judge says something, I'm gonna bust out laughing and tell them, "Oh, I'm sorry! I just smoked a fat joint this morning. WOW! Cool hands!" Yeah, I'll be gone so fast. HaHaHa!

BTW, for my "civil duty" I got paid a whopping $6.00 a day! Parking is $3.00. So, that leaves me with $3.00 a day. I think I'm gonna buy that island I always wanted.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-02-2006, 11:10 AM:

In the US Video/Audio distribution of the trial is up to the judge. Sometimes Video is allowed (O.J. Simpson trial) and sometimes its not (Rich Peterson trial).

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-13-2006, 09:38 PM:

I have to go tomorrow. I don't think it will bother me if I get picked and have to serve for a trial for one day, but I am worried about getting picked for something like JW's trial.

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 08-14-2006, 12:37 AM:

Chris, is it a one day/one trial commitment? Can you report any day during the week?

At least in San Diego County, CA , you can report up to two weeks after the reporting date on the summons. I took advantage of this grace period when I postponed my commitment from last February to last July, only to learn in June the Monday date I selected turned out to be the first day of a conference where I had a critical support role. I reported Thursday, which was a very good thing nevermind the boring waits (and those ominous pops through the jury lounge PA each time a jury services officer keyed up the mike for announcements) as Thursdays are slow jury days due to most trials starting on Mondays. Only one courtroom needed a batch of prospective jurors (I wasn't among the group called), and that was it.

So it looks like the next time I'm summonsed (2008?), I'll plan on reporting on a Thursday.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-15-2006, 10:42 AM:

I don't know about reporting on whatever day.

My truck broke down on the way there yesterday so I never made it. I tried to call them and let them know but I got a recording that said to write a letter and tell them what happened and they will reschedule you. Great, now I get to waste another day to stupid jury duty.

My clutch master cylinder broke on me. They seem to break every three years. The piece that connect to the pedal is made of plastic and it snaps in half. So I was at least able to get off the highway, because I could still get it in gear, but if you stop there is no way to get moving again. I broke down in a ghetto part of Dallas where alot of non-whites hang out. If it would have been in a better area I would have left my truck and hopped on the bus with the free pass they give you.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-15-2006, 11:04 AM:

Chris, is your truck a GMC/Chevy?

Is there alot of mileage on your clutch?

I've seen these hydraulics break when the clutch is nearly worn out. Fords are no better. Plastic hardware sucks.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-15-2006, 11:19 AM:

95 ford f150. 160k miles

It is not actually hydraulic failure, There is a piece that connects the clutch pedal to a plunger that goes inside the master cylinder, half of it is metal and half is plastic. The plastic half is what keeps snapping. I bought it from my uncle in 2001, he told me it broke on him in 2000. It broke on me in August of 2003 and now again in August 2006.

You cannot buy that piece alone, I had to buy a whole new master cylinder. What I did this time, instead of changing the whole thing out and having to worry about bleeding the lines, was change out the plunger and linkage themselves. Just pull out a retaining ring, it slides out and put the other one in.

The last time it happened to me I was 60 miles from home and had to pay $150 to get towed home. I should buy a spare to keep in my truck at all times.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-15-2006, 11:37 AM:

A friend of mine just bought himself a fancy new 2007 Ford Mustang.

What a mistake. Freakin' Fords! I've yet to find a reliable one. [Razz]

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-15-2006, 11:52 AM:

If I was going to spend $30k on a car I would definitely get a VW, Honda S200 or a BMW. However, for the $5k I spent on my truck I think I got a good value. It has been great until this year. All of the sudden it started falling apart.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-15-2006, 01:19 PM:

Sorry you are having these problems Chris.

Brad, I have a reliable 1983 Ford. I agree with you about the new ones, though. All plastic junk, thin metal, and just waiting to die. I'll stick with old and paid for...

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-15-2006, 10:27 PM:

1979 Nissan/Datsun 280ZX, it has its problems, but overall pleased with the car. Its issues aren't really the car's fault, but poor mantanence by the previous owners. The rust is the only major issue that is the car's fault.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-16-2006, 07:02 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
A friend of mine just bought himself a fancy new 2007 Ford Mustang. What a mistake. Freakin' Fords! I've yet to find a reliable one.

My experience has been completely the opposite. The three cars I've owned are a 1981 Ford Fiesta, a 1992 Fiat Tempra and a 1997 Ford Mondeo.

The Fiesta and the Mondeo never broke down once away from home (though the Fiesta was a bugger to start in cold or damp weather). The Fiat did so three times in the four years I owned it, and cost almost four times as much in repairs and maintenance per mile as the Fords. I've owned the Mondeo since 118k miles: it is now approaching the 200k mile mark and has only ever needed routine servicing and the replacement of parts which you'd expect to wear out on a car of that age (brake discs, petrol filter, that sort of thing). On the basis of my experience so far, my next car will almost certainly be a Ford.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 08-16-2006, 01:44 PM:

Leo, on a Fiesta that age you did replace the diaphragms in the (most likely) Ford VV carb, didn't you? THE number 1 casue of difficult cold starting on CVH/OHV engined Fords of the period. I know this because I had a 1982 Escort which played up one winter.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-16-2006, 02:08 PM:

It was a Weber carb, and I don't think that was causing any problem (although I got rid of the car in '99 and so my memory's a bit hazy). The symptom was that after having been left for a while in very cold and/or damp weather, the starter motor wouldn't turn; not that the engine wouldn't catch when it finally did. I think the culprit was that the negative lead from the starter motor went to a binding post on the side of the engine block which was virtually fossilised in rust. Not even a whacking great torque wrench would shift the nut, and the guy who ran the garage opposite where I lived advised against applying too much brute force, because if the bolt sheared off, I'd be buggered. That road was on a slight hill, and eventually I took to parking it at the top and simply rolling it down the hill to start it.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-16-2006, 02:41 PM:

