True leaders are too busy succeeding to wait to be led.
The best observations in life come from those moments when the mind, in a flash of insight, links two seemingly disparate things into a single continuous thread. Of course, the observation could be one of pure brilliance or depraved delusion. Only when the moment is viewed through the prism of actually living life can we assign it a proper designation.
Such a moment came to me the other day when I sat, for the fifth time in the last 10 years, in a county courthouse going through the tedious, laborious, voi dire process to screen potential jurors in a criminal case. It was the day following a letter I received from the Social Security Administration telling me exactly how much I had contributed since 1969, and what the level of my expected benefits would be upon retirement.
I admit that, normally, listening to the legal definition of “criminal assault” wouldn’t stimulate thoughts of a government social welfare program, except in the most metaphorical of metaphorical senses. But as I sat through a twenty minute discussion of what the word “beyond” meant, I had one of those confluences of thought that led to the subject of this essay.
First, let’s deal with the “loathing” side of the equation. It may surprise you to know that both the prosecution and defense thought it was necessary to dwell upon the seemingly mystifying concept of “beyond.” After numerous attempts by the prosecution to elicit a verbal definition of this word from several jurors — which at first resulted in complete silence, followed by “I dunno,” “yonder” (this is Texas after all), “over there,” “after” or “next” — the defense counsel resorted to walking towards a table, stopping at a table, and then moving past a table, each time asking a potential juror at random if he was “beyond” the table yet.
Now please don’t misunderstand my criticism here. Both my wife and daughter teach mentally challenged kids, so I understand the need to address certain fundamental confusions of life. But to waste twenty minutes debating the meaning of the word “beyond” seemed a little much. Mind you, at this point we weren’t discussing the legal term “beyond a reasonable doubt,” or the practical way this concept is applied to Texas case law. We were discussing, and even debating, the actual meaning of the word itself.
Had this been an isolated example I’d have thought nothing more about it. Unfortunately, for six hours we were treated to a gamut of equally probing questions from both the prosecution and defense. “If I think a threat in my head but haven’t spoken it out loud, have I verbalized a threat?” “Do you always have to believe a witness?” “Is a pointed finger that is ten feet away a deadly weapon?” This last one caused another twenty minute discussion about whether the finger was visible to the person being pointed at, or if it actually touched them at some future point. Pointing without touching was deemed a definite “maybe” by the majority of potential jurors. Pointing with touching was determined by consensus to be a probable “yes.” Fortunately, no one raised the question of whether the finger was loaded or not at the time it was pointed, sparing us another twenty minute debate on the subject.
After the array of bizarre responses these and a number of other questions provoked, I was beginning to doubt my own sanity. My only consolation was that I knew the actual purpose of this exercise wasn’t to elucidate the law, or to educate the confused. It was a sucker-play designed to get people to speak so as to weed out the undesirables.
If you’re like most people you think that an undesirable juror is someone with an IQ of 12, or a penchant for asking really dumb questions during voi dire. But you would be wrong. Neither the prosecution nor the defense wants someone on a jury who can actually think. They want people who can listen, and be led. People who think tend to introduce inconvenient ideas into the trial, and contrary to popular belief a trial is not about finding out the truth of a matter.
As a citizen, I may want to know if the defendant really did what he’s accused of. But as a juror my responsibility is to listen to the evidence presented at trial — evidence that is presented within certain carefully defined parameters regarding what is admissible or not. The rules of evidence determine what I am allowed to hear, and it is from this basis, and this basis alone, that I make my judgment. Consequently, if the prosecution fails to prove its case I may acquit a guilty man; and if the defense is unable to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution, I may convict an innocent man. Whether the defendant actually did the deed or not is irrelevant in the end. As a juror I’m not looking for ultimate truth; I’m being asked to make a decision on the basis of the facts presented to me.
And that’s exactly what I said when the defense counsel asked me if I could convict a man if there was only one witness to the alleged crime. This followed, by the way, an extended discussion of whether two witnesses are needed to convict based upon God’s law, or a provision of the U.S. Constitution that requires two witnesses to convict someone of treason. I guess because my juror background sheet cited my education, the defense counsel thought that a Con-Law question was a good one for me, since it was the only one I was asked by either side. I can still see the blank stare on his face when I spoke about the reasoning of the Constitution Convention in assigning special status to treasonable offenses, since the punishment for such crimes is normally execution, which is a tiny bit different from waving a gun in the general direction of your next-door neighbor.
Anyway, it was about then the defense counsel formally objected to my answer, and the court ruled that while I didn’t say anything incorrect, they nevertheless wished I kept my mouth shut anyway because I was complicating the voi dire process. And then we adjourned for a while.
