I jumped out the window to get to the parking lot

I’m writing this little song on my way down

Never in my life have I felt a heat so hot

I had to get out

Such a lovely day to go flying

The sky’s so clear, the sun is shining

Fate has given me wings

Such a terrible funny thing

I was gathering up my nerve to ask out Carmen

She glanced out the window

Oh my God

The room It went away, now we’re holding hands

Just not the way I planned

- Living Colour, “Flying”

It really was a beautiful day. So many people say that. And it was true. Here in Massachusetts, about 200 miles away, it was one of the most gorgeous days I can remember. That perfect late summer/early fall day. Comfortable with jeans and a short-sleeved shirt. Absolutely beautiful clear skies. My hair was a lot darker and my waistline a lot smaller. My first child, unbeknownst to me, had just been conceived. I was working at a computer storage start-up. I was in the lab trying to get a hardware simulation working properly when i noticed I couldn’t get through to Yahoo! or any news sites. There was a voicemail from my wife that she’d heard a plane hit the World Trade Center. After some confusion a bunch of us went down to our office park’s gym which had tv sets. I arrived to a silent crowd watching two burning towers. We then saw the rest of the day proceed live. The Pentagon, the towers both collapsing, the loss of Flight 93.

It hurt. I lost no one, so my pain was that of a native born New Yorker. Born in Manhattan, family in Brooklyn. I mainly grew up in Connecticut but with my grandparents and other family members in Brooklyn I used to spend most summers in the city. I remember how my grandfather used to take me around the city. He was as true a New Yorker as you could find. Born in New York City, it had always been his home. The longest he was away was during World War II when he served our nation in Italy. When he showed me the city it was like he was showing it off to me. Like he was sharing something very special. To be honest, he wasn’t too crazy about the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. He preferred the classic skyscrapers like the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building. He passed away a few years prior to the 9/11 attacks. My brother has told me that was the only time in his life he was glad our grandfather was gone – it would have killed him to have seen his city attacked like that.

Much like the 19th century didn’t end until World War I’s start in 1914, I think the 20th century ended on September 11, 2001.

I have mixed feelings on how my nation has reacted to 9/11. It was such a scary feeling. I think we collectively lost our mind in many ways. I agree with the need to bring the perpetrators to justice some of the roads we traveled were dark roads. And I don’t think we have a clear idea as to why we were attacked.

“They hate us for our freedom.” It sounds nice. And I don’t doubt there is some truth to that. But I don’t think you convince people to sacrifice their lives in acts of murder out of a hatred of McDonalds, scantily clad women, and freedom of religion. One of the best works I’ve read on the road that led to 9/11 was Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. It tracks the origin of 9/11 to the birth of Islamic extremism decades ago. It talks about the hatred many in the Islamic world have of their own often corrupt governments, hatred that is easily transferred to the United States which supports many of those regimes (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

It goes without saying that possibly legitimate grievances does not transfer into making it remotely justifiable turning commercial airlines into weapons of mass murder.

One of the goals of 9/11 was to draw the United States into conflict with the Islamic world and to drain the United States of its treasure. While I don’t think we’ve handled the conflict in Afghanistan particularly well, I don’t think we could have avoided that. But the diversion into Iraq was absolutely avoidable. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man and the world is a better place without him. But there are many regimes for which that is true and we did not go to war for that purpose but rather in pursuit of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction using intelligence that matched the desired conclusions. And we spent a fortune in treasure – both in American lives and in money. We never paid for either of those two wars – no tax increases, no decrease in other spending. Indeed, we were told the war in Iraq would pay for itself. I don’t think we would be in the dire financial straits we are in if we chose to responsibly deal with the financial costs of the two wars. In that sense, Al-Qaeda achieved one of its major goals.

Note that I don’t exclude myself. I totally bought into the idea that we had to go to war against Iraq. I didn’t think there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but I supported the idea of a preemptive war to get weapons of mass destruction that we were told they most certainly had. The experience has made me a lot less believing of assurances from my government.

