what's most confused is your strained ability to distinguish the 2 situations- expected, but confused.

what's most confusing is that (and i was watching) it took you a half an hour to compose this nonsense- you know your breezy NYC hipster "I'm all in control" attitude? That's a front, huh?

The bus you took to middle school- how many rows of seats- 10 or so?

(1) That's interesting. I'm pretty much anti-death penalty (usual rant about Cafeteria Catholics like Jeb Bush and Antonin Scalia deleted), so take this with a grain of salt, but I would say that this is not a case where the death penalty is warranted. It just seems that he was too far removed from the conspiracy, despite his wishful thinking.

(2) Yes and no. Interesting article in Slate on that very point -- which boxes the jury checked, and possible explanations of why they did. And I am occasionally troubled by how juries reach their decisions, but I think that the rare odd/stupid verdict is the price we pay for having a jury of our peers make these sorts of decisions.

The Slate article gives the impression that there was a box given to the jurors for "limited involvement" but the NYT article said that 3 jurors wrote it in. Anyone know what the story is on this?

ETA because I could see some jurors not wanting to check the made-up, unofficial box.

am i on ignore again? I posted the actual form. they did write that in- and mentioned that 3 found for it.

Via our former landlords, here's the actual form. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/m.../jv2phase.html

As you can see, there's a printed one that says his role in the operation was minor, and a handwritten one that says his knowledge of the attack plans was limited.

So, they're sorta different factors -- I'd guess probably the same people voted for both of these, but who knows.

ETA: Sorry if the link was already posted, hank -- I don't have you on ignore, but I don't remember actually looking at the form. Maybe I just like fringey better.

hmmmmm

Ah. I remember the pic, don't remember the link to the form. Perhaps fringey and I read your post before the edit adding the link.

I meant that posting that picture was cheap, like your suits.

And it's hippy, not hipster.

Hmmmm, Yourself
 

Perhaps it was the disturbing photograph you posted that urged others to simply scroll past your post as quickly as possible?

Yes, in that 18-hour window between posting and editing, I think. :rolleyes:

got me. i was just trying to increase my oil profits.

and Wonk, yes the picture is disturbing. but the answer isn't to put out of our minds it happened- saying Mousarria(sp?) will now go away quietly and we can move on- that's more disturbing.

Hey, I wasn't playing "gotcha" -- I just honestly didn't remember seeing the link when I saw your post.

Apropos of nothing, Slate's dialog this week has Robert Kagan, and in his entry yesterday, he made the most cogent and lucid defense of invading Iraq that I have seen.

one. it was 16 hours, and that was a second minor edit- the edit that added the verdict form was earlier and also added the photo.

Dow Hits 6 Year High
 

Dow Hits 6 Year High
 

Sometimes I doubt my decision to invest my retirement fund exclusively in the fine products issued by the Franklin Mint. But only for a moment. This bubble will burst, mark my words.