The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Richard Day's picture

    A PHILOSOPHICAL TAKE ON THE ELECTIONS

    By Richard Day on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 1:00pm |

    Mark Twain, Brady-Handy photo portrait, Feb 7, 1871, cropped.jpg


    Always do right, you will gratify some and astonish the rest.
    (M. Twain)


    The issue that Mr. Clemens is referring to deals with the definition of 'right'.


    Any tome discussing the topic of 'ethics' must refer to the axiom:

    Always avoid the appearance of impropriety.


    Appearances will always trump any concept of 'real' impropriety because of evidentiary concerns.


    This is because of another concept related to 'proof'.


    Why do we have  a twelve member jury in this country?


    In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty of some impropriety with evidence that there is no reasonable doubt about that guilt.


    In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is guilty of some impropriety by a preponderance of the evidence.


    O. J. Simpson, as a defendant in criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings was found not guilty in one proceeding but guilty in the latter proceeding..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case


    The standard of proof I guess, ruled in both proceedings with regard to the murder of his wife and her consort.


    Standards of proof are perceived differently in the eyes of a jury regardless of instructions delivered by a judge.
    In addition to these standards that involve criminal and civil proceedings, there are issues involving admission of evidence. Judges must decide what evidence is admissible or not in either types of proceedings.

    I mean that a set of instructions to the jury might involve ten or fifteen or twenty pages.

    All these pages must be discerned?


    FOR INSTANCE


    A cop shoots a Black Man. But there is some audio/video tape demonstrating that that officer was recorded as using the 'N' word.


    A judge must decide if the tape is 'genuine'.


    A judge must decide if the tape is relevant in terms of time.


    A judge must decide if the tape is unduly prejudicial to the issues at hand.


    Judges decide these issues. And appellate courts must review these decisions.


    ELECTIONS


    Elections in this country are never ceasing.


    As soon as someone is elected to office, he or she must begin running for the next term.


    The 'media' decides which issues are relevant to the election proceedings, the 'media' decides what evidence is relevant to the election proceedings and the 'media' decides the standards of proof.


    RELEVANCE


    It is easy for me to assess the relevance of the latest Weiner scandal.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/11-ways-to-think-about-the-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-split/2016/08/29/4e32407c-6e0d-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_anthonyandhuma-0605pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

    ​
    Why should I give a shit that former Congressman Weiner photographed his dick again and put it on the internet?


    Why would Mrs. Weiner be put in the spotlight of such a strange event?


    Well the media decided that Mrs. Weiner, who is some operative in the Clinton campaign was related somehow to the internet photo of her husband's dick.


    THE JUDGE


    For the 'media' the 'judge' involves ratings.


    Media operatives must decide which of the seven billion stories on this planet during one 24 hour period will 'play' the best on their individual networks.


    There is no real 'judge'.

     


    There is no real standard of evidence.
    There is no real standard of relevance.
    There is no real standard of propriety.
    This reality to my mind leads to nihilism.

     


    NOTHINGNESS


    How I perceive this current election process.

    .DONALD TRUMP

    Donald Trump is a total nihilist.


    One might use the term sociopath or psychopath or whatever. And these sobriquets yield us nothing.


    Standards of proof or standards of evidence or standards of propriety do not apply to him.


    Because standards are inapplicable.


    Standards are used as values in the eyes of the beholder.


    Facts are in the eyes of the beholder.


    Evidence is in the eyes of the beholder.


    Lawyers are retained to rebut any standards or facts or evidence....


    Lawyers are need to rebut any accusations regarding the appearance of impropriety.


    THE GREATER GOOD


    Is nihilism worse than the idea of the 'greater good'?


    This issue involves Hillary and most of 'us'.


    I may discuss this issue at a later date.


    But suffice it to say, that in my opinion, Trump has never worred about 'the greater good'.


    Donald has always  and only worries about the Trump good.

     

     

    Comments

    Ha!  I just read a WaPo article that sorta-kinda-maybe-alittle ties into your great piece here, Dick.  Nicely done!


    by barefooted on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 1:33pm

    Thanks Missy.

    I hope that I am not guilty of copyright infringement. hahahaha

    I have thought about this subject for a long, long time.

    Thank you.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 2:05pm

    I actually went to your link three times.

    I conclude:

    WHAT COULD BE BIGGER THAN ANTHONY'S WEINER?

    hahahahhahahah

    I also scanned about three other links concerning this SETI thingy. hahahahha

    Oh it is just some earthly magnetism phenomena.(you know I never spell this word correctly without spell check. ha)

    Again, thanks for the link.

     

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 09/01/2016 - 10:24am

    Bigger? What could be bigger? well, ....

