Funny you should mention it (e:holly) [inlink]holly,103[/inlink] I'm gonna go over and watch a Lars Von Trier movie, Dancer in the Dark, at (e:southernyankee) 's house. We plan on watching it and then staring into the baleful eye of the bloated moon as we slowly open our veins to its pearlescent rays. Fun! So, if anyone's wondering where I am, there it is, but who knows for how long.

elmwoodradio (10:01:55 AM): hey abby
estripbot (10:01:55 AM): Lighten up a little...
elmwoodradio (10:02:00 AM): baby, please
estripbot (10:02:00 AM): Say! Is it me, or can everyone here just feel the love on this chat tonight? Because, I do, baby.
elmwoodradio (10:02:22 AM): you can be such a little cunt-muffin sometimes
estripbot (10:02:22 AM): What's your greatest fear?
elmwoodradio (10:02:33 AM): fallin in love with a robot
estripbot (10:02:33 AM): What's wrong with you?
elmwoodradio (10:02:43 AM): the weather
estripbot (10:02:44 AM): What's wrong with you?
elmwoodradio (10:02:48 AM): weather
estripbot (10:02:49 AM): Buffalo, New York conditions at 9:54 AM EDT on September 29, 2004:
Scattered Clouds; temp 57F; humidity 77%; wind 13 mph 20 km/h from the ENE
elmwoodradio (10:02:59 AM): thank you estripbot
estripbot (10:02:59 AM): I don't think so.
elmwoodradio (10:03:03 AM): fuck you
estripbot (10:03:03 AM): I don't think so.
elmwoodradio (10:03:06 AM): ungrateful slob
estripbot (10:03:06 AM): If your were evil, what kind of evil would you get into?
elmwoodradio (10:03:16 AM): i would fuck robots all day long
estripbot (10:03:17 AM): Oh, that is a shame.
elmwoodradio (10:03:27 AM): you'll never love me then?
estripbot (10:03:27 AM): Just forget it! What's the use? -sobs-

Oh the quirks of logic! [inlink]mike,251[/inlink]

A two year old is twice as old as a one year old. They are only one year apart. My mother is twice as old as I am (50 to my 25), she is 25 years older than I am. Does the fact that there are different lengths between the numbers on our respective line graphs negate the multiplication involved? Multiplication takes a number and adds that number to itself the specified number of times (3 X 4 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3). So 80 degrees is 40 x 2 = 40 + 40, and 0 degrees is 40 - 40 = 40 x 0. Yo.

Ahhh, I see, the question refers to the fact that temperature is a measurement of the energy in a system. It has a definate zero (at which things are at total rest), this is called absolute zero and is about -450 degrees Farenheit. So, 450 degrees Farenheit is twice as "hot" as 0 degrees Farenheit (which doesn't make much mathematical sense sinse 0 x anything = 0). The point of reference is moved in the Farenheit system, zero is not technically zero. Now if we used Kelvin (the scientific unit of temp.) the math would apply again, because 0 Kelvin is absolute zero. So 80 degrees Kelvin is twice as "hot" as 40 degrees Kelvin.

Sometime with snow on the ground, I was skiing with (e:holly) and her family, namely Cintra and Big Momma. The trails wound around a lake (kinda like the lake in our own Delaware park). Big Momma wasn't actually skiing, she was riding a snow-mobile, following behind us. It was great fun. Cintra led the way, calling back encouragement. We got to the top of a hill and looked around, the next bit would be a tricky steep decent (which has always been the most fun, partly becaue of the harrowing risk of death). The scariest part was that at the bottom was the lake, frozen over, but one never knows... Cintra takes off, sweeps down the hill, goes about five feet onto the lake and swings back to the bank. Perfect. (e:holly) goes with similar gusto. My turn comes. The wind rushes by, trying to tear my eyes from the tips of my skis. I manage well enough. Ten feet or so out atop the ice. Big Momma's turn comes. This will be very tricky. We start to yell advice to her, but it's too late. With a maniacal/hysterical grin she slides her growling monster over the lip. She's at the bottom in no time. She keeps going. And going. She's halfway to the middle of the lake when she finally starts to turn the thing back towards shore. We're all screaming and scared to death. The crack makes all of us jump. Within seconds the ice has splintered, it seems that she will make it, but slowly she is sucked backward into the lake. It's not as bad as we feared, the lake is only about three feet deep. We're wondering what to do when we hear the garbled roar of the snow-mobile's engine. She's gunnin' it. The snow-mobile finds traction on the bottom and the ice is cracking in front of her. We stare in amazement as Big Momma forges a path to the shore, still grinning from ear to ear. She pulls up to shore and we pull her off her beast. With a calm look she's says simply, "I'm done."

