Search This Blog

Saturday, April 23, 2016

So simple yet so powerful!

Don't you love watching as California and all the East coast liberal states decide exactly which Republican nominee they'll vote against in November? Who I wonder was it that decided that it would be a good idea to count New York and California so prominently in the Republican primaries? California hasn't voted Republican in 28 years, yet somehow they have an outsized delegate count of 172. The chances of California electing Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or John Kasich as President of the United States are approximately 1 in ... infinity. The state of New York hasn't voted for the Republican nominee in 32 years, yet amazingly they have 93 Republican delegates.

Are you an employer? What do you do when an employee fails to perform for 32 years? Are you a parent? What do you do when your kid brings home failing grades for half a lifetime? This isn't rocket science folks! ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?

At the brokered convention the math works like this...Delegate count times a multiplier. The multiplier is the number of times in the past 32 years that the state in question has voted for a Republican President.

It's just that simple!

Friday, April 22, 2016

Apologetics and Showtime at the Apollo

If you have a few hours to kill, I invite you to watch the preceding two debates. I haven't watched them myself, although I have watched very similar debates in the past. I don't need to watch these particular debates, because I've learned that apologetics debates follow a certain pattern in the same way that sitcoms follow a certain pattern. I.E. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. That statement is probably going to be upsetting to some people. I know, I know. You've got a debate that's completely different. You've got a debate that's totally different than:

  1. Evil men do evil things. Where's God?
  2. There are diseases, wild fires, pestilence, wars, cancer, rape, torture, etc. I don't believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God who'd let that kind of evil happen.
  3. Oh yeah and don't forget that evolution and the Big Bang already explain everything.
  4. Also don't forget that because life is that simple to explain, we don't need a magic man in the sky, virgin births and some mythical fairyland where some people are tortured for eternity while others are feted and live rapturously forever and ever.
  5. How do you know your religion, out of more than four-thousand, is the one true religion?
  1. Things exist.
  2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
  3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
    1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
  4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
    2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
  5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
  6. The uncaused cause must be God.
These debaters are doing it wrong. They're not listening and they're not responding to each other's debate points. Richard Dawkins says evil happens and God does nothing, while William Lane Craig starts off on some confusing litany of logic that reminds me of an eight year old reciting multiplication tables. The atheist is there to evoke laughter from the non-choir and the apologist is apparently there to try to prove the unprovable using sophisticlistian and abstruse Christian calculus. The apologetically unenlightened Christian n00b is ubiquitously baffled, while the agnostics and the atheists guffaw at the Dawkins snark as though it was a Sanford and Son's laugh track.

Neither debater is even bothering to listen or respond to the other's points. That's not debate! It's chaos and cacophony. Most people would agree that science and it's attendant astronomers have definite scientific evidence that all matter in the universe is moving outward.
When astronomers talk about the expansion of the Universe, they usually express it in terms of the Hubble parameter. First introduced by Edwin Hubble when he demonstrated that more distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than closer ones.The best measurements for this parameter gives a value of about 68 km/s per megaparsec.

Let's recap. Hubble. Universe. Galaxies. Leaving. Further means faster. And then I said something that sounded like "blah blah Lando blah blah Kessel Run 68 km/s per megaparsec". Which translates to if you have a galaxy 1 megaparsec away, that's 3.3 million light years for those of you who haven't seen Star Wars, it would be expanding away from us at a speed of 68 km/s. So, 1 megaparsec in distance means it's racing away at 68 km/s.
So there was a Big Bang.

That's where it starts—and stops—for the atheist. He doesn't know why the Big Bang happened and he doesn't have to know why. He's not a physicist, not an astronomer, not a whatever, and therefore it's not his field...but trust him because he knows what he's talking about... He doesn't have to know how or why the Big Bang happened because he simply knows that it did. Case closed. This is funny stuff. You see, you just have to take the Atheist's word that what he says is true because ... wait for it ... it simply is true. The atheist knows what he knows without any proof whatsoever ... because. A Christian would describe this unshakable yet unprovable belief as simply faith.

Meanwhile at the other podium, the Christian apologist is reduced to reciting his memorized litany of Christian Calculus ... If X exists or it doesn't exist then then we must postulate that other variables exist. If other variables exist then some variables must be unequal to X. Therefore ... X = God. This debate style is slightly less exciting than my trigonometry instructor in high-school. (And that's saying something!) This is funny stuff, too. You see, the Apologist has proven his point if only we were smart enough to follow the logic. If X = Y and Y = Z then X = Z. Elementary my dear atheist.

