In the American system, a jury is not supposed to be some kind of logical supercomputer determining “the truth.” It is designed to be a final check on absolute government power. Reflecting whether “guilt” has been proved. Inevitably, determining “guilt” also requires a wider and hopefully balanced (12 citizens’ minds) view of the particular law itself. 

In spite of the best efforts of lawyers, laws can be ambiguous things, often related to implied intent. The act of someone hitting another person on the head with a hammer may be completely illegal. But if it is an accident at a workplace? The worst efforts of lawyers create laws that are a mess to begin with. 

In the United States at this time, laws must be passed by appropriate legislative bodies. They must survive court tests to be sure they fit within an accepted (weasel word) interpretation of constitutional limits. All well and good. The majority of “cut and dried” crimes are resolved by plea bargain or dismissal well before a jury is convened. 

At that stage the real purpose of any jury is to provide a measure of empathetic common sense reflecting the social agreements as they actually exist. Determining guilt is a satisfying means to this end. It is the final arbitration which a prosecutor or judge should not overrule. It may be wrong in “truth” but surprisingly often is absolutely correct in “guilt.” 

Instructing jurors that they are logical computers rather than intelligent citizens is a disservice to all the US stands for. 

In classic cultures, one of the major punishments among the elite was to “exile” a citizen. Presumably that made the troublemaker someone else’s problem. He (always a he) was also assumed to hate every minute of it, being away from everything he liked and people he knew.

Exile in the modern world has largely transformed into becoming an “immigrant.” The practice has also percolated downward to the lower and lowest classes. While in current civilization, a wealthy immigrant is treated as the incoming elite exiles always were, the new migrants are a more recent difficulty. 

The usual places to live are stuffed, we have cut into mortality so deeply and made our food supplies so secure. That may, of course, change. Until then, what do we do with the migrations? 

Most people hate to move, they like what they have until it is intolerable. In spite of mythology, most American immigrants like the Irish only came here because where they lived had become literally unlivable. 

Now as then most residents have always wanted to ” send them back.” They are never like us. They often for example are lazy and dirty and work too hard for low pay cleaning houses and laundry. Send them back!

But at the moment there is no “back.” Probably no solution. 

As in much of life, only an “outcome” currently unknown. 

In my youth _ the nostalgically recalled glorious 50s _ we were taught to respect democracy and rights. For what kept a democracy from becoming mob authoritarian rule was a strong belief in individual rights and the checks and balances to keep them active.

Over the years, it often seemed that what one was allowed to do became more and more restricted. A form of zoning closed in as life became more and more crowded and individual powers became (potentially) greater and greater. At the same time, it became clear the social pressures to do right were less and less powerful, and government (in the form of bureaucracy) was forced to take up the slack. 

Unfortunate. But far less disturbing than the rise of the Christian church militant, which believes its heavily armed followers must enforce _ through “democracy” _ its religious rules on everyone. It firmly believes that nobody sane should question its own interpretation of what God wants. 

In the ’50s, we hated anyone who would try that. Our parents had just fought Hitler. We dutifully went to church and believed in family – but we mostly laughed at those who did not and left them alone. 

The political class gaining control now – either truly or cynically – want none of that. I and everyone else should hop when they shout – because their God says so.

I’m not much of a people person, so I can usually ignore gossip. Self experience and reading are my preferred methods of learning. Unlike my wife, I’ve never much cared what “they say.” “Who they?” I often respond. 

“They” do have meaning and some value, just like “common sense.” Both are equally contradictory and unreliable, although each often contains a germ of truth. They help to sort out the clearly impossible like “by taking this drug, pigs can fly.”

The real issue with gossip, common sense, and “they say” is that all are usually not directly impactful to me. Oh, there is some usefulness, but – again – what is the value to me, personally, if pigs can fly. How does it change my life today? 

We live in an age of miracles, when almost anything that can be imagined might be possible. The problem becomes not sorting the “true” from the “untrue” as separating the “relevant to me” from the whole mass. 

Like many phrases, “they say” is a social relaxer. It puts you at a little distance from whatever the claim may be. It automatically lowers the level of direct antagonism, which makes it truly socially useful. 

But an equally useful source of knowledge? No. And that’s actually okay because if I respond I don’t believe something “they say”, there is no real challenge to the person I heard it from. Such makes complicated conversation a useful, enjoyable, game

The Wall Street Journal is shocked – shocked – that a few shareholders can redirect a company’s goals. The economic myth has been that wise investors – like our wise and mature electorate – will inevitably lead corporations into the best and most productive economic and social goals.

Further, that paragons of virtue sitting on the “board” will make the right decisions to aid all the “stakeholders” – investors, employees, the public, the original owners. But, of course, that is not true and never has been. 

For one thing, in “public” corporations, “investors” are really speculators, seeking to make vast returns on often highly leveraged stock positions. Since the days of canals and railroads – if not before – the only goal is to raise the stock price. If that requires looting a company’s assets, destroying its business, “downsizing” old employees – so be it. Dynamic free enterprise capitalism at work we are told. 

Or just nasty people out for a quick buck. And even they often have little control over a business unless they manage to pack the boardroom. The little “investors” who put money in stocks rarely understand this. 

Does it really work? Kinda. Wealth is produced, especially in the beginning. Some large firms – “too big to fail” – become in effect bureaucratic outposts of government. 

But that isn’t how they teach it in books.