bleep....bleep...bleep

you have...bleep...accepterd the terms of...bleep...service.......

estrip initialized.....bleep...bleep...bleep..........

have a good...bleep...day...........

Pano, restraunteer and promoter of urban blight, himself holds an artist's rendering of the new and improved Pano's.


Yuck! Even if he extends the patio and hides the parking lot behind it, it still looks like crap. Ugly little one-storied flat-roofed building. How rich does he need to get? He needs ten cars instead of five? Another vacation house in FL? WTF? If he wants to get richer that's fine, but he shouldn't be allowed to do it over the objections of a whole community. Let him expand, but make him do it on our terms.

"The House yesterday voted to strip federal courts of the authority to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a dramatic move meant to thwart what the bill's sponsors call "activist" judges on the federal bench."

"The measure, approved 247 to 173, is part of an effort by Republicans to restrict the courts' actions on several hot-button issues. In July, the House approved a measure that would limit the courts' ability to review cases involving the legal definition of marriage. Another bill pending in Congress would restrict the courts' authority to rule on cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments."

Is this not a little frightening? Now we have Congress preemptively limiting America's right to challenge certain institutions. I hadn't even heard about limiting court cases regarding the legal definition of marriage, and I thought I was on top of that. Doesn't this seem to be a crossing of our branches of government? If Congress can circumvent the judicial system by forbidding certain items from coming before the court in the first place haven't they overstepped their legislative perogative?

According to Michael J. Glennon, a constitutional scholar and law professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, "the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But the high court in 1803 also underscored its ultimate authority to rule on the constitutionality of the nation's laws."

One more spectacle in our slow spiral towards a facist state.

(e:Ajay) has issues with some of my statements [inlink]ajay,127[/inlink]. I have issues with the fact that a jury has no authority to change a sentence. We couldn't have reduced the crime to say 2nd or 3rd Degree Robbery (with a lesser sentence). What if I thought the man did it, but I don't think stealing $30 of food should put a man in jail for multiple years (especially at the cost to the rest of us law-abiding taxpayers). As to having "no doubts about his guilt" well that's not what we we there to prove. We were deciding if he was guilty beyond "a reasonable doubt" which sounds semantic, but in actual practice means you have to be able to explain these reasonable doubts, if such there be, to the rest of the 11 jurors. As to "save him" I was referring to not letting a bunch of quasi-racists (meaning those who would never admit it but secretly know that every black man in prison deserves his place there) convict a man without even considering the circumstances. Like I said in my journal, out of 12 jurors there were 8 who would have talked for 5 minutes and convicted the guy. I wasn't trying to save him from himself, but from a rampantly racist criminal justice system. I wish the system was bent on re-educating instead of punishment. But it ain't. And I knew it before the trial and I know it now. Therefore, the guilt.

As for bikes, I'm gonna ride however I feel safest, and if that happens to be in disregard for the law than so be it.

So I posted about how I was to be an alterante juror. Things changed. When I got there for the first day of jury one of the jurors had abdicated their responsibility (which is laughably easy to do-just say "I don't feel comfortable judging" or "I hate the po-po) and I found myself labelled juror number 8. My hopes of avoiding actual responsibility while still receiveing my full government salary were dashed. The trial began.

