They can't really be serious...can they?

[9th Engineer]

Did you have to bring the Bush administration into this?? As much as I like incompetance uncovered this is now beating a dead horse. Relevence is key, the Chrichton stuff was interesting.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Any written work you submit the an English professor/teacher, must pass the sentence structure/grammar/spelling test, before facts, consistency, and logic even enter the equasion.
It doesn't matter if they are teaching a course in creative writing, business report writing or kids birthday party name-tag writing, the English basics come first.
They can't help it, it's the nature of the beast. We've even seen it here on this board.


But yeah, it's W's fault.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Did you have to bring the Bush administration into this?? As much as I like incompetance uncovered this is now beating a dead horse.

Show me anywhere else that everyone here was on the jury. Everyone had the facts. The details such as Niger uranium was out there in detail. And yet how many bothered to see the details - and therefore see the lie? How many ignored those details because facts disagreed with their emotional biases (which were raging in years after 11 September).

BTW, from here on, any reference to the Mission Accomplished war is due to a President Washington - to make your emotions happy. I don't care if that president is my brother. We are discussing facts which means emotions about a dead horse is illogical. The Mission Accomplished war is a perfect example of how juries should and might make decisions.

Therein lies the example. Everyone was on a jury that decided the lives of 98,000+ Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and .... well what did the jury decide? Why did the jury decide that WMD threats existed? Its called learning from mistakes - as everyone reading this should have done from Vietnam and other lessons in history.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Any written work you submit the an English professor/teacher, must pass the sentence structure/grammar/spelling test, before facts, consistency, and logic even enter the equasion.

Well look at how bad his grammar/structure/spelling was. Clearly his writing style is unreadable.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Did you have to bring the Bush administration into this?? As much as I like incompetance uncovered this is now beating a dead horse. Relevence is key, ...

Americans who cannot think like a responsible jury are why this happens. I consider one who does not raise his intelligence (intelligence is earned; not inherited) - to therefore be a responsible member of any jury - instead a classic example of an anti-American.

Two names who are victims of a national jury that does not do its job: Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker. A responsible American cannot for one minute ignore massive number of murders because we ignore facts.

This jury is still empowered. This national jury should be thinking as defined by my above definition of a patriotic American. We have two choices - so that future Menchaca and Tuckers do not happen. Either give the military what it needs - 500,000 troops - or a strategic objective to get out. Hard nose, unemotional thought process – and still some will not act as a responsible jury.

My point is why so many cannot make a decision without anything less than DNA evidence. Too many have an Oprah Winfrey, Jerry Springer, Rush Limbaugh perspective of life. A most common symptom is that they know - and yet don't know why. They don't ask nor demand the irrefutable facts. They instead use only emotion - feelings - to make a decision. And so we have more victims of a jury that will not make hard decisions: Menchaca and Tucker.

Do we need DNA before we acknowledge what the military needs? Yes. Unfortunately, too many don't know how to dig for the irrefutable fact. Instead a 'glove does not fit' becomes their entire replacement for hardnosed facts.

We have other examples. The Super Collider that does not exist and has long been desperately needed. ISS that does no science. The so many earth science experiments quashed because a president wants to put a man on Mars - for personal glory. The Challenger - where every engineer said don't launch. Columbia where a flight director could not even bother to learn why so many requests for information were being made by engineers. Or hype about someone jumping on Oprah's couch. Total nonsense to those who first demand facts and relevance. Examples of why juries might reject the testimony of two eyewitnesses to a murder only because no DNA evidence was presented.

And so because a national jury will not make a decision, two more victims: Menchaca and Tucker.

BTW, why do I list Menchaca and Tucker? Because some cannot see the blunt point I am making. So I give them something emotional to work with: Menchaca and Tucker. The inverse of a Catch 22?

I knew there were no WMDs... it was not hard, they never showed them.
It was all lies, smoke and mirrors. We knew he had them (past tense) because we were the ones who gave them to him, so him having them should have not been that big of a deal anyway.
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#LIES
We don't use DNA the way we should as it is, when a college in the Midwest used it to prove the innocence of men on death row they were told to stop and no college has been allowed to do so since. The government wants to murder innocent people.

I was turned down for jury duty because I had opinions and was well informed, they don't want people who read and have minds of their own.

[tw]

Scientific American of July 2006 adds data:

Several legal experts have argued, however, that the CSI effect may be illusory. The newspaper that quoted Atlantic City lawyer Levin also noted that Superior Court Judge Albert Garofolo said, "My initial reaction might have been 'Yes, there is a CSI effect." But I think this may be more of a suspicion than anything else. There's a feeling this could be real, but in truth I can't recall a situation where I've heard a jury say they were expecting more." ...

What appears to be the first study of the CSI effect was published in February by Kimberlianne Podlas, an attorney and assistant professor of media law and ethics at the Universtiry of North Carolina at Greensboro. Podlas concluded that the chances of, and reasoning for, acquittals were the same for frequent CSI viewers as for prospective jurors who did not watch the show - she saw no CSI effect. Several participants, however, said that a lack of forensic testing was an issue, despite the fact that physical evidence would not have resolved the hypothetical charges. Studies of real juries have been advocated, and at least five graduate students (three in the US and two in England) are preparing theses examining the effect.