If I ever have a kid, the real education will be in the home...school is strictly for socialization and training in deceiving bueracracy.

Going by such logic, should one therefore still presume the credibility of arguments offered by birthers that President Obama was born in Kenya, simply because those crackpots refuse to accept the documented evidence that he was born in Hawaii?

How about the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old, because Christians who are Biblical literalists reject the voluminous evidence to the contrary? What about climate change? Are 97% of scientists therefore not credible because a loud little handful of deniers choose not to accept their findings?

But getting back to the jury verdict, at this point the burden of proof has shifted to the now-convicted felon, to convince an appeals court that the jury got it wrong. The rest of us are no longer obligated to presume his innocence, nor to accept as credible those arguments based on points of contention rejected by the jury. The now-convicted defendant shot first and asked questions later, and the jury found him wholly responsible and legally liable for his actions.

Doesn't hurt the small courthouse is like 5 mins from my place and they have a second shift that starts at 11 or 12, which you can request.

I would do it once a month if I could.

And the rule here, I believe, is innocent until proven guilty.  They proved to a jury the guy was guilty and there is no lingering questions about whether he was the guy, or a bad ID, or whatever, he was properly and legally judged by his peers.

People will - as they always do - argue that the Conventions don't apply for any of many reasons, but I think that, if nothing else - whether the nations in question are signatories, or whether there are any exceptions to be found - the Conventions can and should stand as a humanitarian guide to conducting war.

I don't see the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians resolving itself anytime soon, but I'm beyond tired of people acting like Israel can do no wrong, and is entitled - because of what has been perpetrated upon them for centuries - to carte blanche.  

The negotiations in Cairo hinge on whether Hamas and Israel can forge any kind of agreement which currently seems unlikely given what each side is demanding. Hamas is insisting that Israel must end the blockade and reopen Gaza's borders while Israel demands Hamas and all of Gaza be demilitarized. Needless to say neither side is enthused about the offers on the table. Israel has also said it will not hold negotiations during armed conflict, though Hamas claimed to have no problem doing so.

While Israel is violating international law with the blockade, the US' veto at the UN prevents international sanctions and allows Israel to continue both the Gaza blockade and building of illegal settlements in the West Bank. All indications are if Israel is allowed to continue the blockade, they will.

Link

That is when I miss the old oak tree, back on the farm, in Wisconsin.