I got summoned for jury last week, the second time in three years. And I am not even an US citizen. Yes, I know, they pull the information off the driver's licenses, but that shouldn't keep them from knowing who is a citizen and who is not. No wonder they have such a hard time keeping track of terrorists and evil people, with all that unorganized data chaos.

quote: Gordon McLeod
once the judge warned all of the panel at selection that anyone claiming a booked vacation would get a contempt of court sumouns (the panel was during the school march break and many had prepaid vacations that they would loose) and he gave one women 5 days for trying to use that excuse

What if you can prove that you paid for the vacation before you received the notification?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
And no... I will never register to vote again! Jury duty seems like a penalty for being able to vote. Heck... there is no politician worth voting for anyway.

Mark, Mark, Mark... A lot of people died for you to have these rights, and you are just throwing them away because it is more convenient? That is sad, especially since you are among those who blow the patriotic horn the loudest on occasion. Apparently not when it is time for you to give something back to your country, though.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-16-2006, 03:03 PM:

quote: Mike what Mark said...
Mark, Mark, Mark...

Well said, Mike! Yeah Mark, WTF???? We ain't talkin' D'Cinema here! HAHahahahaha [evil]

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-16-2006, 08:51 PM:

I guess that Dolby© TeeVee-Cinema Seminar Kool-Aid was pretty powerful stuff! Folk(s) not votin' anymore, seein' bison as potential gf's .. WTF was in it!!?? [Eek!]

Ron Yost

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-20-2006, 07:38 PM:

Was on a murder jury this past spring. Very interesting. An 18 yr. old with an extensive prior record fired 4 shots into a car he thought was driven by a guy who was fooling around with his girlfriend. It was a different make car, different color, 2 door instead of 4 door and occupied by 4 people, one of which he killed. Plenty of witnesses. He told a friend on the phone while in jail that he wasn't worried if he was convicted, he said he could do the time, we convicted him and gave his wish--the rest of his life with no parole before he is 60. In Va. jurors are summoned from voting records, DMV records, property and real estate tax records. In my county you will not be required to serve more than once in 3 years. My last jury duty was in 1986.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-20-2006, 09:27 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
He told a friend on the phone while in jail that he wasn't worried if he was convicted, he said he could do the time

How did you know that?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-20-2006, 10:28 PM:

The phone calls made by inmates can be recorded for use as evidence in trials, a recorded message informs the inmate of that possibility when the call is initiated. We heard the recordings and read transcripts of 6 of his calls.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-20-2006, 11:47 PM:

quote:
WTF was in it!!??

Liquid JPEG2000... not much fizz though.... WTF did you think was in it?

quote: Michael Schaffer
A lot of people died for you to have these rights, and you are just throwing them away because it is more convenient?

Since they never contacted me they must have thought that what it would have been an inconvienience to drive back from a state or two away to perhaps serve on a jury. Around here and probably in other places you sit in a big room till there is a jury for you to serve on..... You can sit for a week and still never serve.

Yea! And don't forget that alot of people from here died to save your country just so you could be born and then come over here [Roll Eyes]

. I wonder how the Germans and French would have felt had the general anti-war attitude everyone has today existed back then..... That'd have given you the [fu]

too bad, we don't need to be there attitude.

Mark

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-20-2006, 11:52 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
The phone calls made by inmates can be recorded for use as evidence in trials, a recorded message informs the inmate of that possibility when the call is initiated. We heard the recordings and read transcripts of 6 of his calls.

That is actually what my brother does for a living. He monitors the prison phone systems and troubleshoots problems. There is zero privacy on their phone calls. Some of the guys that got arrested for the supposed London plane bombing plot are in one of the prisons that he monitors. So, if he knew when they were making a call he could listen in, so would tons of other people too.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-21-2006, 01:34 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Liquid JPEG2000... not much fizz though.... WTF did you think was in it?

Tasted more like Liquid Technicolor, but then again there was also hint of either Halogen fluid or maybe Xenon fluid, both have a similar tang. Of course it's hard to tell these days, Liquid Technicolor could be cut with almost anything. I remember a few months back sending a trainee to the theatre next door to get some, and what he brought back must have been bad. This trainee was also sent to get a film reverser, since we had a reel wrapped with the emulsion on the wrong side, which he didn't come back with, said they couldn't find it, so I had to use a MUT, such barbaric means.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 08-21-2006, 02:16 AM:

I did two "bouts" of jury service in my time in the UK, apparently if you do three then thats it, you never get called again.

I'd highly recommend doing jury service, it really is interesting, and gives you a completely different perspective on just what the powers that be are willing to put in front of a jury, and most of all, on the people you get along side you on the jury. Truly an eye opener.

On the other hand, there is a lot of sitting around doing nothing, bring a good thick book...

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-21-2006, 03:13 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Yea! And don't forget that alot of people from here died to save your country just so you could be born and then come over here . I wonder how the Germans and French would have felt had the general anti-war attitude everyone has today existed back then..... That'd have given you the too bad, we don't need to be there attitude.

Mark, Mark, Mark...you did so well for a while, giving good rational answers and then you have to fall back into village fool mode and spout this nonsense...disappointing...

I was just teasing you a little bit, but it seems that the fanatical nature of flagwaving simply can't be controlled. Let me clarify a few basic things for you:

First of all, I am not the one who was complaining that he has to fulfill unpleasant democratic duties in return for the freedoms he enjoys.
You are.
I am not the one either who would consider throwing away essential rights such as the right to vote.
You are.
So you have absolutely no business at all telling me these things. I am extremely aware of why we live in the situation we live in today. And I am not complaining about the little things we have to give back for these priviledges.
You are.

