Who The Hell Will Work For $15 A Day?
No, this is not an advertisement for help by some Chinese assembly plant - this is a job posting by local and federal courthouses.
Call to Jury Duty Strikes Fear of Financial Ruin
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — One by one, jurors answered Judge Robert A. Rosenberg when he asked whether serving a trial of four to five weeks would be a hardship. Chemelle Charles, a nurse, said it definitely would: “I’m the only one working in my house right now.”
Ranae Johnson, the jury commissioner for Bonneville County, Idaho, said that she typically summoned 400 people for each two-week term of service, but that lately she “had to pop it up to 500” because of rising numbers of economic hardship claims. “We’re hearing it more than we used to,” Ms. Johnson said. “A lot more.”
She read from her notes of recent calls. “I was laid off, have no car, no job and no friends that can even bring me there,” one caller had argued. Another said, “I cannot even afford the gas to have to come down there.”
Judge Rosenberg, in Florida, said in an interview that when the “pervasive cloud of financial insecurity” reaches the jury room, “a judge has to be sensitive to the economic times.”
Judge Rosenberg agreed. He could force more jurors into the box than he does, he said, but a miserable juror who is straining to get back to work might be too eager to reach a quick verdict instead of engaging in a full and careful deliberation. “That’s not the juror you want,” he said. “That’s not justice.”
“We might actually have jurors who are looking to get the money,” Mr. Benefiel said, which amounts to $15 a day for the first three days and $30 thereafter.
Is Justice Being Denied By Underpaying Jurors?
I doubt that most people are convinced that it is their “civic duty” to spend weeks on a jury trial while foregoing their normal paycheck in lieu of $15 per day. That is simply asking too much of people especially for those living paycheck to paycheck.
The problem for the legal system is that the juror selection process is obviously being distorted by eliminating those who have full time jobs. The result of this jury selection distortion is no doubt of interest to both plaintiff and defendant, although it is not clear who ends up benefiting. If working people are routinely being excluded from jury selection, does this result in a denial of your rights to plead your case in front of a “jury of your peers”? The thought processes of a jury that is comprised of unemployed, retired or other nonworking individuals may be less inclined to have a impartial view of a prosperous defendant and ultimately preempt a fair jury decision.
Pay What The Job Is Worth
The most obvious answer for overcoming the financial objections to jury service is to provide fair compensation to jurors instead of the ridiculous $15 per day compensation. If a working person is called for jury duty, pay them the same amount that they would have received at their regular job. If the prospective juror is unemployed offer a fair rate of compensation. Money talks as always.
A European Union ban on the manufacture and import of 100 watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs, in use since the 19th Century, has come into force.
The EU wants the bulbs to be replaced mainly by longer-lasting compact fluorescent lamps.
The Energy Saving Trust says fluorescent lighting uses 80% less electricity than traditional bulbs.
The ban will be extended to all incandescent bulbs by 2012.
Both Europe and the United States now have plans for the eventual phaseout of the energy inefficient incandescent light bulb, a relic that has been virtually unchanged since its invention by Thomas Edison. Given the high cost of energy and the long lead times to develop alternative energy sources, banning the incandescent light bulb is a quick and painless way to conserve energy and reduce home owner’s energy costs.
The merits of the compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) had been explored in a previous post - A Bright Idea - CFL (Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs)
The Energy Department announced new lighting standards that are expected to reduce the nations energy bill by $4 billion annually when implemented in 2012.
The change that will affect the average American the most will be the ban on the sale of standard incandescent light bulbs in 2014. Huge energy savings are already immediately available to every American by simply replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent. One has to wonder, why would the Energy Department take another 5 years to ban the energy wasteful incandescent bulb?
Replacing just one incandescent bulb with a CFL can save a homeowner roughly $90 over four years in electricity cost. Incredibly, many Americans still chose the much more costly incandescent bulb over the much less expensive and energy efficient CFL because of the cost difference up front. An incandescent bulb can cost 25 cents while a CFL can cost $2 to $3.
Given the facts involved, why would most people still use the much more costly incandescent light bulb? Is it simply a case of consumer ignorance - or is the average American budget simply too tight to afford the right choice?
America At War - Again
Does being elected President of the United States somehow turn an otherwise normal man into an aggressor, eager to engage American armed forces into unnecessary wars? Consider the following:
Military buildup in Afghanistan warranted, Obama says
The White House last week announced substantial increases of troops bound for Afghanistan and plans to increase training and foreign aid both in that country and in neighboring Pakistan.
Obama said Al Qaeda and its allies would be pursued aggressively but that did not mean that ground troops would enter Pakistan.
Wars are a horrific waste of economic resources and human life, yet the powers to be seem eager to “project our power” by engaging in needless and useless conflicts. What exactly is our strategy and exit plan with Iraq and Afghanistan? The lack of a c0herent strategy for conducting two wars that we cannot afford and that seem to be without purpose seem certain to backfire on the Obama administration at some point.
Poll: Most Say Afghanistan War Not Worth Fighting
WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, according to a poll released on the eve of that nation’s elections.
An ABC News-Washington Post poll found 51 percent who said the war was not worth fighting, while 47 percent said it was worth it.
Three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. There are expected to be about 68,000 by year’s end.
The cost of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached $900 billion, $675 billion for Iraq and $225 billion for Afghanistan. I bet you thought we had taken our troops out of Iraq based on press coverage. You would be wrong. We still have 135,000 troops there, only down 30,000 since the surge. In the meantime we have escalated our presence in Afghanistan to 55,000 troops and there are serious discussions to bring that up to 100,000. We will reach $1 trillion for these two wars and what have we accomplished? I’d love to hear from my pro-war friends on this site with concrete benefits that we have achieved for $1 trillion. No democracy in the Middle East bullshit, because that is a lie. Could this $1 trillion have been spent in a better way? Or better yet, not spent at all.Obama campaigned that he would end these wars. Another lie proving that the Military Industrial Complex is all powerful. His budget actually increased for the military.
General: Afghan Situation ‘Serious’
The top U.S. commander for Afghanistan called the situation there “serious” but salvageable, in a sobering assessment issued Monday that is expected to pave the way for a request for more American troops, funds for Afghan forces and other resources.
This year, tens of thousands of additional U.S. and allied troops have flowed into the volatile country, bringing the total to more than 100,000, of which 62,000 are American. Casualties among troops have risen to their highest levels since the U.S. military overthrew the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.
Time to Get Out of Afghanistan
U.S. strategy — protecting the population — is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about “deteriorating” (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.
The U.S. strategy is “clear, hold and build.” Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.
Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.
Our Government has provided no rationale explanation for being at war in Afghanistan. How exactly is the national interest being served by expending lives and resources in a war with questionable objectives that cannot be won?
The idealistic notion of “nation building” is absurd in a country that has never had a functioning government. Is the United States prepared to spend trillions of dollars over decades to help a country that can’t help itself? The United States still stations hundreds of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany and Japan, six decades after World War II ended. Why not do some “nation building” at home? It’s time to pull the plug on this ill conceived and useless war.
Designed By :
