Monthly Archives: February 2025

I’ll answer based on my one experience as a juror; it was enlightening for future work. I was selected just as I was beginning my first year of law school.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. He blew a .23, about three times the legal limit today. Then, in 1979, the limit was .10, but unlike today, it was not a presumption of guilt. The prosecutor had to prove his erratic driving was the result of being intoxicated. The test was nothing more than a piece of evidence, not the determining factor.

The prosecutor was a young man with a belligerent attitude. The defense attorney appeared to be an older man with a balding head and graying beard. Unlike the prosecutor, he looked gentlemanly and distinguished. I knew both from working as a deputy clerk of the clerk of court’s office.

For about six hours, we listened to testimony. An expert witness explained the workings of the breathalyzer test. The defendant took the stand in his defense. He had been visiting his girlfriend in Akron and was going home to the Youngstown area. His drive required him to pass through our county at about 2:30 a.m. He admitted drinking but attributed his poor driving to being tired.

The prosecutor smirked and questioned him to the point of ridicule. The defense attorney remained the calm professional we, the jury, perceived him to be.

After closing arguments, which were better than the trial in highlighting the contrasting styles of the attorneys, we retired to the jury room. I lived in a small but growing rural county. One of the jurors was from my hometown. We numbered six, all with varying backgrounds. We introduced ourselves with a little background statement to get to know each other. Because I was in law school, the others selected me as a jury foreman.

Not much of a reason to be selected foreman and it didn’t carry much weight. But it did give me a certain privilege, it seems. I suggested an immediate vote without much discussion to gauge where we were. I’d seen it in a movie(12 Angry Men). My thought was maybe we were unanimous already. The attempt failed. It needed discussion, though, and the conversation turned to our thoughts on the case, not so much the facts.

The opening shot came from the man I knew from where I grew up. He didn’t like the reliance on the machine the prosecutor thought so important. To him, it was like our jobs weren’t important. Our decision was being made for us by a test result, and a couple more chimed in to support this view. It opened the door to the defendant driving erratically because he was tired, not because he was under the influence of alcohol. We knew the defendant’s entire day from his testimony before beginning his roughly hour drive home.

It was not explicitly stated, but we knew what it was like to drink, and drive. We also knew it could be tiring driving that early in the morning, regardless of drinking. The story was plausible and created doubt, but something more important was becoming apparent.

The jurors spoke of the demeanor, not of the defendant but the prosecutor. Frankly, he wasn’t liked by the jury. He was thought to be arrogant. The defense attorney wasn’t, though. He appeared to be and acted at all times a gentleman. That, and not liking machines, made the outcome of the vote inevitable.

We marched back into the courtroom in an hour, maybe a little less. One duty as the foreman was to announce the verdict after the judge reviewed it. Our finding of not guilty was met with an angry outburst from the prosecutor as he stood and walked out of the courtroom before it was over.

The judge then thanked us. Now it was over, pretty much. The defense attorney and his client stood. The attorney thanked us for our time and consideration on behalf of his client, calling him by name. His client nodded his assent. Now we were finished.

As an aside, all these years later, my wife and I are currently represented by the prevailing attorney. I told him the story and remembered the case. He was disappointed with the jury and how we reached our decision. He remembered his client because he had never been paid and had tried to withdraw, but the judge wouldn’t allow him out. For me, it was a learning experience for later.

So, as far as the cartoon, we found the defendant not guilty in significant part because of the arrogance of the prosecutor. Se La Vie, as we say here.

The income tax makes it too easy for politicians to grab a bunch of money and spend it however they want. When they do this, it can mess things up—like making prices go up (remember the Biden Anti-inflation Inflation Act), making it harder for people who work hard to enjoy their money, and pushing folks to spend instead of save or invest. Ultimately, it can hurt the U.S. economy and make things tough for everyone.

On the flip side, tariffs are like a special tax that only hits stuff made outside the U.S., kind of like a national sales tax. You don’t have to pay this extra “sales” tax if you buy things made in America with American materials. That means you can save some cash by choosing U.S.-made products. Also, with tariffs, there’s no big team of tax collectors snooping into people’s lives or leaking private info to help politicians. It’s simpler and less nosy.

