Irrational Exuberance

Are you optimistic, hopeful about the future? It turns out you are not alone; roughly 80% of the population expects things to get better. The reason? You’re biased.

Below I offer a 19-minute explanatory video from the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce).

Synopsis:
Why are we so terrible at predicting what will make us happy? How do we maintain such stalwart optimism about our future in the face of so many modern threats?

Psychologists have long been aware that most people maintain an often irrationally positive outlook on life. Now it looks as though optimism may, in fact, be crucial to our existence. But does unrealistic optimism also threaten it as well?

Acclaimed neuroscientist Tali Sharot’s experiments and research at The Social Brain Project in cognitive science have shed new light on the biological basis of optimism, and she visits the RSA to take an in-depth look at how the brain generates hope and what happens when it fails.

As a Skeptic, I find optimism (or pessimism, for that matter) equally disquieting, particularly if either position is based on incorrect or biased assumptions. For me, I would much rather deal with the facts of a situation; this gives me a more accurate basis on which to act or proceed and thereby expect a more optimal outcome. I have long felt that religious belief is popular because it affords people an optimistic viewpoint regardless of the realities of one’s situation.

But our media and culture are often bombarded with optimistically appearing messages. Over the last month, for example, media reports that the Consumer price index rose 0.2% or home sales rose 3% or unemployment dropped 2% leave the implication that these trends are linear and will continue their positive progression. In fact these figures rise and fall with regularity – precisely what statistics of these measures routinely do.

A reported drop in unemployment does not explain how many people have permanently given up looking for work, how many have returned to work at much lower wages. The underlying concept of "productivity" actually equates to more products or services using fewer people and/or at lower cost. Less people accomplishing more does not bode well for an increasing population all wishing to thrive and prosper.

Still I speak with friends who just assume that things will be getting better; housing will rebound, employment will rally. And in the short run, at least,they probably are correct.

Maybe it’s just me, but in the grand scope of things I don’t see things getting better. As I have often repeated in this blog, I believe my generation has seen the best times Man has, and ever will, on this planet. The truth is the middle class has shrunk, college graduates are increasingly finding it difficult to earn a decent living, and the tenor of political discourse makes me feel like there are those among eager to return society back to the 19ths century.

During a recent exchange with one of my commenters I came across this quotation: "You believe easily that which you hope for earnestly." – Terence 185–159 BC

I believe Terence's simple statement more than adequately sums up the conclusions drawn from Sharot's research at the Social Brain Project.

Angry (or Fearful) White Men

I am always interested in why we humans perceive and respond to the world the way we do. How is it that our brains are comfortable with attaching significance to one set of facts, yet conversely be dismissive (or even ignorant) of contradictory information?

No where do these perceptual differences appear so pronounced (or have such effect directly on our lives) than in the political arena. Here we have candidate Rick Santorum stating with absolute certainty that Global Climate Change is a “hoax” or that a college education essentially amounts to nothing more than Liberal indoctrination. The latter a remarkably absurd statement coming from a religious adherent … religion quite literally wrote the Book on indoctrination!

Liberals certainly are not immune to thinking errors or political gaffs, but why do we associate the prevalence of apparent rational-less ideology so strongly with Conservatives? It sometimes seems that Conservatives are almost living in their own separate reality.

Recent research, it turns out, is revealing that this may indeed be the case. A multitude of psychological studies reveal that Conservatives tends to hold more of a “defensively based” ideology; or more to the point, Conservatives view political issues on an emotional level within a context of threat.

I recently read a news article suggesting that the GOP party establishment is attempting to encourage their candidates to shift the campaign focus less on threatening and fear-inducing commentary and instead more toward what the party visions as their platform for the future. Indeed, the 20-some odd public debates seem to be all about demonizing Obama and each other rather than laying a foundation for sound governance. The GOP's menacing portrayals regarding social issues such as gay marriage, access to contraceptives and religion in politics, appear to be running headlong into a wall not shared by most Americans... even among many other Conservative voters.

The data in these studies show that Conservatives tend to have strong adverse reactions when presented with negative images. "The aversive in life is more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right."^[1]

Liberals, on the other hand, appeal more to an open, exploratory philosophy; trying things out and seeking multiple and contradictory information in comparison. Liberals feel less visceral responses to stimuli because they question whether it is true or if there may be another different or more complex explanation. This philosophic approach has the effect of dispelling fear by considering other possible information.