In fact, and secondly, your reply shows that you are apparently not very well acquainted with the history of your own country. Which kind of makes sense because you don't respect the basic democratic values of your country enough to pay the little price that is asked for them in return.
"Back then", a general and very strong anti-war attitude did in fact exist. That is why Roosevelt (who was the US President "back then", you probably heard the name before, even though you obviously don't know much about what happened "back then") was extremely reluctant to let the US be drawn into the war and would have preferred to influence the situation from afar with carefully dosed material help. A majority of people, including apparently Roosevelt himself, did have the "too bad, we don't need to be there" attitude - understandably. But they didn't have much of a choice from a certain point onwards, because they were actually attacked by Japan and then war was declared on them by Germany. They didn't enter the war to free Germany or indeed anybody else. Many Americans didn't want to fight Germany, many even admired Hitler and condoned his racist policies - which were not much different from racial legislation in the US "back then". They were drawn into a global conflict against their will and had to chose sides and they chose sides because they feared that NS Germany would become too strong, so they even pacted with the USSR - every bit as sinister a dictatorship - which instead dominated half the world after the war. Which was a complete failure from that point of view. You may or may not have heard about these things. You probably have, but apparently without understanding the contexts. But that is too complex to school you about here, in the yak corner of a technical forum. It does however fit in with your very fragmented view of things. But you can look at it this way - at least they got the rocket scientists and benefitted from Hitler's rocket projects so they could go to the moon, at least one more thing you can flagwave about. Without remembering that the same basic technology developed by the same people had been used to carry payloads into England.

Thirdly, the current political situation in general - which we aren't supposed to discuss here anyway, so we won't - has *nothing* to do with "back then" and absolutely *nothing at all* with your lack of zest when it comes to fulfilling your citizen duties. Apparently you think that a little flagwaving and strong language is all that is needed. In fact, you are trampling on the memory of those who died in WWII and many other wars.

Fourthly, your lack of democratic sense and understanding of history has nothing to do with these people. Neither you nor me actually took part in WWII. Both of us just happened to be born where we were born, we haven't contributed to these events at all. Our contributions are what we do in oir lifetimes, not what people did before us. I would find it pretty idiotic to claim credit for what people who lived before me did.

Fifthly, rather than spraying me with that nonsense, you should thank me for being here with my knowledge and work ethic and making a small, but valuable contribution to "your" country - a much more valuable contribution than quite a lot of actual US citizens make who just dope out or don't have any particular skills or work attitude. If you really were an actual "patriot", then you would see that and appreciate it because it is a positive contribution to the country you flagwave about.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-21-2006, 03:37 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
"Back then", a general and very strong anti-war attitude did in fact exist. That is why Roosevelt (who was the US President "back then", you probably heard the name before, even though you obviously don't know much about what happened "back then") was extremely reluctant to let the US be drawn into the war and would have preferred to influence the situation from afar with carefully dosed material help.

And also, bear in mind that the 'America First' movement was a powerful force in the pre-Pearl Harbor period, with prominent figures such as Senators Wheeler and Nye opposing Roosevelt every step of the way. It had the majority of US public opinion on its side: the experience of World War I, the huge loss of life and the economic depression which followed it (as portrayed in films such as I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang and The Roaring Twenties) had left a deep impression, one which culminated in the 1939 Neutrality Act.

So Roosevelt wasn't reluctant: in fact, judged by the standards at the time, he very much came down on the interventionist side of the fence. Rather, he was caught between a rock (Hitler) and a hard place (domestic political pressure). On the one hand he recognised the dangers of Nazism, even with the Atlantic Ocean between him and it. But on the other he had to deal with agroundswell of public opinion against any sort of involvement (not just military: there was also significant opposition to lend-lease). Incidentally, that situation was mirrored in Britain, too. As late as 1935 Stanley Baldwin stated in a newsreel electioneering item that 'I will never stand for a policy of great armament', reflecting the political taboo that any hint of getting involved in a military conflict represented. And the debate about Chamberlain's appeasement tactics in 1938 (was he a wuss, too scared to call Hitler's bluff, or did he simply have no choice because at the time, Britain's armed forces didn't stand a hope in hell against Hitler?) will run and run.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-21-2006, 03:55 AM:

Also, Roosevelt may have been inclined to help, but not to help perpetuate the colonial British Empire which was what Churchill hoped to do - in vain, as it turned out. I think it was both against Roosevelt's political convictions and wouldn't have looked good to the American public if they had risked American lives to help keep the British colonial empire together.
Ironically, it was the war which finally ended the recession and pumped up the US economy.
Whatever Chamberlain was really like - he doesn't really make a very intelligent and strong impression from newsreel footage, but that may deceive -, he didn't have a choice anyway. Militarily, they wouldn't have stood a chance - they didn't, since later they depended on massive aid from overseas simply to surivive - and politically, a lot of people didn't really mind that Hitler annexed both Austria and the Sudetenland which were after all all German speaking people. That it was basically inevitable that he would go on is now very clear to us, in hindsight, and it may have been almost as clear to people back then, but no political leader can be blamed for trying to avoid another epic war. A lot of people internationally also quietly agreed to the annexations because they felt that Germany had been made to pay too much after WWI - from which the US profited massively by selling supplies, arms, and lending money with massive interests to the European participants...Everything in this world is connected. It is just sad that most people never learn from these things.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-21-2006, 01:36 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
I am not the one either who would consider throwing away essential rights such as the right to vote.