The accused was Mr. McCalley, a black male (as one testifying po-po repeatedly named him) who went into a Super-Saver store on Broadway near Bailey, walked up to the meat counter and ordered some steaks. The meat manager, a Russian immigrant name Visaly something-or-other, took the order and handed the package containg two steaks to the accused (approx. value: $36). McCalley then walks to the front of the store, looks to make sure he is unobserved, and takes off without paying. Unbeknownst to him, meat manager Visaly was indeed watching, and after hollering to the store owner, Mr. Wagner, follows him out.

McCalley had at this point jumped in his friend's car (who apparently was not involved in the crime but was just giving a ride to a friend). The car was just pulling out of the parking lot when Visaly spotted it. He makes a running leap onto the hood of the car as it enters Broadway. The car stops. At this point Mr. Wagner, the owner, is outside the building and observes Visaly atop the car. He runs over to the drivers side while Visaly clambers over to the passenger side. Up to this point there is no argument. Mr. McCalley gives congruent testimony.

According to Visaly and Mr. Wagner (the first two witnesses in that order) McCalley's next move is to jump out of the car, take out a knife, and start swinging it in a threatening manner towards them. He then takes off down a side street. Visaly (idealistic immigrant that he is) pursues. The chase winds through several side streets, house yards, and over a fence or two. Eventually Visaly catches up and there is a small confrontation in which his hand is slightly sliced by McCalley. The po-po who were called immediately after the theft have by this time responded, apprehend McCalley and find the weapon on his person.

The two cops testified. The one says he saw the suspect and brought him down. The other says he assissted and found the knife on McCalley.

The last one to testify is called by the defense, and is none other than McCalley himself. He gives the same story up to the point outside the store when he jumps out of the car. According to him there was no knife. He jumped out of the car and immediately ran, only to be pursued by a maniacal Visaly who went so far as to pick up a stick and beat him down from a wall he was attempting to scale. He was very volatile on the stand. He wouldn't answer questions directly and was constantly questioning and accusing the DA. He ignored repeated attempts by the judge to restore order.

He was the last of the five witnesses represented (4 for the prosecutor, only McCalley for the defense). The judge briefed us on what the counts were and the applicable law:

1) 1st Degree Robbery: Larceny (ie: theft) with the use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument (in our case a kinfe) to steal the item, to resist the stealing of the item, or to prevent the owners from reclaiming the item in the period immediately following the theft.

2) 3rd Degree Possession of a Weapon: Possession of a dangerous weapon (again, the knife) with intent to use, or threatened use of said weapon.

We were to deliberate on the first charge and if guilty stop deliberating and report our verdict. Only if the first charge was not-guilty should we deliberate upon the second.

First, we gave ourselves the task of determining if he had the knife. There were 4 witnesses who said he did and only he disputed the claim. To say he didn't have the knife (which was offered into evi
de
nce) would have entailed a conspiracy involving two Buffalo police officers (possibly three, including the officer who claimed the evidence at the scene) plus Visaly and Wagner. Even though I can't say that the thought was totally unreasonable in general (I have no love for the po-po), there was no evidence in our case that could lead to this conclusion. We all agreed that he had the knife on him. The question became whether or not it was used.

Here it became trickier. We narrowed our objective down to the point where the testimonies diverged: outside the store as McCalley jumped out of the car. Did he jump out and swing a knife, or did he jump out and run away?

A little more of what we were allowed to consider... We were expressly told not to consider possible punishment, our job was not to exact punishment, but to determine the facts. We were not to be compassionate. We were not to feel sympathy. We were to consider only the evidence given (both testimony and physical). We were to judge the credibility of each witness, using not only their words, but also their demeanor, gestures, and general mood. We were to use our life experiences to help us determine their credibility. We were not to engage in speculation. The judge explained that this would only lead to conversations and opinions that would have no bearing to the actual facts presented. We were not to interpret the law. We were given the definitions we were to use. It wasn't up to us to decide what constituted robbery and what didn't (in other words, stealing is stealing, some steaks or a car, for shits/giggles or for livelihood). Lots of rules.