The point is simply this ... A debate is between two debaters! It's not an unconnected series of unrelated speeches made to an ambivalent audience. It's not an Algebra proof and by the way Mr. Dawkins, it's also not Showtime at the Apollo!

Saturday, April 16, 2016


Do you hate the all caps yet? Rightwing news is this [...] close to going bye-bye from my blog-roll. It's APRIL! It's NOT JULY! Is the story about stripping, a bad mother, or child endangerment? You decide.

Here's the story. The mother of a 13 month old baby wanted to audition at a strip club...we can assume that she needed money to pay for rent utilities, food, formula, phone, etc. Obviously she should have left baby at home with a baby sitter while she auditioned. In fact she actually does HAVE a baby sitter, but it seems that the baby sitter wanted to watch the strip-club audition. Okay, insert your own feverish rationale for why one female would want to watch another female striptease. Anyway, the two WOMEN arrived at the strip-club around 4PM. They left the 13 month old baby wearing a COAT! in the car and went inside. The baby sitter claims that she periodically went outside to check on the baby. The temperature on April 15, 2016 in downtown Nashville Tennessee was—according to the police report...72 degrees.


It's APRIL! and it's ONLY 72° Fahrenheit outside. That's called "clement" weather folks. We all know that it's hotter inside a car with the windows rolled up, during daylight hours when the Sun is shining down. There's no doubt that babies and toddlers are sometimes left in hot cars and they die. This is definitely and absolutely a horrible and irresponsible thing for any mother, babysitter, or daycare worker to ever do. It's a crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law. That goes without saying...except that I had to say it because I'm trying to make a point here. You see, this ISN'T July! This isn't the SAHARA! This isn't 100° weather. This is Nashville in April. This is clement 72° weather and in spite of what the authorities in their clueless stupidity maintain, it wasn't over 100 degrees in that car. It seems to me—based on a lifetime (49 years if you have to know) of getting in a car in APRIL!—that it was more like 80°!

THIS IS COMMON SENSE! If you want to sit there—and damn you!—deny it, then you go get your thermometer and you wait until 4:00 PM. Then you walk outside and you put that thermometer in your car. Make sure the windows are all rolled up, and you wait for 30 minutes. After that go ahead and read that thermometer. (By the way, if you're reading this three months after the day I wrote this (04/16/2016) IN JULY, obviously your empirical evidence doesn't count! We're talking April 15, 2016 here.) It's not going to read 100 or 105. It's going to read less than 90°, probably closer to 80°.

So ... STRIPPERS is the story. No scratch that, A BUNCH OF LIARS! is the story. Did the police measure the temperature in the car after they "rescued" the baby...well I don't know! Let's go back to the original RIGHTWING NEWS clickbait BULLSHIT story and see what they wrote...
Officers were called to the scene after witnesses spotted the child in the car. The friend allegedly told police she had been coming back to check on the child, but witnesses reported never seeing the woman leave the club. The arresting officer noted in the warrant it was 72 degrees outside and the temperature inside the car was LIKELY over 100 degrees. The little girl was reportedly wearing a heavy coat and drenched in sweat when she was removed from the car. The mother was also charged with criminal impersonation for initially lying to officers about her identity. She did not have a valid driver’s license either. The friend’s bond was set at $10,000 and the mother’s bond was set at $40,000. Both women are due in court April 18. That child is much better off away from that woman. What a dirt bag.
(emphasis added)

"What a dirt bag?" "drenched in sweat?" "Likely over 100 degrees?" Wait ... I can play that game too!

The police officers arrived on the scene but WE HAVE TO WONDER...did they DELAY for life-threatening minutes because they wanted to finish their donuts first, before they FINALLY set out to rescue the imperiled infant? They were VERY LIKELY SPEEDING well over the speed limit in arriving, LIKELY imperiling hundreds—perhaps THOUSANDS!—of innocent drivers who simply wanted to drive home after work in rush hour traffic. After arriving at the strip-club it's LIKELY that they stopped for precious minutes to OGLE THE STRIPPERS on the floor, before finally contacting management in order to complete their LIFE-SAVING RESCUE!.