Michael, Michael, Michael... Not having to vote is one of the greatest things about the freedom this country enjoys. I have only voted one time in my entire life... because I thought for once there might be a few good candidates worth taking the time to vote for... normally they are all worthless heaps of corrupt flesh. I'm not really sure about who you think was actually flagwaving here anyway... it certainly was not me anyway..... Just because the facts show that Boeing makes the best jets.....

Ahhh the rocket boys.... well you can thank Magnus Von Braun for going to the US troops near where they were hiding and turning them all in..... Indeed they could have all ended up in Russia!

And yes! You can kiss the WW-2 veterans asses that are still alive to thank them that you had the opportunity to even come here.

Mark

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-21-2006, 02:13 PM:

Everybody who knows history appreciates the sacrifices made by the war veterans - and indeed by those many who did not survive the war - on all sides. You may not be aware that the European part of WWII took place mostly between Germany and the USSR.

However, that has *absolutely nothing* to do with you. You haven't contributed *anything* to that struggle. I find the way you attach yourself to these people to abuse their achievements for your rhetoric purpose very sad and disrespectful.

Oh yes, you do have the right not to vote or take part in the democratic process at all. That you celebrate that, however, makes very clear that you have no understanding of what these rights mean and how difficult it was for people to attain them.

A lot of your compatriots make extensive use of the right not to vote or indeed do anything of much value with their lives. Which is their "good right". But the fact that you don't seem to care much for these basic democratic values or appreciate foreigners like me who make a valuable contribution to your country betrays that you really don't know much or care much about what happens with your own country. You are the prototypical hollow flagwaver. Your attitude towards foreigners like me also shows a lack of understanding for what actually built the US into what it is today. Although I don't actually plan to stay here for a longer period of time - there are way too many xenophobic blowhards like you here to make it a place where a hard working foreigner can feel welcome - it is people from all over the world who came here in very recent history and made their contributions. Your own last name reflects that. But of course, you don't know anything about the history and culture of your own ancestors.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-21-2006, 06:29 PM:

Michael, Leo, it's truly embarrassing that you know more about
U.S. history than the vast majority native born Americans. Our school systems have pushed history aside for things that on the surface seem more relevant. What little that gets in is frequently rearranged for political correctness.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-21-2006, 07:38 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
That you celebrate that, however, makes very clear that you have no understanding of what these rights mean and how difficult it was for people to attain them.

Michael,

You have truly gone off the deep end. You know nothing about what I know or don't know or why I choose what I do. Your contuinued posting while not knowing me in the least only allows you to keep making an ass out of yourself. Only when you walk in my shoes would you possibly ever be able to understand what I do and why.

As for Germany vs. Russia... Yes, I do happen to know much of that in very good detail... same for the V-2 program which I have spent alot of time studying over the years because I am fascinated by rockets... same for the German Atomic program at that time. Were I better at math I would have most likely been a physicist. You claim to know more about U.S. history than I do but I wonder who's view of U.S. history you know.

And yes.... I do have several WW-2 vet friends and yes I do happen to kiss their ass in thanks to them!. They know me... you don't. Have a good day.

Mark

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-21-2006, 09:10 PM:

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-21-2006, 09:58 PM:

Mike, I do beleive that Phil has an appropriate pic to express your excitment.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-21-2006, 10:11 PM:

I was actually inspired by Phil's repetitive use of the [sleep]

smiley. But I have no desire to see any photos from his personal stash. [Wink]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-22-2006, 01:41 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Not having to vote is one of the greatest things about the freedom this country enjoys. I have only voted one time in my entire life... because I thought for once there might be a few good candidates worth taking the time to vote for... normally they are all worthless heaps of corrupt flesh.

I think there is a valid argument for making voting compulsory, but including a 'Re-open nominations' option on the ballot (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the case in Australia). If that wins, then none of the first round of candidates are eligible to stand in the re-election. This has two potential advantages: firstly, it allows voters to actually make a statement that they actively don't want any of the candidates standing, as distinct from just not being motivated to make any statement at all; and secondly it makes it more difficult for small, highly motivated interest groups to hijack an election over one specific issue.

Example, recently told to me by a friend: in the last Dutch parliamentary election, a number of candidates secured the backing of a pressure group which wanted to outlaw enthanasia (which is currently legal in The Netherlands under certain circumstances). They targeted some marginal constituencies intensively, but in ways which didn't attract much media attention: putting leaflets through doors, talking to people in shops, that sort of thing. Against the background of a low turnout, all these candidates were elected. Because of that low turnout, a relatively minor issue which directly affected only a very small proportion of the electorate determined the outcome of the election. If voting had been compulsory, everyone who stayed at home and who hadn't been targeted by this pressure group would presumably have thought - if only a very little - about the major issues (education, law and order, transport, foreign policy etc.), voted accordingly and not let the agenda of a small interest group have a disproportionate effect. And I really don't think that asking someone to turn up at the polling booth (or if you want to here, you can vote by post) every few years is an unreasonable price to pay for a functioning democracy, just as giving a few days once or twice in your life is surely an acceptable price for a reasonably reliable criminal justice system.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-22-2006, 05:49 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You know nothing about what I know or don't know or why I choose what I do.

It is very obvious that you only have a very superficial understanding of recent history. Your nonsensical remarks about the general attitude in the US towards going to war in WWII show that glaringly obvious. You have a very clichéed and limited view of history. You just know about enough in order to make you feel good about the achievements of other people who came before you and made big sacrifices - including their lives - in a historical situation of crisis and to whom you can attach yourself by waving a little flag while you yourself are not even prepared to make the smallest sacrifices required of citizens living in a democracy - the very thing these people fought and died for. What a great "patriot" and democratic citizen you are!
You are just a very small man hiding behind very big things that he doesn't even understand - but hey, all it takes is the small paper flag, right?