The most painful reaction I think though has been the casual disregard for civil liberties and human rights. From debating whether waterboarding is torture (and in many cases being ok with it anyways) to rendition to debating whether an Islamic Cultural Center can be built near the World Trade Center we’ve traveled some dark roads. Yet there have been Americans who have stood against these tactics.

Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us — every single one of us — knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.

- John McCain, Republican US Senator

The debate here isn’t only how to protect the country. It’s how to protect our values.

If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America — even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles.

- Alberto J. Mora, former Navy General Counsel

While I’ve covered many facets of 9/11, there are some things that we shouldn’t lose sight of, whatever our differences might be in how we reacted to it as a nation. The United States of America in no way deserved to be attacked that day. None of those people flying or going to work “had it coming” in any way. Also, there were some amazing acts of heroism that day. People in the Twin Towers who shepherded their neighbors to the ground. Firefighters who charged into those buildings to save lives. The passengers and crew of United Flight 93 who chose to sacrifice their lives rather than let the terrorists score yet one more victory. These were ordinary Americans who woke up that morning totally unaware that they would be answering the call to heroism and that many would pay with their lives. They followed a tradition of the best of America that goes all the way back to George Washington.

• Due to the way the tax code is structured, the mega-rich pay a tax rate of 15% on their earnings.
• Many of the mega-rich pay a negligible amount in payroll taxes – sometimes nothing.
• The argument that higher tax rates would discourage investment and job creation does not match what actually occurred from 1980 to 2000.

I have seen it argued, from blogs to newspaper editorials to a response from my state representative that if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, nobody is stopping him from doing so. He can just write a check.

I find that argument to be nonsensical. Mr. Buffett’s point is largely that the mega-rich are paying a tax rate on their income that is less than many of those the middle class pay. I pulled up some of my recent tax returns and have found that for some years I did indeed pay a higher tax rate on my total unadjusted income than the mega-rich did. So the question to ask is this: is it just that the very wealthiest in our society are taxed at a rate lower than the rate that them middle class is taxed at?

Yes, of course Mr. Buffett could write a check. But our tax code would still enshrine the ability of billionaires to pay taxes at ludicrously low rates.

There’s an argument as to whether the mega-rich should be made to make a greater sacrifice than that of the poor and middle class. I would submit that a reasonable starting point would be for them to make an equal sacrifice.

Under new rules proposed Monday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, insurers would be required to provide contraceptive services, breast-feeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening and counseling, regular “well woman” visits, counseling about HIV and sexually transmitted infections, screening for gestational diabetes, and several other preventive services without charging women any copayments.

- Chicago Tribune, U.S. to require birth control without copay, August 2, 2011

The reaction from Republican office-holders has been somewhat muted though Conservative pundits have been less shy. Former Bush Administration Press Secretary Dana Perino stating if you can afford a five dollar frappuccino at Starbucks you can afford a five-dollar copay. Below find The Daily Show’s take on this.

In addition to the arguments made by Jon Stewart, it is worth pointing out that the days of the five-dollar copay have been over for ages.  For example the birth control my wife’s doctor has prescribed for her costs us $350 per year or approximately $30 per month. (That’s assuming mail order – getting from the local pharmacy would cost us double that.) It is worth noting that my company’s benefits plan is among the more generous ones.

Moreover, the lack of contraceptive use is a strong component in the number of unplanned pregnancies. For example, theNational Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has determined that approximately 70% of pregnancies in unmarried women in their twenties are unplanned. The use of some form of contraception is vital for the prevention of  unplanned pregnancy – the Tribune article indicated above cites a study that indicates that 95% of unplanned pregnancies involved no or inconsistent use of birth control. And the rate of sexual activity among teens and young adults is high enough that an increase in regular-contraceptive use among teens can dramatically reduce the rates of teen pregnancy.

While there are moral and religious considerations, 99% of sexually active women have used some form of birth control. (Source: Centers for Disease Control — Unplanned Pregnancy Prevention: Contraception) To hear the pundits talk there seems to be a suggestion that birth control is used for purposes of engaging in promiscuous casual encounters. It ignores the fact that many families choose to have some control over the times their families grow and the sizes of their family. And it ignores medical and financial reasons why a family may forego additional children – for example, after every pregnancy my wife’s depression grew worse to the point we are very hesitant to have more children.