I notice this fear-based response to topical issues is common among strong religious adherents as well. Evangelicals, who tend to view issues in stark black-and-white terms generally tend to also be Conservative in their thinking. For these folks, belief in god is based on fear of reprisal (hell) for not following the rules, fear of death, even fear of being ostracised by one's peers, all of which plays into acceptance of dogma, or comfortable rationalism, to assuage the threatening consequences.

Back on the political spectrum, this is probably why unsubstantiated, not clearly defined and scary adages such as “redistribution of the wealth”, “Socialism”, “entitlement society”, and “Big Government” to name but a few, seem to resonate as somehow meaningful to Conservative minds.

The down side of acknowledging this theory, regarding the psychology of fear and belief, has the discouraging implication that it may be difficult or impossible break through to minds which appear to be "hard wired" to view the world through the context of fear or threat.

To these folks, as Stephen Colbert has suggested: "The truth has a Liberal bias".

References:

1. "The Left and the Right: Physiology, Brain Structure and Function, and Attentional Differences", Chris Mooney, The Intersection (http://scienceprogressaction.org), Feb. 28, 2012

Deja Vous all over again

In their pandering to sway the voting public to their side and opposing granting another four more years to President Obama, the Republican candidates are campaigning on a dangerous position of "saber-rattling" with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As I mentioned in my previous post regarding how Conservatives rely mainly on fear as a motivation, they are attempting to position themselves as (macho) brash enough to stand up to Iran’s nuclear ambitions versus Obama’s more (wimpy) calculating and realistic stance. Well after all, as Obama has orchestrated the removal of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and killing of Osama Bin Laden, the country needs a new Boogieman to rally and the frighten the gullible voter.

To further this objection, Iran is being presented as an irrational rogue state, crazed with idealism and poised to strike Israel before the paint is even dry the moment their new nukes roll off the assembly line. Whoa, now just hold on a moment says, Joint Chief of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey who recently came under fire from Congressman Tom Price (R- Georgia) when the general said “Iran is a rational actor… the alternative is that we attribute to them [that] their actions are so irrational they have no basis of planning. The key is to understand how they act and not trivialize their actions by attributing to them some irrationality, that’s a very dangerous thing for us to do.” In other words, the General was warning the Conservatives that Iran is not acting in a manner which indicates that they are completely oblivious to the consequences of their ambitions, policies and actions. The Conservatives, of course, are not happy the general is not doing a War Dance and want him fired. Video Here.

I recently listened again to a decade old broadcast of NPR’s This American Life, “Why We Fight”, specifically Act III of the broadcast titled "Realism 101" which was an analysis of the reasons behind our ramp-up to go to war against Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein. My friends, listening to this broadcast was “deja vous all over again” – originally broadcast back in December 2002, I was overwhelmed how closely history may be poised to repeat itself.

The main impetus for whipping up public frenzy for going to war against Iraq was we needed to stop Saddam Hussein BEFORE he got his hands on nuclear weapons. Sound familiar? The incessant drumbeat was that Hussein was an irrational unpredictable megalomaniac who would do anything without regard for the consequences. Actually Hussein cooperated with UN inspectors allowing them into his country and made any number of concessions apparently fully fearing he would be invaded by the US. Actually I think is cooperation pissed the Bush Administration off even more... the result, as we say, is history.

Interviewed in the This American Life segment, Kenneth Pollack, author of the book “The Threatening Storm: the Case for Invading Iraq” spells out in greater depth the (real) reasons for the Bush Administration's eagerness in invading Iraq, among them:

1. Taking Iraq was doable, his army was no match for the might of the U.S. military.
2. The belief that Arab cultures respect the show of force and doing so would change the political climate in the Middle East.
3. Taking Iraq would allow the U.S. to establish bases in Iraq and thereby allowing us to close the Prince Sultan Air Base inside Saudi Arabia. (which did close in 2003).
4. Establishing a friendly government in the region (Iraq) would then appear to promote other U.S. interests in the area including:
   a.) Reduce the dependence on obtaining oil from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
   b.) Imply tacit support to pro-Democracy movements in Iran, Egypt and cause the government of Syria to fall.
   c.) Place additional pressure on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to crack down on Islamic extremism.

I remind you, this interview was conducted in 2002 before we attacked Iraq. Applying 20/20 hindsight, how many of these predictions have come true?