When the United States was founded 250 years ago, it took three or four days for the fastest message to travel from Boston to Philadelphia. Current print and cable journalists seem to believe the same rules are in effect now. Or so I would gather from the consensus that “90 days” is a frantic whirlwind for a political campaign. 

The saying used to be that ”  lie can travel around the world before truth can get its boots on.”  Now a meme can “go viral” almost before it is spoken. A gigantic news sheet in 1795 had maybe a hundred local readers. An internet post today instantly informs millions or even billions. A day is an eternity.

In those olden times, the larger world had very little, very delayed, effects. Crossing the Atlantic could take months, most remote happenings were of no relevance whatsoever. Now markets crash at bank news reported in minutes from Japan, and the entire planet can be incinerated in an hour or so, at the whim of an angry old fart who feels particularly cranky. 

In that context, “90 days” is far longer than most news cycles ever were. People “meet” candidates not from months-long train whistle-stops but in minutes on media. 

A true whirlwind might be “9 days”. But then, what would all the writers and talking heads have to talk about? 

I’m afraid that this is symptomatic of the endless cynicism I’ve developed about just about every political discussion lately, what “they” say just doesn’t quite match my own reality, in distance, speed, or effect. 

We know more about life than anyone ever did. We control life processes more completely. In the future, almost total understanding will be achieved. Application, especially of medical care, becomes unsustainably convoluted – but that is a different topic. “Perfect health” seems within sight. 

There are several problems with “perfection.”

Sometimes, thinking about how hard it is to achieve perfection is enough to prevent any attempt at improvement. We know we will never be able to adhere to a “perfect” diet, lifestyle, or exercise regimen, so we say “the hell with it” and sit on the couch.

Then there are those who do follow the perfect path. Inevitably entropy takes its toll, the tarnished methods seem no longer glorious, and – well – maybe not the couch, but a definite let down and degradation of effort. 

The most corrosive aspect of a perfect goal is that the goal may be wrong. I may seek a perfectly shaped body to find friendship or love. If those additional side benefits fail to materialize, the whole nonsense seems a complete waste of time. 

The message is simply not to be trapped into perfection – especially not narrow perfection. The universe is wide, contradictory, cruel, enchanted and completely imperfect. 

Except, of course, in its own existence and our consciousness.  

“Alien” is the latest code word for some people to turn selected groups of people into “others”. It has a satisfying ring _ based on themes from B movies _ of intelligences that are evil and cannot think the way “we” do and who will eventually destroy “us.” So far, however, it has not been banned in polite circles, like similar derogatory labels nor eviscerated by academic study.

Many humans and their families, tribes, and population groups have always traveled. A lot. Some driven by ecologic disaster, some by population pressure, some _ honestly _ just for the hell of it adventure( like Alexander the Great.) The folks being “invaded” would variously welcome or resist. 

In the US there were aliens arriving from the beginning. To the native American all settlers were aliens. To the Protestants the real aliens were Catholics. To the southerners, of course, slaves. And pockets of Asian, Pennsylvania Dutch, Southern Europeans…

So “aliens” _ illegal or otherwise _are nothing new. The cry was always that if allowed to gain power they would destroy our way of life or racial purity. It’s just that now in these more genteel times, the dehumanizing connotations the word has accumulated allow it to be deployed in encoded but just as vicious attacks on anyone we don’t like much. 

To me, all these attackers are more “alien” than the folks against whom they direct their venom. 

Philosophers who concentrate on philosophy are among the stupidest of people. Their heads become filled with the fluff of words, unanchored logic, and meaningless fog. They dwell in lives unencumbered by eating breakfast, sleeping, going to the bathroom, making love, or stubbing toes. Following their advice too closely often leads to ruin. And their own lives are usually not exemplary. 

The main problem is language logic. Philosophy is useless unless words mean something “true”. Its logic crumbles in the face of contradiction and connotation. Any adolescent can point out glaring holes in their conclusions. 

Yet out of “respect” for dead European white men (mostly) schools continue to either teach or pay lip service to the frothiest schemes of philosophical discourse. Yes, I do mean all of them, Kant and the rest. Not excepting ancient Greeks, religious sermons, and anyone favoring any “ism” anytime, anywhere. 

Think about it. If all the science or technology knowledge were lost, civilization as we know it would collapse in an instant. If all the philosophy ever “known” were to vanish, how much of daily life for the rest of us would really be affected? 

“Philosophy” has become one of those affectations of elite snobbism, where those who can use its jargon are able to separate those “like us” from the masses. I guess it may be as effective as wearing red feathers in their hair.

Vanity usually means you know you are perfect. It’s like hubris but worse, for you not only believe you are right, but also can do no wrong. Every fault becomes a virtue. Everyone disagreeing with you becomes a bitter enemy. In short, vanity is not a pretty sin. 

It is, however, a sin rampant in our culture, from educators to “influencers” to corporate officers, to politicians and the mobs that follow them. One can no longer be successful without being completely certain that they are infallible _ at least in the “truths” they are promoting. 

Vain people are truly intolerant. At best they simply ignore anyone who does not worship their perfection. At worst they seek to destroy any opposing viewpoints. That is bad enough in a family or small organization which can be easily escaped. It is disastrous in national politics.

Sometimes a quick remedy is possible. A child shouts “the emperor has no clothes!” But often horrible excesses occur until a final crash and burn out, usually ending in the death of the powerful or arrogant. 

Only then does history call “vanity” “hubris.” Blind stupidity. And maybe in these times of miracles – both good and evil – an immortal big brother will come into existence. True vanity will be able to rule forever, naked, wrong, or whatever.