The woman wanted to strip for money. She trusted a babysitter to watch her child knowing that the babysitter also wanted to watch her strip. Dirt bag? Perhaps mommy is a dirt bag, but the facts in evidence don't support the narrative...the time of year, the clement weather, the short amount of time, the claims of witnesses about WHAT THEY DIDN'T SEE! ... I.E. They didn't see babysitter check on baby? Are you kidding me? Are we supposed to believe that witnesses peered unwaveringly at a car for 30 minutes before they finally discover that there was a baby inside, and after 30 minutes finally contacted the police? And afterwards they continued to peer unwaveringly all the while until police arrived? Is that what the witnesses did?

Sorry I'm calling it what it is. This is a BULLSHIT STORY! Oh yeah, and EFF YOU RIGHTWING NEWS!

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

How about some good news for a change?

As the world disintegrates around us, as wars and rumors of wars abound, as the pollution of the air, water, and ground continues, as the police hunker down and protect only their own, as terrorist states obtain nuclear weapons, as the national debt soars into the realm of blatant insanity, as our schools and colleges churn out opinionated asinine imbeciles in their moronic millions, as the most outrageous lies are pronounced holy and the plain and naked truth is pronounced blasphemy—(this writer pauses for a moment, takes a breath, and a sip of coffee)—you might wonder is there good news anywhere? Is there a ray of sunlight anywhere in all this doom and gloom?

Herbert Hoover was our president just before the Great Depression. You know what he said? This is a good one folks...he said: "Prosperity is just around the corner!" You see, Herbert Hoover the eternal optimist, looked at a bad situation getting worse and took the view that bad times happen—of course they happen—but this too shall pass. Good times are a coming. Weather the storm. Hunker down and ride it out. Wait for the good which is on its way. I like optimists. I also like clowns. And dwarfs. Wait...are we allowed to say dwarf anymore? I know we can't say midget. What about the word "pygmy?" You know what? This whole freedom of speech topic actually belongs in the previous paragraph, the one where I briefly mention all the myriad reasons why America is totally screwed.

Good News! That's what we need. Americans need a reason to believe that their lives—or at least the lives of their children—will somehow, miraculously, take a turn for the better. We need a ray of hope, and guess what? there is a ray of hope.

The battle to maintain our civilization—and in our turn improve upon it—can be likened to a war, or a game, or a race. A contest, if you will. The winner of the contest receives either perfect shining cities on the hill—perhaps Utopia itself, or the winner receives a return to the barbarity he so craves and to the survival of the most brutal of which he is such a perfect example.

I apologize. You had to read through a lot of doom and gloom to get to his moment. The moment when I reveal—for a change—the good news. Is this news life changing? It could be. Is it transformative? Maybe. The naysayers among you will yawn and regret the loss of a few moments wasted. The visionaries among you will perhaps grasp what this game changer means. The age of the nanobot has arrived! In this example it's a tiny little robot that swims through polluted water, absorbing the lead out of that water and then this miraculous microscopic robot swims back to its owner so that it can be cleaned and reused!
[An] international team of researchers has developed a school of tiny microbots, each smaller than the width of a human hair, which is capable of removing lead particles from contaminated water more efficiently than previously developed methods.

The robots are shaped like tiny tubes, in three layers. Graphene oxide on the outside absorbs lead particles from the water. The middle layer is nickel, which allows external control of the robots using a magnetic field. The inner layer is platinum, which gives the robots self propulsion by adding hydrogen peroxide to the water. This interacts with the platinum, which decomposes the hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen, propelling the microbot forwards.

The team writes in their paper, published in the journal Nano Letters, that a swarm of the microbots can reduce the amount of lead in water from 1,000 parts per billion to just 50 parts per billion, a reduction of 95 percent, in just 60 minutes.

Obviously this is dependent on the amount of water and number of microbots, but what makes it even more impressive is that the robots can be reused. The same magnetic field that controls the microbots can be used to retrieve them. They can then be cleaned and used again.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Freedom vs. Power the eternal battle

What is power? I'm not talking about the different ways that citizens of the world make machinery and technology do what we want them to. I'm talking about the different ways that fascists make other people do what they want them to. There is a certain type of person that gets real enjoyment from forcing someone else to act against their own self-interest. I bet you know somebody like that. This type of person is a fascist. There are petty fascists in most every walk of life. You can't build a gazebo on your own property without the approval of some neighborhood committee. You can't add extra rooms, or even a swimming pool without checking with zoning boards and planning committees.