It was during this intercession that another potential juror, a kindly, somewhat befuddled older woman, said to me, “You seem to know a lot about this. I’m sure you’re exactly the kind of person they’re looking for.” I smiled politely, not really responding to her statement, and when we all returned to the court room I and about 35 other people were promptly dismissed from service. A jury was empanelled which consisted of the kindly older woman who spoke to me, a guy who had to be reminded to remove his baseball cap when in court, another guy who was ten minutes late to the afternoon session following our lunch break, a person who said “I dunno” to a lot of the questions he was asked, and a few other people who never opened their mouths at all.
Okay, so what does this have to do with Sosh Security? Well, nothing directly, other than to point out that the legal system values as arbiters of important decisions people who are either devoid of opinions about relevant issues, or are confused about what words like “beyond” actually mean, but are quite willing to be led to the correct answer.
Are we beginning to see the trend yet? These are exactly the same kind of people who depend upon the government to provide for their retirement security. Heaven forbid that we allow voluntary private accounts to replace some of our mandated Social Security contributions. The thinking goes, if my 30-year investment makes $3 million, but loses $1 million during that same period (thus giving me a net gain of $2 million over 30 years), I will lose faith in the system because I suffered “losses.” Pay no attention to the fact that momentary declines are followed by “increases,” and the timeframe is a cumulative 30-40 years; not the market’s closing average last week. So to protect the people (which means “me”) from any weekly indigestion, I’m guaranteed $2,201 a month at age 66, instead of having complete control of a net $2 million retirement fund.
All of which brings us to the “fear” part of this story. I submit that Conservatives can see the stupidity of the government’s logic for what it is because we are not afraid of the future. We’ve invested enough personal time and attention to the world in which we live to view things in their proper context. Thus, we understand the true risks — and true rewards — of investing for our own future. Liberals, by contrast, see little of this opportunity. They focus entirely on the risks associated with it. We can’t trust the people to care for themselves because they are too dumb to do so without government’s guidance and protection.
Of course, keeping the people dependant on the government is another not-so-insignificant component of this mindset. A good Liberal opposes too much voluntary, self-reliant behavior because some people might fail, and failure is not a nice thing. And, besides, without something to protect them from, the people wouldn’t need a government to protect them.
I’ve chosen a path in life that has many risks and many rewards. There were prolonged periods where I did not advance. My “Total Taxed Social Security Earnings” in 2003 was $6,131. I wasn’t guaranteed that by waiting a while longer (which meant working longer to succeed) I’d end up being successful in my career. I chose this path because I worked hard to make the opportunities I have, which required me to work hard before that to educate myself to take advantage of any future opportunities. And taking advantage of these opportunities meant months, if not years, of taking no income at all from an emerging business, or plugging every last dime I made back into the growth of that business, with no guarantee that any of this would be successful in the end.
The result is that whatever Sosh Security payments I receive will be a minor part of my retirement portfolio, because even if I fall flat on my face today with my current business activities, I’ve been independently saving for retirement for the past few decades. As a result, Social Security is not a safety net for me; it’s a way to have some monthly discretionary income to play with. And it’s not lost on me that this payout could have been a lot higher if I had more control over my own money.
This plantation-mentality government mindset has implications for other aspects of life as well. The things that have allowed me to reduce my reliance on Social Security to near zero will also forever disqualify me from serving on a jury. I know that the minute I fill out a jury questionnaire, the loathing that the system has for people with an IQ of at least three digits (and a desire to use it during the jury deliberation process) means I’m disqualified from service. Opening my mouth during voi dire just ices that cake.
Participation in any government-related function is best designed for the followers in life, not the leaders. The true leaders are too busy succeeding to wait to be led.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Phil:
“…I was complicating the voi dire process.”
But a 20-minute discussion of the meaning of “beyond” didn’t? Amazing.
I once read about an actual account of a young American Indian’s encounter with the white man’s law in the 1880s. He had killed another Indian about the same age, and the local sheriff told the chief to have the brave ready for arrest and trial. As they waited for the sheriff, the tribal elders tried to explain to the accused what to expect:
“White man will come and take Indian and lock him in a small iron room alone where Indian will wait. After many days, white man will take Indian to large wooden room where white men will talk until Indian go dizzy.”
Very perceptive for a “primitive” society.
I have been called to jury service a number of times, but was chosen only once. Reflecting on our deliberation, I now realize from you article that all the members except a cosmically overlooked few who slipped through the cracks allowed themselves to be led around by those few.
As far as Sosh Security is concerned, like the progressive income tax, it is intended to keep you from increasing your freedom by moving up the economic class ladder. Besides, we can’t be swelling the voter ranks with conservative Republicans now, can we? Rather, the little old ladies and the guys in the ball caps have to have a government subsidy that needs Democrats to “protect” from “them greedy Republicans.”
Comment by sedonaman | April 21, 2008