Five blocks away . . .

[bluerealm]

that video looks like something out of a war movie.

GO HOME!!!

your not making a difference!!! you just need something to rage about.

[bluerealm]

i don't know all the facts but i do know when kids just want to destroy crap.

[Hardheaded1]

Random, barely tangential interruption:



And while we're wayyyy off topic, the Rosetta Stone was a pivotal dividing line in people who suspected Joseph Smith was a fraud and those who could prove it incontrovertibly. His alleged translation of The Pearl of Great Price preceded the Rosetta Stone's completed translation. As such, his translation of the Egyptian papyrus later proved that it was wholly fraudulent. http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

[dynamodean]

I could have went to Berkeley for school. Man, what could have been....nyuk nyuk

[Virge]

[MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION] Well, I have to thank you for giving me reason to back up and re-think on this. I should be home in +/- 84 minutes and can't wait to get on my computer and read more so that I can make up my mind to either agree with you on what you presented above -- or dispute it. Right now from what I've been able to read so far I'm inclined to agree with you. I had to read up on the M Naghten Rule applied in White's trial and the trial of Pres. Garfield's assassin, Guiteau, just to get a better understanding of the insanity defense used in White's trial.

AND you made me realize I severely contradicted myself and see why I did it. I sincerely thank you for that Mike. And I will take this lesson and move forward with it and do my best not to make the same mistake again. What was the mistake? Glad you asked...hahahhaha!

I am one of the biggest advocates I know of for trusting the judgment of jurors -- until I have concrete reasons to believe there was "an undeniable abuse of the court system." That was the wrong thing to say and was based on my own assumptions that the Dan White jury in 1979 was as predisposed to dish out verdicts exonerating murderers of gays as they were up to the trials for the murderers of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming and Billy Jack Gaither in Alabama twenty years after the trial of Dan White.

You can understand why that was and is a reasonable assumption -- but then I admit that it is lacking in evidence at this time. After reading the M Naughten Rule AND some details of the Guiteau trial I'm having to back up and re-think the whole idea that the jurors who gave White voluntary manslaughter over 1st degree murder may have been following the law and their best judgments. Which leads to ............

If I find there's no proof of juror bias for White then you will have made a real good parallelization between the riots after the White verdict and the riots after the Ferguson grand jury's no bill --- BUT this will not redeem the acts of the Ferguson rioters. It will mean I will have to alter my obviously biased perspective favoring the rioters after the White verdict and be equally critical of them for doing essentially the same thing rioters in Ferguson did >>> not accepting the judgment of jurors who acted on evidence and reason.

Mike --- this is the type of challenge I thrive on regardless of the outcome! I'm excited to have this thrown at me and can;t wait to dig into this and come to some conclusions based solely on evidence and reason. I'm never upset with having to change my stand on anything when someone provides me a valid reason to re-think my views.... except I am not going to start re-thinking my sexuality no matter what anyone says.

Big large adult size THANKS to you!

Virge.

[East]

I am watching them on HWY 24 on channel 7 right now..I do still watch the local Bay Area news.

I am THRILLED that they are protesting...doesn't matter if I agree with them or not. I am tired of all of us just laying down and submitting in silence to all the bullshit....

[Virge]

Sorry East. I could never get out and protest or support those who do when the entire thing is based on the total disregard of facts. I've been digging into this from all angles since before the grand jury gave a no bill. The protestors are out there for totally bogus causes if you put all the facts first.

[JackTX]

There have been protests in Dallas too. I think they walked out onto the highway at one point last week.

I'm not sure why they're blocking commuters instead of protesting at city hall/police stations though. I already agree with them. If they stop me from getting home I won't agree with them any more than I already do and I will then just want to run them over.