The fact is that the American Dream is NOT a house with two cars in the garage and a dog peacefully sleeping in his doghouse on the other side of a white picket fence. That's not why our ancestors crossed an ocean on a creaky leaking wooden boat with no instruments except some version of the crude compasslike contraptions they jerry-rigged back in those days. Refugees from fascist states starved, suffered vitamin deficiencies, and risked death on a daily basis in their two-months or longer voyage to come here to the only land that was still free.

What is freedom? The concept of freedom is manifold, but, inherent in freedom is the right to refuse to act against your own self-interest. It is therefore axiomatic that fascists as a part of their anti-freedom personality demand that others are required to perform activities and make decisions that cause them economic and personal hardship.

If a person demands that you perform actions that do not benefit you, and in many cases actually cause you to suffer economic harm, then by definition, that person is a fascist, and by definition you are that fascist's subject. This is exactly the way it was for the medieval serfs and their lords. This lack of freedom was why our ancestors risked everything including their very lives to cross a vast and unforgiving ocean to come here, to a world that didn't have a ruling faction of lords, fascists, dictators, or whatever other name you want to call this type of person by...

That was then. Today we are again constrained. We are again burdened by the pitiless yoke of the fascists' rule. Consider what these modern-day Lords demand. Turn off your air-conditioner in the summer—sweat—and turn off your heater in the winter—freeze. Sort your garbage into different piles—aka perform pointless labor that doesn't benefit you. Use less toilet paper—put up with itchy butt and track marks in your jockeys. Walk instead of drive. Pay hard-earned money for nearly inedible school lunch because your packed lunch is verboten. And finally die! Die younger than you should have, because your shitty rationed insurance—Thanks Obama!—won't pay for life-preserving surgeries medicines, and therapies. In addition we're asked to be grateful, because mister, at least we have abortion on demand!

You don't own your land. You rent it from the government. If you have to pay money for something in order to keep using it, then by definition you don't own it. You don't own your car. You don't own your boat. You don't own a lot of your software. The fact is that you don't even own yourself. Now that every man woman and child must purchase health insurance, by Supreme Court ordained law, the precedent is set. You can be taxed simply because you exist. If you can't pay your existence tax—then necessarily—penalties must accrue! The fix is in. How long before non-paying health-care tax scofflaws are imprisoned? All we need is one more liberal on the Supreme Court, one more liberal in the oval office, and a few more establishment politicians from either party and the stage is set for prison for nonpayers of the existence tax.

Relax, it's not all bad. While you enjoy your prison stay, remember that you also have the freedom to make the state pay for your penis to be carved into an unrealistic and dry vagina! By the way, do you want to be a dragon? Cool, be a dragon. Just remember that you're not allowed to water your grass except on the 3rd Saturday of the month.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Islam's not the problem, Neville Chamberlain and Yves Goldstein are the problem

Can you imagine my amazement upon reading the following headline from the New York Times? Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalized Youth

Yes, that's right! You see, it's not Islam that's the problem; it's that evil policy monster who is blowing people up, shooting people, flying planes into skyscrapers, chopping off heads, torturing, raping, burning, pillaging, forcibly converting ... damn the barbarism of policy!
The problem is not Islam, [Yves Goldstein] insists, but instead it's the negligence of government officials—[like Yves Goldstein]—who allow self-contained ethnic ghettos to grow unchallenged, breeding anger, crime and radicalism among youth—a soup of grievances that suits Islamist recruiters.

“Our cities are facing a huge problem, maybe the largest since World War II,” Mr. Goldstein said. “How is it that people who were born here in Brussels, in Paris, can call heroes the people who commit violence and terror? That is the real question we’re facing.”
So ... let me get this straight ... a Jew is telling us that Islam isn't the problem? It's Mr. Goldstein and likeminded politicians who're actually the problem? Well in a way he's right, yet he's sadly completely wrong. The fact is that Yves Goldstein—and all the other politicians like him—who have refused to admit that Islam is the problem, are merely a symptom of the actual problem. You see the actual problem is that ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM!!!

