Saturday, October 29, 2016
There's going to be a lot said and written on this in the future, so this has to be regarded as informed speculation.
It seems that one juror, juror 4 who remains anonymous, swung the decision, and even apparently got another juror, juror 11, Curt Nickens, removed from the jury for disagreeing with him. As I said, I regard the legal reasoning for the acquittal specious. I expect that more about the jury deliberations will come out, and perhaps we will know more in a year or so. But I am thinking that the legal reasoning here is similar to that of the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Supreme Courts, when Scalia was sitting on the Court. There are all these fine arguments in favor of indefensible rulings. This has penetrated the public consciousness, to the point where many people regard law as a matter of abstract reasoning, unfair and disconnected from reality, and find it appropriate to render verdicts in a similar way.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
This election has seen widespread support for third party candidates, ceding the choice of officials to other voters who vote for one of the major-party candidates or, worse, the side which has better party discipline. There is much talk of "sending a message." There is no-one to send a message to, only our peers. There is no-one to receive that message, no god, no king. If we do not set our hands to the tiller, the world goes adrift.
Vote, puny humans!