In Germany, the vast majority of people understand what happened and why, thanks to a very thorough and very open confrontation with the events of the past which includes 3 years alone in school about the first half of the 20th century, museums and memorials everywhere, a vast amount of literature and documentaries which are shown on TV literally all the time, a very open discussion of every aspect of these events in the media and other public fora. Consequently, it is seen as almost a catastrophy that less than 80% of the population turned out for the last election. Because people do understand how important it is.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You claim to know more about U.S. history than I do but I wonder who's view of U.S. history you know.

Hahaha. More of your xenophobic BS. You probably imagine that these things aren't openly addressed in other countries. Like I said above, history is addressed in places like Germany with an impartiality and openness you can't even begin to imagine in your limited world view. In addition to that, I know many more views because unlike you who doesn't speak any foreign languages, I speak English, French, Italian, and, obviously, German, so I have access to a vast spectrum of resources that is entirely closed to you. However, that doesn't excuse that you don't even know what attitude the US public and political leaders had to joining WWII. There is plenty of information easily available about that right here, not surprisingly.

quote: Bill Enos
Michael, Leo, it's truly embarrassing that you know more about
U.S. history than the vast majority native born Americans. Our school systems have pushed history aside for things that on the surface seem more relevant. What little that gets in is frequently rearranged for political correctness.

Well, for the reasons I outlined above, in Germany, it is seen as extremely important that people are as informed as possible about history in general, and the history of the great conflicts of the 20th century in particular which have directly shaped the world we all grew up in, and which continues to influence our lives every day.
That doesn't mean that everyone there is a real history expert, of course. It also depends on how much you are personally interested. But the density of information is enough so that the vast majority of people have a fairly good and not at all sugarcoated view of these events. In fact, the confrontation with the unpleasant realities of recent history is so relentless that you actually sometimes need to get an outside view to get a more complete picture, such as from American or British sources.
Still, that is a good thing because it makes sure that people understand what happenend and why, and what mechanisms made these events possible, and how important it is for everyone to play at least their own small parts in making sure it doesn't happen again.
It does appear to me that a lot of people here in the US don't really care about their own history, why they are here, what makes the US the country it is today, what sacrifices had to be made to achieve the status they are comfortably living in, etc. That is not a good thing because a country is work in progress. There are always things which need to be improved and changed, but if the citizens don't have the faintest idea of what is going on and why - and that can only be put in the right perspective by learning from history - how can that happen? It means that the decision making power goes into the hands of just a few people, and that is, as we can learn from history, extremely unhealthy and dangerous.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-22-2006, 09:56 AM:

I was reffering to the "Boring" pic, I laughed my ass of when I first saw it.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-22-2006, 03:04 PM:

Mike, I find this discussion VERY interesting and enlightening as to who (whom?) REALLY knows WTF they're talking about, and do not find it [sleep]

.

The last several posts points out the TRUE blowhard persona of a certain participant just the same as depicted in many, but not all, of his other FT posts.

While I do not agree, I think Charles means this pic:

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-22-2006, 05:09 PM:

Sorry to bore you!

Is this more entertaining?

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-22-2006, 06:51 PM:

Oh cool, are we going to start posting pictures of our favorite gay game show talents? Lol. But yeah anyways, I'll agree with you on the blowhard comments of that participant. [Wink]

And mike, nice cartoon! [Wink]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-22-2006, 08:08 PM:

[sleep]

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-22-2006, 10:29 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
Michael, Leo, it's truly embarrassing that you know more about
U.S. history than the vast majority native born Americans. Our school systems have pushed history aside for things that on the surface seem more relevant. What little that gets in is frequently rearranged for political correctness

Bill,
I thought exactly the same thing..The sad part is that I, as an American, know so little about American Histroy that I can not discount the comments of anyone above as to their relevance or truth, in fact.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-23-2006, 12:24 AM:

I didn't think it was boring, but I recalled that the pic is far more funny than a snoozing happy face. That pic AND the other boring pic. BTW, how many of those do you got? Don't need to show them all, just a number will do.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-24-2006, 09:42 AM:

quote: Jason Black
The sad part is that I, as an American, know so little about American Histroy

I agree that US schooling is way behind most but I also believe that all of us are very interested in certain aspects of US and World History and we all learn and know what aspect(s) we want to know about. Face it, most of it is pretty boreing..... [sleep]

. And we are all busy with whats going on today... not yesterday.

Mark

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-24-2006, 10:29 PM:

quote:
quote: Bill EnosMichael, Leo, it's truly embarrassing that you know more about
U.S. history than the vast majority native born Americans. Our school systems have pushed history aside for things that on the surface seem more relevant. What little that gets in is frequently rearranged for political correctness

Yes, this is true. Take WWII for example, the only thing they focus on in public schools about WWII is the Final Solution. They won't even call it the Final Solution, though. I know the word holocaust makes it sound worse. I am not trying to justify what happened, but you shouldn't be biased when teaching history. The only thing they really teach about it is "Hitler hated the Jews." Ok, why did he hate the Jews? Why did the German people allow this to happen? They don't address these questions.

The same thing with the civil war. "The north fought the south to free the slaves." No they didn't, they fought the south to preserve the union because they did not want to have to pay tariffs on raw goods shipped from the south. Slavery was just a side issue. Lincoln himself said that if keeping slavery legal would end the war that he would. They don't tell anyone that stuff, they just say "Lincoln believed it was wrong to have slaves." Of course he didn't think that at all. I wasn't taught until college history that the majority of slaves were bought from African royalty. I was also never taught that more slaves went to the Caribbean islands than America. The reason for that was because they were taken care of in America and treated relatively decent as opposed to just letting them rot and die because they could buy more.