Is it wrong for your tax money or insurance premiums be used for such purposes, especially if you find them immoral? I have some sympathy for this objection but this seems to be something difficult to avoid. I would imagine there is not a single taxpayer for whom every use of federal dollars is viewed as morally appropriate. Should tax dollars have been used to pay for wars of questionable justice? For executions? The best recourse to this issue would be at the ballot box. However, as I said at the opening of this posting, there have been few elected officials who have come out strongly against the elimination of these copays. I would imagine the frequency of their use is a strong reason behind this.

It is also worth noting that the elimination of contraception copays is only a part of this. This also covers breast-feeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening and counseling, etc. I have heard some pundits view counseling as a step on a slippery slope to providing pedicures!

I leave you with the Colbert Report’s take on this issue. (Warning – not to be viewed by those who will be offended by watching Stephen Colbert miming a Tyrannosaurus Rex attempting to put on a condom.)

We used to talk about the Japanese and lost decade. We’ll look at them as a role model. They did better than we’re doing. this is going to go on. I have nobody I know who thinks the unemployment rate will be below 8 percent at the end of next year. With the spending cuts it might be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. We’re having a debate in Washington, all about, ‘Gee, we’ll make the economy worse, but will we make it worse on 90 percent of the Republicans’ terms or 100 percent of Republicans’ terms?’ The answer is 100 percent.

- Paul Krugman on ABC’s This Week, July 31, 2011

I have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman. A decade ago he argued the Bush tax cuts were a recipe for decimating the federal budget. He also warned that the housing market was heading for a horrific crash.

Mr. Krugman is now arguing, as he did back in 2008 and 2009, that failing to increase government spending to stimulate the economy will lead to a prolonged stagnant decade.

What is almost certain to emerge out of the debate on the debt ceiling is some arrangement which is solely based around cuts and does nothing to increase revenue. Unlike some progressives to the left of me, I am not against modifications to social programs such as social security and Medicare. Means testing and re-examination of retirement age are  reasonable things to do. And if there is waste in the budget – real waste, real inefficiency, then it is certainly reasonable to trim it.

But it seems foolish to refuse to consider new initiatives to stimulate the economy or to raise additional government revenue. I’d like to address some of the arguments against these ideas.

One of the most common is it would be foolishness to increase taxes on corporations and the very wealthy or, as they now seem to be referred to in Congress, “the job creators”. The reasoning behind this is that that would cause them to be unable to hire additional people as they suffer above and beyond their already crushing tax burden. Unfortunately, it is clearly demonstrable from a look at unemployment figures they are not hiring. As far as the argument of a crushing tax burden, the United States has as percentage of GDP, one of the lowest tax burdens in the world – and one that has been going down (source – Reuters – Chart of the day: America’s small tax revenues).  Corporations have proven very proficient in using tax loop holes to keep their tax burden down, yet even the act of closing those loopholes has been rejected by the Tea Party Congress.

What about the argument that people just need to get off of unemployment and get a job? That we need to cut unemployment benefits. That sounds nice. Yet given the unemployment rate and the fact that  many companies are refusing to even consider unemployed candidates that argument seems a non-starter to me. And dollars spent on the unemployed tend to go right back into the economy, paying for groceries, mortgages, etc.

The argument you can’t spend yourself out of a recession or depression? The argument goes that the Great Depression was not ended by government programs like the New Deal but rather by World War II. As many will point out, whether that is true or not – and there is a lot of debate on that – World War II, economically, was a massive government program. But regardless, the problem we are faced with, as was faced in the Great Depression, is people have needs, needs that without a job become difficult or impossible to meet. Whether creating jobs or paying unemployment will end a recession is in some ways besides the point if doing so allows people to meet their needs.

It is worth remembering how we got here. During the presidency of George W. Bush the United States entered into two wars and added an unfunded prescription drug program to Medicare. While so doing, the United States also cut tax rates, thereby bringing Treasury revenue to its lowest percentage of the GDP it has been in fifty years. To claim we do not have a revenue problem is dishonest. We made a deliberate choice to have a revenue problem and a bearing the fruits of that choice.