Fast-forward again to today where John McCain just recently grilled Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding the Administration’s reluctance to take an aggressive military position regarding the “threat” posed by Iran and involve ourselves in the conflict in Syria. McCain, in criticizing Panetta’s admonition that we proceed cautiously before committing American lives, said “... let me tell you what’s wrong with your statement... you don’t mention American leadership”.

Of ALL people, Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war McCain should know better. Idealistic posturing regarding idealism and our nation’s honor can, as it has in the past, been paid for with the lives, the limbs and the blood of real people.

As for the GOP candidate's disgusting posturing regarding this extremely serious topic, they can well afford their nonchalant rhetoric… none of those Bozos are the Commander In Chief – yet!

I highly recommend you listen to the short 19-minute segment of link posted here. I think you might agree that we are poised on the brink of having history repeat itself.

Audio Link:
This American Life, Why We Fight, Act III: Realism 101.
Runtime: 19 min

Update:
After composing this entry, Meir Dagan, former chief of Israel's Mossad, was interviewed on last night on CBS 60 Minutes. For the last 30 years Dagan has been specifically charged with counteracting Iran's nuclear weapon development. Dagan stated that Iran is capable of acting rationally and fully understands the consequences of any potential actions they may consider. Dagan emphasized in the strongest terms that military action against Iran is ill advised at this time. View the CBS interview here.

The Poltics of Fear

My wife and I recently had dinner with two other couples at their home. During the course of the evening the discussion turned political. At one point one of the husbands asked if we would go around the table and reveal who we would likely vote for in 2012. The three wives and I indicated we would likely again vote for Obama; one of the guys was leaning toward Ron Paul. The third guy said he had voted for Obama in 2008 but he would now vote for whoever the Republican nominee was. Clearly the character, experience, or the political platform of the final Republican candidate did not matter whatsoever to him; his vote will simply be “Not Obama”.

During the course of the discussion, Third Guy dropped a few key phrases such as: “Socialism”, “redistribution of the wealth”, “entitlement reform” and finally how Obama’s policies were blatantly “anti-business”. Stereotypical (and mythical) opinions regarding Welfare, Unemployment and Food Stamps were also bandied about. Having personal career experience in administering those programs, I was quick to point out their thinking errors… though I had a sneaking suspicion my facts did little dislodge any already congealed ideas in their minds.

I’m not the best at thinking on my feet and, of course, one often thinks of more salient responses long after the fact. Recalling the previous night’s conversation, the nagging suggestion that Third Guy was a regular consumer of Conservative Talk Media came to mind. Given the opportunity to go back in time to the previous evening, I might have offered the following in reply:

Socialism:
As in publicly run institutions for the greater good such as public schools, municipal water supplies, air traffic control? Third Guy had already revealed he was waiting until he reached 65 to retire so he would not be without medical coverage… you know, in order to quality for that Socialist of all social programs – Medicare.

Redistribution of the wealth:
Is he talking about fearing what he thinks WILL happen; or is he completely ignorant that we have already seen the LARGEST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY? I am talking about the monumental transfer of ownership from the Middle Class to the upper few percent. There is no shortage of data to confirm this has happened already.

Obama is “anti-business”:
Really? I am curious if the employees of GM, from the highest compensated CEO down to the assembly line, think the government guaranteed LOAN he orchestrated to keep the auto maker from closing, is anti-business. (Conservatives dismiss this as him merely to pay tribute to Unions) The Obama administration even facilitated millions of taxpayer dollars investment in (non union) solar technology company Solyndra, only to have their corporate management squander Our investment and declare bankruptcy. Let’s make this abundantly clear: this private company dropped the ball, not the government.

I find it discouraging to attempt to have any sort of meaningful discussion with people who have surrendered their thinking for mindless parroting of simplistic, and often outright false, propaganda from Conservative handlers. When faced with such doltishness, facts unfortunately become completely irrelevant.

I'll leave you with this little gem I stumbled across on Reddit:

Power to the People

While we were in Hawaii we flirted with the idea of buying a second home, maybe a condo on the Big Island. In the real estate ads we noted several references to properties that had photovoltaic panels.

Later over dinner with friends of ours who live on the Big Island we asked about the prevalence of solar panels. They revealed that their electric bills were extremely high; averaging around $600 per month. This last Christmas when he had holiday lights on their house, the electric bill rose to $800. Homes in Hawaii generally do not require heat or air conditioning, so we are talking about just powering lights, refrigeration and hot water.