My point is, Bill is right. If I ever end up with kids I will think before letting them go to public schools. This is a problem with democracy, it allows your dumbest people to make the decisions. In other words, stupid people elect stupid politicians to decide what is taught in our schools rather than, I don't know, scientists or historians; ya know, smart people.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2006, 12:35 AM:

quote: Chris Hipp
In other words, stupid people elect stupid politicians to decide what is taught in our schools rather than, I don't know, scientists or historians; ya know, smart people.

Hurray! There is a smart person out there on this thread... Thats exactly why I won't vote. Now if only those smart folks were running for office... but hey... they are too smart to be doing that [Big Grin]

.

Mark

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-25-2006, 04:49 AM:

quote: Chris Hipp
This is a problem with democracy, it allows your dumbest people to make the decisions. In other words, stupid people elect stupid politicians to decide what is taught in our schools rather than, I don't know, scientists or historians; ya know, smart people.

While I will not argue that for various reasons (mostly political) there are many uneducated people in the US, your statement that stupid people elect stupid people that decide what stupid stuff is taught to our stupid kids, leaves out many important details regarding how this happens.

Since a majority of eligible people in the US do not actually vote, by your assertion that only stupid people elect stupid people, then the majority of the US is actually the smarter, but for some insane reason, they do not vote. If they are so smart, why can they not get themselves together to elect smart people? This is one of the worst misconceptions about the US and it's system.

The problem is that too many self proclaimed smart people for too long orchestrated a school system designed to keep the majority of americans uneducated and uninterested in voting, and convinced that their vote cannot possible make a difference.

It isn't about smartness, for education cannot increase IQ, only the individual person can either take what is their and use it for the betterment of mankind, or just do what the so called smart people want them to do.

Information isn't about smartness, it is about power. What those in power have is the information they want sent around to keep them in power. Do not mistake position for power. Holding an office is not power. There are many people in greater positions of power that have never held office.

The US is not a democracy, however the 50 states within it are, so the educational system will change from state to state. Here in Utah, neither the elected representatives nor the governor can instruct what the schools can and cannot teach. While many bills have come and gone, all have failed, and if passed would be killed by the Utah supreme court for violating our state constitution. Our state constitution demands the state pay for education, and only the nine member panel of the board of education can outline curriculum. Our board of education here is rather educated, however mostly very old and out of touch with reality. This I fear is the real reason that many educational systems are failing in the US, not stupid polititians.

Ciao

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2006, 08:14 AM:

quote: Dave Williams
Since a majority of eligible people in the US do not actually vote

Da... Its that smarter majority that won't bother to vote the stupid people into office. Since the majority of both parties are all stupid people that doesn't leave many smart people left to want to do the pickin.

Also Dave, There is a state board of education that does set the education guidelines... its not set by individual board of educations of each district! There are state laws that set the minimum standards... don't send your kid to class and you's better have proof you're home schooling him/her! Each distirct does however work with the State office of education on establishing curriculum. So until these main people pull their heads out of their asses its just going to be the way it is. Also Bush's "No Kid Left Behind" program is a total failure at this point in time. It has done absolutely nothing but make things far more complicated for teachers than anything else while it has yet to be of any benefit to any kid in a classroom. IN fact many teachers locally here in the state have left teaching as a career because of its wastefulness. I'd bet that when ole Georgie leaves office his program crumbles quickly.

See:
Utah Office Of Education

And for what its worth:
Da State Boad of Educatin

Mark

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-25-2006, 09:50 AM:

If a board of ten or twelve, or however many, people vote to teach that the earth was created in six days in a science class, then they qualify as stupid. The people that elected them and support their decision qualify as stupid. I suppose most people are stupid and they should be represented.

I agree 100% with your reasoning behind why certain things are taught and other things are left out. I just wonder how long it will be until the American Revolution is left out of our history classes.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-25-2006, 10:14 PM:

Its here right now Chris. In the Early American course I teach, references to the American Revolution are so politically correct I think Washington and Jefferson wouldn't even begin to understand them. The authors refer to actions taken during the war as "rituals". And, of course, there are are pages and pages of trivial facts about minority participants, but no solid footing as to why the war was fought in the first place.

I'm done, and will not say anything more.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-26-2006, 05:06 PM:

So the government can't determine what is taught in the public schools? Think again. In Virginia, they have what is known as Standards of Learning. Collective performance on the SOL tests relates directly to how schools are funded. So, as might be expected, they teach students how to pass the SOLs. In my opinion, it's a backdoor way of forcing curriculum. Okay, so you think that's crap? Maybe so, but they who institute such crap are elected by those "stupid people" who take the time to vote. Can we do anything about it? Hell no, unless we get off our asses and vote too. As a veteran with kids educated in the public schools, I think the right to vote is precious and should not be taken for granted. Think I'm FoS? Maybe so, but that's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-26-2006, 06:46 PM:

We just had an election for County Commissioner. Something like 24% of the voters turned out. (Not unusual for a non-presidential election.) There was a one-vote difference.

They had a recount as required by law. One ballot was found to have been "spoiled" incorrectly by a judge, so that vote was counted. This resulted in the election being a tie. So, BY LAW, the thing was decided by putting the names in a hat and having the county clerk draw while blindfolded.

The resulting winner was the guy who HAD lost before the recount, and the loser was the person who CLEARLY represents more people in the county. If only more of those bozos had spent the 2 minutes required to vote. Now we're stuck with a commissioner who represents a minority of the people in the southern half of the county. Yes folks, your one vote CAN make a difference. (I voted.)

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-26-2006, 06:47 PM:

When I graduated with my teaching degree in 1998 Virginia had the toughest standards of all the 50 states when it came to the National Teachers' Examinations (now called PRAXIS). Back then most states in the so-called "heartland" didn't even require the test as a means for licensure.