Is shared sacrifice needed. Yes, absolutely. I’m not in the richest 1% but my family isn’t doing horribly, even with my wife currently out of work. So go ahead, raise tax rates to what they were back in 2000. Go ahead and close corporate loopholes. To put a recovery on the backs of those who are suffering the most, which is just what is being proposed, is an act of unchristian cruelty. Anyone who supports suck measures needs to forfeit the right to label the United States a Christian nation.

The newest plan from Senator Reid cuts 2.7 trillion dollars from the debt. It does so largely from troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, something Cantor’s plan did as well. It does not cut entitlements, something shared with Boehner’s plan. The talking points released by Boehner’s  staff specifically advertised his plan does not cut entitlements. This led to ThinkProgress’ headline After Boehner Releases Plan That Doesn’t Cut Entitlements, He Rejects Reid Plan For Not Cutting Entitlements.

It’s rather horrifying to watch this. The Tea Party wants a balanced budget amendment – one that beyond requiring a balanced budget specifically caps spending and makes it difficult to raise taxes. They lack the votes to come even close to accomplishing this. So the strategy seems to be threaten to destroy the country unless they get their way. I truly believe if the United States defaults on its debt obligations twenty years later we’ll look at this as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, self-inflicted wound on our nation. A week ago I didn’t think default was likely. Even now I have a hard time believing that Congress would allow this to happen. But the evidence keeps piling on that there is no deal which will satisfy the Tea Party wing in the House. So is default the goal?

I am however, going to pick on one of the many money-saving ideas that are directed at the lower- and middle-classes to serve as an example. One of the ideas floating around is ending deferred payments on federally subsidized student loans.

Right now if you take out a Federally guaranteed student loan no payments are due until some months after graduation with interest paid for by the Federal government. This is one of the places being viewed as a possible means of trimming down the deficit. Essentially, interest payments would become due immediately, possibly years before graduation. Like many others, it meets the conservative goal of not being a tax increase – but instead places a financial burden on lower and middle income Americans.

It is important to note that these loans aren’t going to allow you to go to an exclusive private school. There are maximum loan amounts per year with a total subsidized limit of $23,000 (source: Student Aid on the Web). That’s good for a state university or community college.

I was a beneficiary of such loans. I came from what would probably be considered a lower-middle-income family. I had grants and my parents and grandparents helped to the extent they could but I also had to take out Federally Subsidized Stafford Loans to pay my way through school. There was no way I’d have been able to afford interest payments while an undergrad at the University of Connecticut.

That said, I’d like to think that loan was a good investment for my fellow taxpayers to have made in me. I graduated with a degree in Computer Science and Engineering. My starting salary was far more than would have been even remotely possible without my degree. It allowed me to begin a career that I’m still in. I paid off my loans early as it turns out. Financially my family is doing well – we could be doing better but we’ve no cause to complain at present. And the government has brought in far more in tax payments from my family as a result of my degree than would have been possible without it.

Not everyone who graduates from college goes on to be successful. Like most families a major illness or job loss would be devastating to my family. But looking at statistics via a quick googling, the unemployment rate for those with college degrees has consistently been lower than it is for those without them. Those who are  employed pay more in taxes than those who are unemployed. In other words, taxpayers with a college degree is a good investment for the Federal government.

The fact that such things are even being considered for cuts shows how unwilling we have become as a nation to invest. Yes, investing costs in initial outlay of money. And yes, that might mean more taxes for some – often for those who most benefitted from such programs in the past. But careful investment will more than pay for itself. Beyond being the moral thing to do, it is often the sound financial thing to do.

Instead, look at us today. The nation that built the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, massive public works projects now has a crumbling infrastructure. The nation that made a college education obtainable for most people with ability, that paid for it for veterans, is putting it out of reach for those without financial means.

So what about Publius? I  think I’m on firmer ground than Glenn Beck. I’ve not used that name as a sort of retroactive endorsement of my own views but rather in admiration of the authors of The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (primarily Hamilton and Madison), three people who did not see eye to eye, managed to eloquently defend the then-controversial United States Constitution, using language designed to be consumed by their fellow citizens. At the same time, they provided perhaps the best documentation of the “Founder’s intent” of which we hear so much.