Tariffs can bring in a lot of money, but not as much as some politicians might want, so they can hand out cash to their buddies and gain more power. Because of that, the government would have to shrink and focus on just the main jobs the Constitution gives it—like defending the country—instead of trying to control everything like it’s been doing for the last hundred years. It’s a way to keep things more basic and fair.

What certain critics might denounce as vengeance is, in truth, justice that’s been a long time coming. Kash Patel offers a potent mix of experience, skill, and an unwavering commitment to reality—qualities that naturally make him a danger to the entrenched political class.

The FBI once enjoyed widespread trust, but that confidence has plummeted over the years, particularly in the last four, and it’s not hard to see why. Favorability polls for the agency are at a century now. The weaponization of the agency has been its downfall.

The nation is at a crossroads. Those who refuse to support genuine change are as much blame as those who openly resist it. The FBI has morphed into a political entity while presenting the false appearance of a law enforcement body. Sure, they’ve had their share of successes in the past, but their recent activities, especially the trampling of the rights of the people, have been glaring. A thorough overhaul is well past due.

Why, oh why, can’t the GOP muster the same unity as the Democrats? Thune needs to step up, turn up the heat, and keep it there. We might see the desperately needed reforms if he can pull that off.

Listening to a sermon today about how God uses broken people, from Judges 11:29, the words, “Then the SPIRT OF THE LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there, he advanced against the Ammonites.”

Unrelated, I recalled a song from a long time ago, Spirit in the Sky by Norman Greenbaum. The song has been interpreted in various ways. In line one, Greenbaum says, “I’ve got a friend in Jesus.” So, the thought would naturally be that it’s a song about Christianity. Not really. It was a time of counterculture, and Greenbaum was a Jew.

The beauty of the song is that it can be interpreted in many ways, including Christianity. By the way, Greenbaum once said the song had to do with his own spiritual curiosity and the gospel music he heard. In interviews, he noted that the song explored his idea of faith and the afterlife and chose “Jesus” for universal recognition within the context of American spirituality despite his personal Jewish faith.

“Spirit in the Sky” by Norman Greenbaum can indeed be interpreted as embracing Christ and the Christian faith due to the explicit references to Jesus in the lyrics.
Consider the direct mention of having “a friend in Jesus” and going “on up to the Spirit in the Sky” as an affirmation of Christian beliefs where Jesus is central to salvation and the afterlife.

That’s my view anyway. Listen and draw your own conclusions.

Tulsi Gabbard’s unique profile makes her an excellent choice for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) role. Gabbard brings military experience to the position, including active deployments. This experience lends credibility to understanding the complexities involved in intelligence gathering and analysis from a firsthand perspective. As a lieutenant colonel, to me, this shows her commitment to national service and ability to handle sensitive security matters.

Consider Gabbard’s political journey from a progressive Democrat to an independent and later a Republican. It demonstrates her ability to navigate political divides, learn, and move forward as she matures.

As one born during the Korean War and living through continual hot and cold wars, I’ve moved back and forth between hawk and dove. I’ve grown weary of war. I appreciate her outspoken criticism of interventionist foreign policies and her advocacy for peacebuilding rather than military engagement. Therefore, I have a personal liking for her that likely has no bearing on intelligence gathering, but it could. We’ve seen what happens when the opposite is true: Iraq.

Gabbard’s skepticism towards traditional intelligence narratives, particularly concerning U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts like Syria, for which she has been unjustly criticized, it shows her willingness to exercise evidence-based decision-making aligned with constitutional principles. It indicates a commitment to safeguarding civil liberties, which is crucial for maintaining public trust in intelligence activities. We’ve seen abuses of civil liberties over the past 20 years, and so too has she seen it in her personal life. My thought is she gets it better than most.

I conclude as I began, Tulsi Gabbard’s total background and focus on balancing national security with civil liberties make her a good choice for leading the U.S. intelligence community to keep us safe from those wishing our country harm.