*floors it*

[MikeW]

I could have went to Berkeley for school. Man, what could have been....nyuk nyuk

[MENTION=21174]dynamodean[/MENTION] : Just to be clear, most of these "useful idiots" are not UC Berkeley students. Some may be but there are a lot of politicized youth in the area not directly connected to the University. The headquarters for the local Communist party is literally right across the hall from my office. My (admittedly limited) understanding is these actions were initiated by Occupy Oakland:


Yes, that's yours truly with my friend 'little Mike' out in front of a peaceful demonstration that marched on the Port of Oakland, November, 2011. That demonstration of several thousand people -- easily 10 to 20 times larger than what has been going on here in the last few days -- was without violence of vandalism.

Last night's protests, generally consisting of fewer than 100 people, had far more vandalism than Saturday night. This video was taken in front of my office around 10:30 PM Sunday:

10:55pm: The marching protesters are now back in Berkeley, having spent the past few hours in Oakland. In the area of Telegraph and Channing, Raguso witnessed a group of protesters split off from the main march. They gathered garbage cans and tires and tried to set fire to them. Other protesters tried to talk them out of it, saying “it was not the point.” Those trying to set the fire said it was the point, adding: “Think about Ferguson.”

From reading the Berkeleyside page, it is clear that this is a rather small group and although some are vandals, others among them are arguing against vandalism. So they're not well organized or even in agreement about their intent.

[MENTION=21084]Virge[/MENTION]: (1) The point I'm making is that people base their opinions, decisions, actions -- 'meaning of life' -- what have you -- on what they *believe* to be true (whether it IS true or not). We're a media and information saturated society where information and disinformation go hand-in-hand. This makes it virtually impossible for a majority opinion, let alone a consensus, to form about any issue of importance. Instead, the opinions tend to break along standard-model right/left "liberal/conservative" fault lines. Doesn't matter much what the issue is -- global warming? You get your scientists and I'll get mine and from there everyone chooses whatever "facts" reinforce their already preconceived opinion. (I don't want to get into the whole global warming debate, I'm just using that as an example.)

[MENTION=21084]Virge[/MENTION]: (2) You're "digging into" all this *assumes* you can trust your sources of information as "factual" i.e., "reality based." But, as Carl Rove made clear, today's actors and policy makers shape their own reality:

The aide [later attributed to Carl Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush". The New York Times Magazine.

Or, I might as well say, What do "facts" have to do with ANYTHING? The way the world works, , the way things get done, functions, isn't based on FACTS -- it is based on "perceptions," what people *believe to be true*. Now, of course, a belief may be more or less "factual" -- but "facts" -- even when they're known (which, IMO, is far, far less than we assume) -- don't motivate people nearly half as much as *beliefs*. This is fully understood in the academic field of public policy:

...contemporary history is defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption', is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.

Philip Zelikow (who, among other positions, was once the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission). Thinking About Political History (PDF). My emphasis.

.

[Virge]

@Virge: (2) You're "digging into" all this *assumes* you can trust your sources of information as "factual" i.e., "reality based." But, as Carl Rove made clear, today's actors and policy makers shape their own reality:

[MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION]
When I start digging for information I go for totally neutral sources and in this case for background information about things that happened in the trial (like using the M Naghten Rule) it's pretty easy to find a neutral source using sites on criminology&insanity pleas, legal sources and avoiding anything that quotes media as sources under 30 years old. I'm not even concerned with the actual trial of Dan White right now. I want to understand some other issues first and that's going to take me some time. I'm not putting this on a timetable.

You said

"... isn't based on FACTS -- it is based on "perceptions," what people *believe to be true*. Now, of course, a belief may be more or less "factual" -- but "facts" -- even when they're known (which, IMO, is far, far less than we assume) -- don't motivate people nearly half as much as *beliefs*. This is fully understood in the academic field of public policy:"

I'm way over on the far right side of the learning bell curve on that subject... like back to the 18th century and can name people who've used that for good and for bad. But that's not on my front burner at this moment. I'm intrigued with some things I've found out on the M Naghten Rule & insanity pleas in general.

I'll be reading on this later today when I'm done with being a good little student for 2 hours this morning.