What I'd want to watch for as you suggest it Rick is how the education system in Virginia nose-dived over the last five years and how that will dog your Senator Allen's chances if (when) he runs for the Presidency in '08.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-26-2006, 06:51 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So, BY LAW, the thing was decided by putting the names in a hat and having the county clerk draw while blindfolded.

Wouldn't it have been more Montana-style to have a gunfight between the two candidates?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-26-2006, 06:53 PM:

I totally agree with Chris and Aaron. The minority participants (mostly Blacks) are "revisionists" and are totally taking over and teaching horseshit far from our country's true history. THEY distort our history to make it appear PC ....as ***THEY*** want...NOT as to what ACTUALLY took place.. I find it disgusting.

I think MOST school boards (and political "leaders".. "leaders"???? HA!) are pussies and will NOT argue for the historical truth...they are too afraid for their phony bologna jobs and bow to the whoreshit! (notice the spelling!) HA!

JFC!!!! God FORBID to offend a fucking minority!!!!!

How fucking sad.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-26-2006, 07:00 PM:

Wouldn't it have been more Montana-style to have a gunfight between the two candidates?

Na, one would expect crap like that in Texas, Arizona or South Dakota. But check out Bandolero! as to what Jimmy Stewart and Dean Martin say about Montana.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-26-2006, 07:29 PM:

I always wondered why, if a bunch of non-scientists can tell teacher in a science class that things which are proven by empirical evidence, like the age of the earth being 4 to 5 BILLION years old is a THEORY, and you can just as easily hold that it could also be 6 thousand years old (and I assume FLAT as well), then what is to stop this same kind of "thinking" to claim that the pi, or even 2 plus 2 = 4 are also just a theories? We arrive at pi and 2 plus 2 = 4 by scientific, intellectual reasoning, just as we arrive at the age of the earth and the fact that it is a round sphere in an orbit around the sun and not the sun going around the earth. If you can throw those conclusions out claiming they are just a THEORIES, then there is nothing that can be reasoned to, we cannot know anything and you might as well just close the damn schools and tell everyone to go home and figure it all out for themselves by using a divining rod or looking at tea leaves or voodoo or whatever the hell else they think makes sense to them personally and throw out the wisdom and compilation of knowledge that man has gained over his entire history because it's ALL THEORY, according to this moronic way of "thinking."

Only if you throw out scientific knowledge, then you don't get to benefit from what science has given us. You don't get to use medicine or drive a car or listen to a radio or watch TV ...etc, etc. because that's all just theory and you know what, try building a skyscraper or ANYTHING if you hold to the idea that science is only theory. Go figure out how to power a jet plane without science. See if you can find the way to do any of this using the wealth of knowledge that comes out of the creationism theory.

Something has gone terribly wrong in the brainstems of huge portion of the population; it's seems to be turning into a pandemic....but that's just a theory.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-26-2006, 07:49 PM:

The uneducated, uninformed and dimwitted should not be encouraged to vote.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-26-2006, 07:55 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
The uneducated, uninformed and dimwitted should not be encouraged to vote.

That partially happens automatically, to a certain degree, because those people don't understand the importance of voting and its historical significance but see it as a nuisance. Which was more or less the original point I wanted to make which kicked off this interesting discussion.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-26-2006, 08:48 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
then what is to stop this same kind of "thinking" to claim that the pi, or even 2 plus 2 = 4 are also just a theories?

And we already do that too. Its called Outcome Based Education or popularly known as OBE. In OBE 2+2=3 or 5 or 10 or whatever until Johnny can figure it out for himself. The problem is if Johnny is never told he is wrong then he just goes through life thinking his calculations (outcomes) are always right. Thats one of hundreds of reasons why millions of Johnnies are now entering the workforce with no personal responsibilities. And, of course, no concept of proper math, science or English skills.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-27-2006, 10:31 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
That partially happens automatically, to a certain degree, because those people don't understand the importance of voting and its historical significance but see it as a nuisance. Which was more or less the original point I wanted to make which kicked off this interesting discussion.

One thing that I notice among people my age, early 20's, is that many of them do not anything about the people they are voting for. They align themselves for whatever reason, either because of what their friends are doing or because of what is popular with music and hollywood at the time. These are not particularly uneducated kids either. What I am trying to say is that even educated people make uneducated decisions when voting. Even educated people make flat out stupid decisions after being elected.

For the record, I am not trying to say that anyone who votes is stupid. I do wish more people would be involved in local and state elections rather than just presedential elections. What happens at the state and local level effect you a lot more than what happens at the federal level.

I've been rescheduled for jury duty on October 4th. I will report back, if I make it this time.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-27-2006, 07:03 PM:

quote: Chris Hipp
One thing that I notice among people my age, early 20's, is that many of them do not anything about the people they are voting for. They align themselves for whatever reason, either because of what their friends are doing or because of what is popular with music and hollywood at the time. These are not particularly uneducated kids either. What I am trying to say is that even educated people make uneducated decisions when voting. Even educated people make flat out stupid decisions after being elected

Chris you are sooo "on target"!!!! I totally agree and think you expressed the basic voting "problem" very well. That being: MOST people, (NOT just of your age group, BUTT all in general) do not know the REAL issues/candidates and vote what the BIG $$$ TV ads say and opine without reading the "fine print" in the voter packet to see what the REAL issues are all about! [uhoh]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-03-2006, 08:37 AM:

quote: Chris Hipp
One thing that I notice among people my age, early 20's, is that many of them do not anything about the people they are voting for.