Hawaiians who can afford it have been availing themselves of State and Federal energy programs to subsidize installation of solar panels and photovoltaic panels on their homes. Another person we were talking with revealed that his photovoltaic conversion cost $47,000 a third, of which, was his cost after government subsidies. At these electric rates, he expected his photovoltaic installation to pay for itself in reduced electric bills in roughly five years.

As chance would have it, the very day following our conversation, an article appeared in the West Hawaii Today newspaper detailing that, due to the increase in home photovoltaic panel installations, Hawaiian Electric Co. has lost significant revenue. As a result, the HEC would be raising it’s rates to make up for the loss in revenue. In other words, sell less electricity at higher cost. Renewable energy, it seems, is bad for business and the rate payer is expected to pick up the tab.

As I outlined in my two previous posts, the trend is clear: Corporate America will continue to find ways to suck more of our individual income and give us less in return.

References:
“Hawaii solar savings spark higher electric bills”, West Hawaii Today, Feb.6, 2012.

Trouble In Paradise

Disclaimer: The following information is anecdotal; I was unable to locate adequate numbers of third-party references to substantiate some of the following claims.

Photo: Barges from Hawaii moored at the Port of Longview WA containing shrink-wrapped garbage in metal containers to be disposed of in Oregon land fills.

During our ten-day stay at our resort on the Big Island, the maid service came in twice to tidy our room and change the linens. Our kitchen was fully equipped and included a large blue recycling container. As recycling is embraced in Oregon with almost religious fervor, we dutifully placed our newspapers, cans, bottles and cardboard packaging in the recycling container. So we were quite surprised (and disappointed) on two occasions to later find large clear plastic bags outside the front door of our condo with our recycling mixed in with our general trash.

During our stay we had dinner one night with our friends Lorraine and Neil who were born and raised on the Big Island. Over dinner we related our experience with the recycling-trash at our resort. Our friends explained that, although Hawaii has a recycling “program”, there is no residential curb-side pick up of recycling; instead everyone must physically bring their recycling to a center. In fact we had noticed when we arrived at their home that they had two large barrels filled with aluminum cans in their car port.

Our friends told us that Hawaii had enacted a 5-cent deposit on liquid containers. However many of these still end up in the trash as so many of the tourists to the state come from states where bottle deposits are an unfamiliar concept.

The imperative for Hawaii to begin recycling came to a head roughly four years ago when the landfill on Oahu became full. A proposal was then made to ship Hawaii’s garbage to Oregon for disposal. However Oregonians balked at accepting garbage because: “Hawaiians recycle less than 25 percent of their sold waste. Oregonians, by comparison, recycle more than 50 percent of their waste.” ^[1]

Apparently the State of Hawaii contracted with a company to manage recycling on all the Hawaiian Islands. However a subsequent drop in the market for recycled plastic and increased fuel and other overhead costs have since rendered the program no longer cost effective. As a result, a three year accumulation of recycling material is allegedly being stored unprocessed in warehouses.

Beginning January 1st of this year, plastic (checkout counter) bags will be banned on the Big Island. ^[2] These have become a litter problem and the bags blown into the ocean threaten marine wildlife.

Up to now, Hawaii has generally been able to ignore its material waste disposal. But in a state where the cost of living is extremely high, making recycling programs cost-effective will remain a significant challenge in Paradise.

References:
1. Don’t encourage Hawaii to send its trash, Portland Tribune, Oct. 30, 2009

2. Plastic Bags Banned On Hawaii’s Big Island, Beth Buczynski, Jan. 30, 2012, care2.com

Death By A Thousand Cuts

Death By A Thousand Cuts can refer to:

- Creeping normalcy, the way a major negative change, which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments, is not perceived as objectionable

- Slow slicing, a form of torture and execution originating from Imperial China
~ Source: Wikipedia

Pictured above are two spent cardboard toilet paper tubes; you will notice that one is a bit smaller than the other. My wife is an avid recycler; she retrieves these tubes from our bathroom trash were I toss them and adds them to our household recycling. She noticed that the latest batch of toilet tissue was now being produced in a smaller width. The same number of plies, the same number of rolls per package, and at the SAME PRICE… everything the same with the exception that the customer now get 12% LESS product for their money.

