Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was thinking over the next 50 years, not beyond that.

It just depends on what the underlying assumptions are when they predict it will peak. And if some airborne disease that kills people off rapidly comes along, all bets are off.

My understanding is that if you base the predictions on improved medical and agricultural technology and improved sanitation and other public health measures in the third world countries, it should keep growing for at least another 100 years.

However, if you also take into account improving the status of women in these countries, which may be happening some, that leads to fewer children. The more power that women have in a society, the fewer children they have because they have other more rewarding options they can pursue and don't have to turn themselves into human incubators.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
It just depends on what the underlying assumptions are when they predict it will peak. And if some airborne disease that kills people off rapidly comes along, all bets are off.

My understanding is that if you base the predictions on improved medical and agricultural technology and improved sanitation and other public health measures in the third world countries, it should keep growing for at least another 100 years.

However, if you also take into account improving the status of women in these countries, which may be happening some, that leads to fewer children. The more power that women have in a society, the fewer children they have because they have other more rewarding options they can pursue and don't have to turn themselves into human incubators.

On a more optimistic front, as more and more women wear these Janet Jackson nipple ring thingies, sex will decrease, and we will approach sustainability.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
For those who were arguing about Ms. Martha earlier, I'll repeat my point of several days ago:

She's fucked.

Expect a plea.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040210/D80KKRCG0.html

Did the link go to the wrong article? I thought a large part of the obstruction charge was altering her phone log to disguise teh nature of baconovic's message. But here we have testimony that she altered it and then immediately changed it back. Where's the obstruction? I suppose technically if she were under a subpoena and altered it and then altered it back it might state a charge. But good lord that's thin.

Does it show consciousness of guilt? Perhaps. but obstruction? where.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
For those who were arguing about Ms. Martha earlier, I'll repeat my point of several days ago:

She's fucked.

Expect a plea.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040210/D80KKRCG0.html

If I were on a jury and the evidence was that she changed it and then changed it back, I would not convict on the obstruction of justice charge for only that. I would be of the opinion that it would be human to get scared but that she did the right thing in the end. If they had other evidence of things she did to obstruct justice, then I might convict. But not on her changing it and then having it changed back alone.

Now, if they had charged her with insider trading, I would feel that testimony was a indication that she was guilty. But they didn't charge her with that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
On a more optimistic front, as more and more women wear these Janet Jackson nipple ring thingies, sex will decrease, and we will approach sustainability.

It just depends on your societal ideal of beauty. For instance, this woman is considered quite attractive in her culture and to Americans, I am sure that is not considered attractive (but I could be wrong):

http://www.africanconservancy.org/me...surmadisk.html

[SPREE - ritualistic lip stretching]

If some guy somewhere likes that look, I am sure that that nipple plate JJ wore would turn someone on, too.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


If some guy somewhere likes that look, I am sure that that nipple plate JJ wore would turn someone on, too.

Take the plate out, and she'd have it goin' on. Especially for a well-hung guy like me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does it show consciousness of guilt? Perhaps. but obstruction? where.

Consciousness of guilt, willingness to hide and obstruct, general baddidity, . . . .

All part of a balanced breakfast.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
For instance, this woman is considered quite attractive in her culture . . .

Not too wild on the look, but what a great ping-pong partner!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Take the plate out, and she'd have it goin' on. Especially for a well-hung guy like me.

From that website, if you got 75 cows to trade, she is yours.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Consciousness of guilt, .

but of insider trading, for which she has not been charged criminally, right?

She was attempting to hide the basis for her trades, not attempting to hide her obstruction of justice relating to her attempt to hide the reason for her trades.

So, relevance?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
but of insider trading, for which she has not been charged criminally, right?

She was attempting to hide the basis for her trades, not attempting to hide her obstruction of justice relating to her attempt to hide the reason for her trades.

So, relevance?

Her defense has been partially premised on the idea that she had a 60-price sell arrangement, and thus had nothing about which she should feel guilty, and nothing to hide, and so she hid nothing and obstructed nothing. If she proves that, she proves her defense. Now, she can't really prove that. It's all a chain. She's looking at the case at that point, after talking to her lawyers, and going "shit", and she tentatively tries to forge some evidence, and chickens out. Now, she tells the jury, she did nothing wrong, and never lied about anything she did, 'cuz there was never anything bad that she felt the need to lie about, (except that e-mail, you know . . . )

Her cred is shot in that regard, I think.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
but of insider trading, for which she has not been charged criminally, right?

This is the way I would see it if I were on the jury. I am sure that technically the fact that she changed it and then changed it back is still obstruction since she tampered with evidence. But based on the fact that she told the secretary to change it back, I wouldn't convict unless there was something else to go on.

Of course, if I were on a jury, I would not follow the law to the letter. I would base things on my own moral compass of right and wrong. The law isn't always right and I would not feel bound by it if I were on a jury.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Her defense has been partially premised on the idea that she had a 60-price sell arrangement, and thus had nothing about which she should feel guilty, and nothing to hide, and so she hid nothing and obstructed nothing. If she proves that, she proves her defense. Now, she can't really prove that. It's all a chain. She's looking at the case at that point, after talking to her lawyers, and going "shit", and she tentatively tries to forge some evidence, and chickens out. Now, she tells the jury, she did nothing wrong, and never lied about anything she did, 'cuz there was never anything bad that she felt the need to lie about, (except that e-mail, you know . . . )

Her cred is shot in that regard, I think.

Fair point, but relevant? If I'm innocent, but under investigation for something, and I destroy some docs that might be suspicious, but I know are not (hey, words can be taken the wrong way), I can't rest my defense on ultimate innocence. I have to rest it on the argument that I was not obstructing anything because the documents weren't relevant, or were destroyed pursuant to company policy, or whatever.

I understand why this plays well in front of a jury, from a defense perspective, but if this is the only act supporting the obstruction charge, it's pretty thin (although powerful if in combination with something else, partiuclarly on the conspiracy to obstruct).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


Of course, if I were on a jury, I would not follow the law to the letter. I would base things on my own moral compass of right and wrong. The law isn't always right and I would not feel bound by it if I were on a jury.

Trying to get out of jury duty here? I didn't know you were called.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Her defense has been partially premised on the idea that she had a 60-price sell arrangement, and thus had nothing about which she should feel guilty, and nothing to hide, and so she hid nothing and obstructed nothing. If she proves that, she proves her defense. Now, she can't really prove that. It's all a chain. She's looking at the case at that point, after talking to her lawyers, and going "shit", and she tentatively tries to forge some evidence, and chickens out. Now, she tells the jury, she did nothing wrong, and never lied about anything she did, 'cuz there was never anything bad that she felt the need to lie about, (except that e-mail, you know . . . )

Her cred is shot in that regard, I think.

I see your point in that she told investigators that she couldn't remember conversations and if she couldn't remember conversations, why was she changing the log?

I can think of a plausible explanation for Martha. She can say that she didn't think she had done anything wrong and truthfully couldn't remember conversations. So she started reviewing her files and phone logs to see if that would jog her memory, and then she saw that entry, and she paniced because it looked bad and her first instinct was to delete it so she did. Then when she realized what she had done, she recognized that she shouldn't have done that and told the secretary to change it back.

That would sounds plausible to me if I were a juror.