That said, there’s a few thoughts I have on the matter of the American Publius and the other Founders. The first is the difficulty in applying modern notions of conservatism and liberalism to them. I don’t think Madison or Hamilton would fit neatly into modern political parties. James Madison was a firm believer in a limited federal government and a supporter of state’s rights. So he’d be a Republican, right? I don’t think so. I would imagine he would be quite horrified at the influence that corporations and money have on politics. Alexander Hamilton was a very pro-business capitalist who also advocated a very strong federal government. Shades of modern Republicans and Democrats.

The issues of their day are not the issues of our day. I don’t think we can look at their views of the day and extrapolate how they’d feel on such issues as health care, video game violence, environmental regulations, etc. These are issues which did not exist in a recognizable form. We can extrapolate but I think we have to reach a point where we have to make our own decisions. And I believe that’s what they would want.  The United States Constitution, even with its amendments, is a very brief document. It does not try to tackle every possible issue. Rather it provides the framework for tackling issues. Compare this with the European Union Constitution which is hundreds of pages long and dedicates itself to specific policies. I personally believe the United States Constitution, which is focused on how to govern and enumeration of rights (typically in the form of restrictions on Congress) is the more sensible route. It allows the people of the day to work on issues of the day with the Constitution becoming involved in principles only on the most important matters.

A final point I’d like to make is while the Founders may have had intents, they recognized the need to compromise on their intents. I believe they were far more pragmatic than today’s politicians. They probably had little choice – their nation was born rebelling from the world’s greatest superpower and less than two generations later they were in another war with the United Kingdom. James Madison was no fan of a standing army yet most certainly needed one in the War of 1812. Similarly, Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton were able to come to a compromise with the Federal government accepting state debts from the Revolution in return for a more southern capital.

Later, President James Madison, who had been opposed to the First National Bank of the United States, was instrumental in forming the Second one in the aftermath of the War of 1812 and the debts which it incurred. Today, this would be a flip-flop. However, back then President Madison was doing the best he could for his nation and adapting to changing circumstances. I think as a nation we’d be far better off with more of this as opposed to politicians who will allow their nation to default on its debts rather than increasing revenue in the slightest.

Essentially this amendment would:

• Require a balanced budget
• Make it difficult to raise taxes
• Cap spending below recent averages

All three of these are, in my opinion, horrible things to write into the Constitution.

First, there is the issue of requiring a balanced budget? Who in their right mind would be against that? And on paper it sounds pretty good. The problem with that is in times of economic struggle there is a greater need for government spending while at the same time raising revenue is more difficult. People have been unemployed for months or years. Revenues are down. Teachers, police, fire fighters, etc. all have jobs in jeopardy. This is actually a very good time for the government to borrow money. Doing so helps keep workers at their jobs, keeps the unemployed afloat until the economy improves, and allows for stimulus spending if the free market does not provide for work. This was true in the Great Depression – which was ended by the greatest public spending project in US history, the Second World War.

The converse is during good economic times it makes sense for the government to keep its spending low, balance the budget, and pay off the debt. This is something we were doing quite well in the late nineties. I believe one of the worst mistakes we made as a nation were the Bush tax cuts. They were initially made because of the budget surplus. We then cut taxes while going on a spending spree – a spending spree during times which, while not superb economically, were far less dire than today.

The other two points of this amendment I call out, that of making it difficult to raise taxes and capping spending, are also poor ideas. Moreover, they are political statements and objectives. One of the strengths of our Constitution is it is adaptable – it doesn’t dedicate much text to what should be done but rather how it should be done. The Bill of Rights and other Amendments covers such details such as guaranteeing the rights of the people and cleaning up/clarifying how business is done. But the Constitution has stayed clear of what should be done. It doesn’t tell lawmakers how to spend money, it doesn’t set foreign policy, it doesn’t set tax rules. Rather it provides the framework for individual Congresses and Presidents to do so. This keeps it flexible.