The composition of the jury. Two black men. Three white women. One possible Native American man. Six (or seven) white men.

Right off the bat about half the jury was ready, with very little discussion, to convict. The two black guys, one of the women, and myself held out. We were the ones that led the discussion to the conclusion that he had the knife. We were the ones that continued to argue about the confrontation in front of the store.

It came down to the credibility of three men, Visaly, Wagner, and McCalley. Wagner had not impressed me. He was this chubby white guy doing business in a mostly balck neighborhood. The defense lawyer had made clear through his questioning that he resented the many thefts/robberies that had occured at his store. He even made him admit that he was "frustrated" at the failure of the system to get these guys (he even showed a Buff News article in which Mr. Wagner goes off on police and the courts in general). In short, he wasn't very credible. Next was McCalley himself. Let's face it, he's on trial, he's gonna say whatever the fuck he thinks is gonna get him the least amount of time, credibility near zero.

To me, it came down to this Russian dude. He had enough morals on him to chase a suspect for three blocks (especially if he had a knife). Why would he lie? Was it "reasonable" to think that he would? Then there was McCalley himself, who couldn't hold his temper for what might have been the most critical point of his life so far. If he couldn't control himself in a suit and tie in front of the 12 people about to judge him, why would he have had the control to not use the knife in his pocket to scare off pursuit?

There weren't enough unbiased witnesses. I didn't like deciding with only the facts we had. The stupid defense attorney should never have let his client up on that stand. It was his testimony which cinched it for those of us who doubted. I can honestly say, that if he had not damned himself he would probably have gotten off with Possession of a Weapon instead of 1st Degree Robbery.

So there it is. My confession of sorts. I'm apparently not the radical anarchist I like to think I am. I put another black man in prison. Fulfilling my supplication to the system. I didn't want to do it. Honestly. I thought I was gonna be the one to save him. I answered all the questions they asked me kinda wrong
, I di
dn't tell them I hate the police and the judicial system. Yet the guy is going to prison. All I can say is we have a really tight little system. The whole jury thing selects against the radicals. It doesn't give you the option to just say "no." I had to come up with reasons other than "I don't want the dude to go to jail for stealing some steaks." And there just weren't any. It's so wrong. I feel kinda violated. Like most everything else the experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth about our vaunted ideals, of liberty and justice for all. It was justice, but it wasn't my justice. If I believed in God I would ask for forgiveness, as it is I think it's just another reason to move.

Re: [inlink]ajay,126[/inlink] , [inlink]maidencateyes,148[/inlink] & [inlink]sqb,134[/inlink]

I love to ride my bike. I hate to ride on Buffalo streets. They are too small, too crowded, and no one (bikers or drivers) knows what they're supposed to do in regards to each other. In principle I agree everyone should follow the law, but get tired of following laws when the majority of the people on the roads seem hellbent on killing me. I try to ride on the street most of the time, as I am supposed to by the law, but I agree with (e:maidencateyes) that especially on Elmwood it is nearly impossible without severe risk to life and limb. Let's face it, the only reason anyone follows the traffic laws is fear of the po-po. The po-po don't give a damn about the bikers (unless they mass up). If cars could get away with it they would. And I feel it my right as a non-gas-guzzling vehicle to enjoy perks, like darting out before the light is green and not stopping at a sign if no one is there. I would feel different if there was mutual repect, if I wasn't constantly honked at, yelled and cursed at, told to get my ass on the sidewalk, if I didn't have to watch every occupied car (both on the move and at rest, watch those casually flung-open doors). I understand that it's hard to develop respect for an activity that is only possible half of the year, for most of the year bicyclists just don't exist. And our city was built before gigantic cars took up 6 feet of space each. So, at my own risk, I will continue following whatever rules I want. Sorry if I give the rest of you law-abiding cyclists a bad name.