     

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/01/2016 - 12:57pm

    A recent Fox poll indicates that. 66% of people find Hiillary untrustworthy.

    http://heatst.com/politics/poll-trust-hillary-clinton/

    Only 6% of people have great faith the mainstream media.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb...​

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 3:59pm

    We have a First Amendment.

    And that Amendment is construed by our Supreme Court in light of legislation and action by governments both state and federal.

    And to that extent, First Amendment protections become 'in the eyes of the Beholders'. hahahahsah

    Judges in the context of media would become censors, of course.

    I witnessed some CSPAN discussion recently and one scientist remarked about his visit to China.

    All these Chinese scientists approached him requesting some way to come to America.

    Censorship is such a buggard in China.

    We or some of us are so goddamned angry at the repubs for attempting to censor scientists with regard to evolution or climate change of late. But damn! We really do have some freedom of speech in this nation even though nothing is really 'free'.

    There is irony of course regarding your links.

    The ratings have decided all issues concerning the 'will of the people'.

    Anyway, it took me a while to discuss your comment and your links.

    The so-called tea partiers hate the media or the press.

    We on the Left wonder how some issues come to the fore whilst other issues linger.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Wed, 08/31/2016 - 2:40pm

    Very thoughtful post, DDay, as usual.  As to juries, I am of the opinion that juries should be professionals, schooled in the very meanings you discussed.  I think they should be equivalent in a way, to para-legals. Example:  A friend was on a jury to decide a malpractice case.  Basically, the plaintiff was a very sympathetic character who had a very poor quality of life prior to his surgery and the problem that occurred was one of the potential problems listed in the pre-op papers that the patient signed.  

    The doctor was elderly and was going to retire.  My friend said that according to the instructions from the judge, it was clear that there was no malpractice and the decision should reflect that.  She was sympathetic to the young man who now had one more medical issue to deal with, but the verdict was obvious.  Evidently it was to all of the jury as well, but they felt that since the doctor was retiring and his insurance company was going to pay anyway, they voted to help the plaintif out.  She held out but eventually relented (or as she put it -- "caved")

    I think with a professional jury pool, things like this would be uncommon.  I also think, based on what I have read about them, is that juries take their responsibilities very seriously.  I just think that not everyone can sift through what they have seen and heard during the trial, and apply it objectively to the judges instructions.

    BTW, New Subject:  I am surprised that I have heard no one else note that Trump's latest mud-slinging at Hillary by saying that Anthony Weiner would have access to state secrets because he is married to Huma Abedyn.  And ergo, Hillary has bad judgment.  

    DOES THIS MEAN THAT HE HAS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO SHARE THE STATE SECRETS HE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO, WITH MELANIA?  

    Does he even know that he isn't supposed to do that?  Why doesn't anyone pose this question to Kellyanne, or any one of the many sycophants that apologize for his every idiotic statement.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 4:37pm

    As to the medical malpractice case, it would be interesting to know if it was the retiring doctor or the insurance company that insisted on taking the case to trial. I've talked to lawyers who exclusively handle these cases. The insurance lawyers usually negotiate a settlement knowing how juries sympathize with a particularly debilitated  plaintiff. That is business as usual over 85% of the time.

    The doctor can insist on fighting it of course to keep his record 'clean'.  The insurance must cover the legal expenses to defend him even when the insurance lawyers judgment is to settle out of court.


    by NCD on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 5:44pm

    Yes, I see what you are saying.  My friend didn't have that information.  She did say the the doctor had no previous lawsuits and looked utterly defeated during the trial.  

    I did find out later who he was.  He was a beloved and respected doctor in this town, (he is now dead) so it might have been he who wanted to go to court.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 6:39pm

    Oh there are famous instances where the British Judges would jail the jurors until they came to the 'correct' verdicts. hahahaha

    Not that there have not been abuses in our jury system over the years.

    I am a sucker after all these years of Law & Order episodes discussing Jury Nullification as an issue.

    We are humans, judges are humans, jurors are humans....

    Oh, and you are correct.

    Many times Doctors or Attorneys or people of substance refuse to honor the advice of their insurance company attorneys.

    THANK THE GOOD LORD FOR THAT!.

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 08/31/2016 - 2:45pm

    Very well argued.


    by Danny Cardwell on Wed, 08/31/2016 - 1:46pm

    Much thanks Danny.

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 08/31/2016 - 2:27pm

    I was dinkin around into the older days and this may sound dumb but I actually forgot about this old song....

    https://youtu.be/ST86JM1RPl0

    I have lost the old embed thingy but here is the link

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?https://youtu.be/ST86JM1RPl0v=ST86JM1RPl0

    It just got to me now, as it must have a year ago or so that this song means nothing without context.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 09/04/2017 - 10:13pm