This is not a new tactic in the never ending assault of commercial interests to tap a much of our dwindling consumer dollars as feasible. For example, cereal boxes on the grocery shelf appear to have the same height and width, but the packaging is not as deep; a nuance not readily visible as one browses the grocery aisle. Plastic containers have been redesigned to increase the size of the bottom “dimple” lowering the volume of products by 2 or 3 ounces though the container appears to remain the familiar size. A 6 ounce can of tuna today contains 5 ounces of product.

However this marketing tactic is not reserved only for consumer products. Our health insurance premiums had been increasing steadily at the rate of 11 to 15% each year over the previous years. So we were pleasantly surprised (initially) to find that our cost of our health insurance, which had been $1,150 per month last year, would remain this same amount again this year. Instead the insurance company has increased the costs of deductibles, co-payments and fees for special surgical procedures. We will now be required to pick up the first $1050 in medical expenses before the insurance company pays a cent of our medical bills. The premium has remained unchanged but the additional cost in the not-so-obvious charges essentially results in a 7.6% increase in our costs for insurance over last year.

The trend is clear, we consumers will be expected to pay more for less at every turn… and a great majority of the population will never even notice. I confess that I certainly would not have noticed how we are being gypped on toilet tissue had not my diligent little recycler lady noticed the change.

More than ever the rule of Caveat emptor applies– the trend toward redistribution of the wealth will continue, but not quite in the manner in which the Republicans like to frame the issue.

Postcards from Paradise

A few snapshots from our vacation on the Big Island, Hawaii. I'll let the photos speak for themselves. Enjoy.

High Court Orders Redo of Texas

My son-in-law, Adam, has been finding the news feeds to his i-Phone quite entertaining - specifically the 'truncated" headlines as they are trimmed to fit in the small window of his news app. So amusing an numerous are these that he has decided to publish them on a site he's named Bad Headlines:

http://badheadlines.tumblr.com/

In the mean time I am taking a couple of weeks off to flop under the tropical sun of our very own Hawaiian Islands. While there I'll been checking the validity of our President's birth certificate. So for now, until I return in mid-February, enjoy Bad Headlines.

~ Aloha, RtS

A Jury of his Peers

It was August 2007, I had been called to Jury Duty. Most people will agree that this never happens at a convenient time. This was particularly so for me but this was particularly so at this time - I was called to report on a Monday; the subject of my recently completed documentary, Jerry Andrus had just died of advanced Prostate cancer two days previously on Sunday. My mother-in-law, Wanda, had just been released by the hospital; she was at home under the care of Hospice.

The jury had been selected and I was included. The defendant had been charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. The case laid out something like this:

Two guys were roommates sharing a rental in another city. “Skinny” had some decades old high-mileage muscle car, a GTO. His roommate,“Heavy Guy”, wanted to buy the car from his roommate. The arrangement between them was that Heavy could drive the car all he wanted until he could scrape enough money together to buy it from Skinny.

This arrangement went along fine until one weekend Heavy took the GTO on a long trip to our town. Heavy had borrowed the care for long trips before, however, during this trip the car broke down. Heavy managed to limp this clunker to his girl friend’s house where it sat in her driveway until the repair shop opened on Monday. Heavy managed to get the car to a shop but he didn’t have the money to pay for the repairs; Heavy would need to ask his mother to wire some money to him.

In the mean time Skinny notices that Heavy hasn’t returned the car following the weekend. Word gets to Skinny that his car is broken down in our town; pissed, he calls the police here. The police find the broken down car in the local girlfriend’s driveway. The situation is explained; everyone knows where the car is. The next day Heavy is arrested for essentially stealing the car.

So I’m sitting in the jury box listening to this testimony all the while wondering what the crime is? This seems more like a major misunderstanding has occurred, and a lack of courtesy... but a crime?!I am wondering why the prosecution even brought this trial to court; did a junior prosecutor need some practical court room experience? Remarkably during the entire trial, NO physical evidence is submitted, not one shred – the case is based entirely on whether Skinny gave Heavy permission to take this car. It's Skinny's word against Heavy's.

Skinny appears in court as a witness in a smart suit and tie; he’s young and good looking. His pretty girl friend is with him in court. Heavy, the defendant is overweight and not all that attractive; his shirt is untucked and clearly could use a hair cut.

The judge sends us into deliberation. This being my second time on a jury I decide I will set myself up to be the Foreman. I purposely sit myself at the head of the big conference table in the Jury room. I’m wanting to drive this process so I can wrap this up quickly and I can get back to my family and dying mother-in-law. I ask if anyone else wants to be the foreman; nope – so I am now foreman.