Its not just people in their mid 20's, its people of all ages. Many don't have enough time to be able to learn about who's running and for what reasons. Many people vote regardless of weather they know anything about a candidate or not.... that is a very iresponsable way to vote in my opinion. The really sad thing is that if one does carefully study ALL candidates one will find that with the exception of a few of them none of them are even worth voting for....

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-03-2006, 08:59 AM:

quote: Chris Hipp
The same thing with the civil war. "The north fought the south to free the slaves." No they didn't, they fought the south to preserve the union because they did not want to have to pay tariffs on raw goods shipped from the south.

Same with our civil war, too. The politically correct version goes that Cromwell felt duty bound to kick Charles I's butt because the latter was a dangerous autocrat (as demonstrated by the eleven years' tyranny) and that the 'divine right of rule' principle was morally incompatible with his form of Christianity. In fact, Cromwell figured that if Charles had successfully managed to put down the Scots' rebellion of 1638 he would return as a virtually untouchable ruler, which would be very bad news (as in, significantly shortened life expectancy) for the Puritans. So, basically, by 1641, Cromwell had bugger all to lose.

And the politically correct version of the outbreak of WWII has it that Chamberlain felt we had no choice but to try and save the Poles and the Jews from Hitler's tyranny: in fact, he'd made a pretty rash promise by drawing that line in the sand along the Polish border, which was motivated by the thought that once Hitler had mopped up Eastern Europe, he'd likely turn his attentions to the British Empire in Africa and Asia. If Hitler hadn't decided to invade Russia instead, and if the US hadn't eventually intervened in the European theatre...

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-04-2006, 04:33 PM:

well, I finally made it today. I arrived at 8:30am and sat in one room until 11am and then went home. Luckily they had a few scuba magazines there for me to read.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-04-2006, 06:30 PM:

Chris, do you have to go back to the pool all week and see if you're chosen, or are you finished and released after the 1st day?

When I did the Jury Duty thing, I got called at about 4:30pm for a trial the 1st day and served the following days.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-04-2006, 07:39 PM:

No, Dallas county has what they call a "one day-one trial" system. So if you dont get picked the first day then you are dismised and can't, or dont have to, serve for another 6 months. Out of about 1000 people there, they only called up three jury pools.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-02-2008, 09:56 PM:

It has been 546 days since the last post.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-02-2008, 09:56 PM:

So, I'm supposed to be available for jury duty all next week. I've decided to spend this week developing as many disqualifying biases as possible. With any luck, they'll ask me about three questions before they decide to dismiss me. I love how the card I received in the mail sounds more like a threat than anything else. Heaven forbid I'll have car trouble next week because I'd be facing jail time, a $1,000 fine, etc. and now I'm treated like the criminal who has to go to court or else, eh?

So, I'll keep in mind that I have friends and relatives who've been killed by drunken drivers. I have other friends and relatives who are actively working in law enforcement. And, just to really cloud the issue, I've started reading radical web sites about my supposed "juror rights" that the judges and lawyers don't want me to know about. I've started thinking about how much I hate "punitive damages," how much I fear people with tattoos... whatever can make me a biased, unqualified person.

I really wish the system could be revised so that I'd receive a letter that would say something like, "You will be required to be available for jury duty during the year 2008. Please indicate the week in which you would like to serve." Instead, I was simply assigned to a specific week which is not a good time and that's that. Lousy system.

So, if any of you could suggest any prejudices that I could work on before Monday, I would appreciate it.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-02-2008, 10:17 PM:

Allison I served 2 times on Jury duty and was dismissed 2 other times when I had or was in the process of moving. Very interesting both times and several different trials on the first time!

If you want out just say I think he (or she) is guilty I'm sure they will excuse you!

Greg in most jurisdictions you can go in the week before and give the reasons you can't attended the following week. You know I am scheduled for a quad bypass or something like that or I'm heading to Vegas for my first vacation in 3 weeks so I can't attended!

Or the best one I just killed my wife and I'm working on my on story of how she ran off with my best friend before you guys discover she is missing!

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 04-02-2008, 10:29 PM:

The one time that I've been selected for jury duty I was about to start finals week in college. I wanted to do it, but I also didn't want to postpone taking my finals since I had already put forth the effort to study and didn't want to have to refresh after doing jury duty. I explained this and was let go from the jury pool.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-02-2008, 10:30 PM:

Greg,

I've been called into Woods Cross twice now for jury duty... I always return the reply card with a note written on it saying that I will be working on a project in Montana during the specified time and they will have to contact me through my employer and so on.... and thats definately not a lie!! This worked both times and I haven't been called again in a long time... Next time I best have a project in a different state though [Big Grin]

Mark

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-03-2008, 12:03 AM:

I served on the jury for a medical malpractice suit once. While I felt sorry for the woman for having a bad result, it wasn't the fault of the doctor she sued. And I obviously wasn't the only one who felt that way considering it took all of 5 minutes for us to vote and out of the 12 we already had the required 11 in agreement.

I actually wanted to stick around since you were allowed to talk to the lawyers to have them ask what they think went wrong or why we voted the way we did but someone had actually asked if I could take their shift that evening.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-03-2008, 08:21 AM:

I always felt that Jury Duty should be left up to the retired folk... They have plenty of time and alot less on their minds to deal with such tasks!

Mark

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-03-2008, 08:49 AM:

I don't know think lawyers would go for only going from a pool of crotchety old people. [Smile]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2008, 09:24 AM:

quote:
I am scheduled for a quad bypass or something like that or I'm heading to Vegas for my first vacation in 3 weeks so I can't attended!

Oh yeah, that's real smart, go in and lie your ass off. [Roll Eyes]

Aren't you the guy who bragged in the piracy thread that you don't break any laws?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-03-2008, 08:08 PM:

I believe that lying on your response to a jury summons is
a punishable crime itself