Beyond the fact that policy-wise I believe those are horrible ideas, they are also political statements. The debates on the merits of a balanced budget vs. deficit spending, on how to tax, on how much to spend – these are all things which need to be settled politically and settled again and again. And this is how it should be. History has shown an amendment is not required to balance the budget. Rather a budget which brings in more revenue than it spends will do so.

- Michael Corleone, The Godfather Part III

I’d thought about starting a new blog on blogger. First, choose an awkward name: “publiusalmanack”. Using an awkward spelling is not a good idea for generating traffic as it turns out. I then tried naming it “liberalgeek”, even registering a domain. As it turns out, there actually is another blog called that. And I hate stepping on people’s toes.

So I’ve taken that as a sign that my first blog is the one I should continue on. I’ve moved the posts I made there here and I have gone ahead and registered “publiusthegeek.com”.

I will say that I am not someone who has carefully followed this case. I really don’t know if Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not. At best she seems to be a pretty horrible person and mother who would make false accusations against a babysitter and be indifferent to the death of her daughter. In other words, I’m not writing this blog post to praise her acquittal.

Rather, I am writing to discuss my faith in the much-maligned jury system. And to be honest I am not often waiting in eager anticipation of the nice letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts telling me the good news that I’ve been selected for jury duty – quite likely at some court far, far away… And through luck I’d made it many years until I somehow found myself on a jury. A lot of times getting notification I didn’t need to report or getting dismissed early until I was finally selected for a jury.

I don’t think we treat our jurors with the respect they deserve. Here in Massachusetts, for example, your parking expenses are not reimbursable. Which doesn’t sound too terrible until you realize that you might get called to jury duty in the Boston area where you can easily spend thirty to forty dollars a day on parking. Moreover, while your employer is required to pay you for your salary for the first three days of jury duty, after that there is no obligation. And if they don’t you get just fifty dollars a day for your jury duty. So try getting a three-month trial in Boston…

In any case, I was fortunate that my jury duty was in a suburban area with plenty of parking. And my trial lasted less than a full day. What impressed me was the people in our jury, from a variety of backgrounds, different races, ages, etc. all really took their job seriously. No one really wanted to be there but given that we were there we wanted to do the job to the best of our abilities.

Our case was far from a murder case. It was a minor fender-bender where the person who had been rear-ended claimed the injury reactivated a bad back pain that he had finally been cured of. Unfortunately the surgery which had been claimed to have cured him less than 48 hours before the accident. And he had had numerous previous surgeries that had unsuccessfully tried to treat his back pain. To be honest, none of us particularly liked the defendant. He had this attitude which really rubbed most of us in the jury the wrong way. But we were determined to use the facts available to us. We poured through page after page of medical records looking for any conclusive – or even near-conclusive statement – that the accident caused the recent back pain. There was none. We didn’t particularly like finding for the defendant  but we didn’t find sufficient evidence to find for the plaintiff.

In a jury you find yourself with an awesome responsibility. You are part of our nation’s justice system, whether deciding on a minor personal injury case or a horrible murder. There may be no one else interested in the case you are deciding or it may be a media frenzy. Either way, it isn’t everyone else who has to make a decision on the verdict, it is you. You’re the one who has to sift through the evidence, the testimony, your own experiences and common sense, and apply them in reaching a verdict. I found it interesting that one of the jurors in the Casey trial indicated they were “sick to our stomachs” about voting not guilty. I get the impression they believed she was guilty but felt they were forced to find her not guilty based on the evidence presented to them.

Was this jury wrong? It’s certainly possible, either in whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter or in the way they interpreted the law. But I truly believe they did the best job they could do and did their job with honesty and integrity.

Is there a better system? I can’t think of one. Many countries don’t use juries. But I believe the jury system is a vital means of making our disputes – whether civil or criminal – judged not by the government but by our peers. Peers who typically live the same types of lives as the litigants. But at the same time, the vetting process is designed to make certain that while they are peers, they also don’t have a personal stake in the outcome. This lack of a stake is powerful. Yes, your case will be decided by people who are not out to get you. But they are also people who don’t care about you, don’t realize why you are so special. In truth they want to complete their service and get on with their lives.