Yves Goldstein's refusal to blame Islam is cowardice. He's still doing it. Yves is afraid to sound bigoted. He's afraid that he'll appear guache and extreme. He wants to fit in with his likeminded fifth-avenue coterie. One symptom of Islamic fanaticism is fear, but to say that cowardice itself is the problem is the same as saying that women who wear short skirts are the actual cause of rape. Seriously? People with big wallets cause muggings? People with nice homes cause burglaries? I could go on and on and on. You are a jackass Yves Goldstein and if you were in front of me right now, I'd be hard pressed not to three-stooges-esque slap the miserable stupid piss out of you. Everyone, repeat after me ... "THE VICTIM IS NOT TO BLAME!" Yves, please—for just a minute or two—stop being the quintessential stereotype of the evermore comical and pathetic-seeming self-hating Jew! I just can't take it anymore!
“We have neighborhoods where people only see the same people, go to school with the same people,” [Yves Goldstein] said. “What connection do they have with the whole society, what connection do they have with real diversity? It’s the establishment of the ghetto,” he said, “and it’s the thing in our urban development that we have to tackle.”

The word ghetto means slag, from the Latin word gettare, to pour or to cast. This Italian word was first used by the Venetians, who forced Jews to live behind walls in the most miserable part of the city near an iron foundry. The Ghetto in Venice was of course not the first nor the last European Jewish ghetto. As early as 1179, the third “Lateran Council” of the Catholic church decided that Christians should not live together with Jews (Lateran refers to SEXTUS LATERANUS, a Roman Consul who, long before Christianity, owned the Lateran palace where the council or meeting was held).

This led to the segregation of Jews in most European communities. The areas in which Jews were allowed to live were not at first called Ghettos because that Italian name did not enter the European languages until the Venetians introduced it in the 16th century. In Germany, Jews were confined to a few streets called Judengasse or Jew alley. If you visit the town of Rothenburg in southern Germany today you can still see the street sign “Judengasse” there. Rothenburg maintains its medieval appearance for the sake of attracting tourists.

Although many European communities already provided for Jewish enclaves, this was not enough for the citizens of Venice, who forced Jews to live on one of the islands which constitute Venice to this day. In 1516 the Jewish area was walled in. Only two gates allowed Jews to leave after sunrise and return before dark. From sunset to morning the doors were locked.

Jews were also forced to wear only black clothes such as may still be seen among some of our Torah true brethren. In the Middle Ages, all Europeans were subject to the so-called sumptuary laws (sumptus is Latin for expense), requiring different social classes and occupations to wear clothes which identified them. Hence the nobility wore colorful and attractive clothes and peasants wore uniformly ugly clothes. Jews were the bottom of the hierarchy (holy rule) and therefore had to wear only black.

In 1555 Pope Paul IV confined the Jews of Rome to a ghetto with only one entrance and one exit. This example was followed all over Europe as Jews were compelled to stay in segregated and enclosed areas. These areas were never expanded, so that the natural increase in the Jewish population created a filthy slum. Jewish housing had to built upward into buildings several stories high as they could not grow normally. These ghettos remained in effect until the French Revolution of 1789 led to the abolition of the Venice ghetto in 1797, the Frankfurt ghetto in 1811 and finally the Roman ghetto in 1848. Nevertheless, Jews were usually confined to the areas in which the ghettos had once existed. Thereafter, any areas largely inhabited by minority groups has been called a ghetto.

In 1939, the Germans once more instituted the ghetto, first in Germany and then in all of occupied Europe. Once Poland had been invaded by the German armies the Polish Jews were forced into ghettos in Warsaw, Lublin, Lodz and other cities. The German Jews were deported to those ghettos before being gassed together with the Eastern European Jews.

The Nazi ghettos were far worse than the medieval ghettos had been. In Warsaw there were over nine people per room and in other towns 12-30 people were packed into a room. Jews were starved in these ghettos, eating only 250 calories a day. Poles were allowed to eat 669 calories a day, Germans ate 2,613 calories a day. Since the ghettos had no sanitation and little water, disease killed thousands of Jews in these ghettos.

In the end, the Jews who were still alive in 1942 were transported from these ghettos to the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka. The Jews of Warsaw did revolt but in the end all such uprisings failed.

In sum, the Nazis established 18 ghettos. After the Second World War the Poles continued the practice of isolating the few Jews who survived the Nazi horrors and then murdered these few Jews who wanted to return to their erstwhile homes. Today, Poland is “Judenrein” - “cleansed of Jews” - even as Polish radio stations continue to broadcast anti-Jewish hate at an audience which has never seen a Jew.