I summarize the case: Skinny has allowed Heavy borrow his car repeatedly over a period of months on the hope that Heavy will by this Junker from him. The junker breaks down out of town and they have a problem. I’m thinking most of the jury is thinking as I; what we have here is a failure to communicate resulting in an over-response by a pissed off car owner. I ask for a view of hands how many of the jurors think Heavy is NOT guilty.

Three people raise their hands. My jaw drops.

The standard for determining guilt in a criminal trial is that 10 or 12 jurors must believe that the defendant is guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Apparently what looks to me like a simple misunderstanding is going to result in a felony conviction for a guy who I don’t think deserves it. I’m surprised to find myself in the minority opinion.

The afternoon wears on, we deliberate. We note there is no evidence, no third-party witnesses or testimony other than the defendant and witness. We note that these guys are not total strangers, that the defendant made no attempt to hide the vehicle, sell it, etc. In fact, he was actually trying to have it repaired at his expense. He's had the car to the shop to get an estimate for repairs, he just needs the money to do the work.

It’s getting dark, the court clerks takes our dinner orders. I call agian for a vote – half the people want to send this kid to prison. The deliberations become heated. One guy, one of these types who wears baggy shorts and his baseball cap on backwards, has clearly developed a grudge against me. Another woman is crocheting; this jury looks like it was put together by Central Casting. What has become abundantly clear to me is that the term “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” is analogous to these people as “I believe truly truly in my heart of hearts”. We are deadlocked. It’s late Monday night; we go home to sleep and must reconvene tomorrow.

I go home despondent. I can’t talk about the trial to my wife, but I can tell her how upset I am. She has spent all day with her mother who is slipping in and out of a coma. Out of town family have arrived at her mother’s home; her end is very near. I feel I am the only person standing between people who would send a guy to prison over a stupid disagreement. I am convinced that if the defendant were a good looking, nicely dressed young man, he’s probably walk. My jury figures that if the guy has gone to trial, that alone must mean he's guilty. I have a poor night’s sleep.

The following morning I arrive early in the jury room before anyone else has arrived. I write on the white board with red markers:

"Preponderance of Evidence"
"Clear and Convincing Evidence"
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

I don’t sit, but stand at the head of the room next to the white board as each juror comes into the room and takes their seat. After the final juror arrives, I begin to speak.

I explain that there are several different standards for making decisions in a court case. For example in a civil case, each party may be partially responsible for what happened. In order to come to a decision we jurors wold have to decide which party is more likely guilty than the other. But we cannot do that in this case. I draw a big X through Preponderance of Evidence.

I then say that again, mostly in civil cases, one side says the other is guilty, the other says they aren’t. In these situations a jury needs to decide which side’s position is more substantially true than not. But again, we are not allowed to send a man to jail because we are leaning more this way than that. I draw another big red X through Clear and Convincing Evidence.

That leaves us with Beyond a Reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean you are pretty convinced Heavy is guilty; it doesn’t mean that you feel it in your gut that Heavy is guilt – it means that you have NO DOUBT whatsoever that Heavy is guilty.

I point out that it is Skinny’s word against Heavy’s. There is no evidence to weigh one mans word over the other. There are no witnesses to confirm what either of these men said to one another. I further say that Heavy may indeed be guilty, but is there a possibility that he is NOT and that this is a misunderstanding that has blown out of proportion? If we don't know FOR SURE we must acquit him.

I call for a vote – 2 guilty, 10 NOT guilty. In Oregon it only requires 10 out of 2 to decide a trial. I don’t even attempt to turn the two remaining jurors; backward hat boy voting against me, not his conscience. Crochet woman is an idiot. But I cut my losses, quickly informing the clerk we have a verdict before anyone changes their mind. Moments later everyone is walking out of the courthouse.

As I rush directly from court to my mother-in-law’s home I chisel two important facts into my brain: The name of Heavy’s defense lawyer so I NEVER hire him as my defense attorney, and secondly, that if I am EVER accused of a crime, I’ll NEVER ask for a jury trial but instead leave my fate to a judge.

Later that evening Wanda slips briefly out of her coma. She is surrounded by her family, children and grand children. She peacefully loses consciousness and is gone.

[Between composing this story and posting it; I received a summons in the mail to appear for jury duty]