Links worth noting

Matthew Yglesias over at TPM Cafe talks about the evolution of warfare and its implications.

Orcinus on what the anti-illegal immigration people are *really* worried about. (I've read other people on this subject, but I really like his writing.)

Digby on what happens when "Christian America" has to face the question, "Whose Christianity"? (Scroll down to "Establishment Claws.")

Adventus on language, creeds, and Christian porn.

And, for those who have not used up their weekly quota of disgust, the right-wing media types smear Cindy Sheehan. I keep thinking, "No, they can't sink any lower" but they always find a way to surprise me.

So did she take him "Higher"?

Poor Scott Stapp.

As jmhm said, it's a car crash sort of thing. You can't help looking.

(no subject)

Yesterday, my leg seemed so much better. I did not do a lot, but I did take the kids to the pool, and made dinner. It was a little sore, but not too bad.

Today, I couldn't stretch the leg out. Walking was difficult. I took a single Vicodin (I had not taken one since Monday afternoon), and ended up sleeping for four hours. The kids have not been doing anything. *I* have been in the recliner.

How am I supposed to do this? It's not like the knee goes from "fine" to "a little sore" to "more sore" to "horrible" -- it goes straight from a little sore to horrible.

How am I going to get better?

Reasonable Doubt.

I was going to write about the two Jackson jury members that basically said they were browbeaten into voting for an acquittal. Now a third has come forth.

In the first two cases, the jurors said they were threatened with removal from the jury by the foreman if they did not change their vote. This is not as ridiculous as it might sound: the foreman clearly had no authority to throw anyone of the jury. However, if you remember the Scott Peterson trial, the jury was deadlocked for a long time, the judge replaced two jurors, and voila! they reached a guilty verdict. I can see where someone who was not too thoughtful might come to the conclusion that recalcitrant jurors could be removed, if not by the foreman, then by the judge at the foreman's behest. (The way the Peterson trial was handled in its final phases may have impacts on jury deliberations for years to come.)

So what? They had an obligation to vote their consciences, and they failed. They had a duty to risk being removed. Had that happened, I would have no problem with them going public. (The book deals -- sheesh.) I have little respect for them. So they come forward now -- what is going to happen other than they make money off it all?

The third juror is a different case entirely. The woman said yes, she thought Jackson was guilty. But she questioned whether his accuser might be lying, and in the end felt there was reasonable doubt.

That's the way it's supposed to work, folks. That's why an acquittal does not mean an exoneration. "Not Guilty" really, in many cases, means "Not Proven." If there is a reasonable doubt, you're supposed to let the accused go.

Taking away a man's liberty is a very serious thing. In this country, I worry too often that jurors do not in fact honor that "reasonable doubt" standard, but fall back upon a "I think he did it" standard.* (If you read about criminal law, and about the evidence that has placed people in prison or death row, you have to wonder. And that's not including police or prosecutorial malfeasance.) Regardless of how I feel about the Jackson verdict, I have a great deal of respect for that third juror.

She gets it.




*In case you're curious, the burden of proof in a civil case is "the preponderance of the evidence," which means that more evidence supports one side as opposed to another, which is closer to "I think he did it."