Shalom u’vracha.
So Jews have lived in "ghettoes" for nearly a thousand years ... and as a result they flew planes into what skyscraper? They suicide bombed what mosque? They raped pillaged burned slaughtered who ... who ... who ...?

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Common sense methods of ensuring justice

The most recent post before this one, was about our justice system, which is based almost entirely on random luck. This post is about common sense methods of decreasing the element of luck and increasing the element of justice. Take two board games, backgammon, and chess. They each have their element of skill but only one of them also has a massive contingent of random chance. If you roll dice, spin a wheel, flip a coin, shuffle a deck, draw a name out of a bucket, then you've just increased the element of chance. For Heaven's sake, how on Earth does any element of luck ever belong in a courtroom? A court case should be more like chess, less like backgammon.

The biggest problem with our criminal justice system is the people who run it, starting with the judge. Here we have a person who unilaterally decides what can or cannot be entered into evidence. Who unilaterally decides what question can or cannot be asked or answered, who unilaterally decides whether to instruct the jury to ignore and discount a statement or piece of evidence after they are already aware of it. "The jury will ignore the witness's testimony."

The judge shouldn't be allowed to limit either evidence or testimony. Why not allow the prosecution and the defense to bring their entire case? The judge should only act as a referee limiting each side to a set amount of time. The seriousness of the charge should determine how much time is set aside for each side to present their case. Neither the prosecution nor the defense should be allowed to "object." Let each side present their entire set of testimony and evidence. This ought to be common sense. There's no reason except chicanery and deceit to limit one or the other side's case.

Ask yourself this question: if your child does something wrong, or you simply suspect them of having done something wrong, before you question them about the incident ... do you read them their Miranda rights? Do you offer them legal council? Do you have a silly and time consuming procedure of grand jury indictment, arraignment, trial, sentencing, appeals, et cetera? It's not necessary for justice. Only getting the truth is necessary.

Ask yourself this question: Don't you wish you had a polygraph machine and the expertise to use it? I know I do! Oh? Why yes junior. Of course I believe you. If you say you didn't eat ALL the cookies, then of course I believe you. You say you only had the one cookie, but just to be sure, please sit down in this chair and allow me to hook up a blood pressure cuff and these little galvanometers to your fingers.

The fact that a lie detector test's results cannot be entered into evidence is injustice. The fact that a witness's testimony that they overheard something incriminating from someone who was not the defendant yet this "hearsay" cannot be entered into evidence because it's "hearsay" is injustice. The fact is—and you know in your heart that this is true—the only purpose for all this complicated obfuscation, procedure, and just plain silly dancing around in our justice system, is simply job security for the ones employed within the justice system. The actors in our grand farce of a justice system learn all the ins and outs of obfuscation, distraction, and deceit. They study old cases as though a single one of them mattered as much as a tick's fart when compared to the question on the table. You know the question on the table? Guilty? Not guilty? Did the defendant commit the crime. That is the only question that matters and a trained professional with a lie detector can usually determine if somebody is lying.

A suspected criminal should have council, but the council should not be allowed to instruct the defendant about what questions should or shouldn't be answered. Allow the cops to interrogate the suspect to the best of their ability, using all the wiles and trickery in their arsenal, without alerting the suspect to the fact that this is what's going on. Let the cops do their job! The purpose of the legal council is simply to keep police from physically abusing the suspect. To ensure that the suspect is allowed restroom breaks, nourishment, and adequate time for sleep. Other than that, nothing!

As to the jury, that's the biggest injustice of all in our so-called justice system. This is just so simple and so obvious that I'm frankly amazed that we don't do it. Is this a murder case? We need experienced medical pathologists—who've actually done autopsies—on the jury. Is the defendant accused of embezzling? We need some accountants on the jury. Accused of abusing his dog? Hello ... veterinarian. Instead of some asinine random sampling of "peers," we need a carefully selected group of professionals who can not only look at the evidence, but understand the evidence exactly in the way it's meant to be understood.

  • A judge should be a referee, not a tyrant. It's not his courtroom it's the people's He decides only the punishment, not the guilt.
  • Each side should be free to present their entire case, free from harassment from any other interested party including judge, jury, prosecution, and defense.
  • Allow the police to question the defendant and the witnesses without any hindrance. Why on Earth don't we polygraph every defendant as a policy, and then allow that evidence to be presented in the trial? This is science; it's not bullshit.
  • We need trained professionals on the jury not "peers."