So it’s a bit amusing to watch republicans/conservatives getting all apoplectic over being labeled in this way as they voice their opposition to the Democrats’ proposals. “Unfair!” they claim, “We’re not all shills for the insurance lobby and big pharma. We don’t oppose the President simply because he’s a Democrat and we want him to fail. We have real, valid concerns that need to be heard”. And in all fairness, their outrage at the Left’s tactics are generally valid. Being the target of demagoguery is never a fun position to be in.

Yet I do love irony… and this situation certainly qualifies. Aren’t these the same people who used these very same tactics against those that opposed the Iraq war, or the Patriot Act, or various other abuses of power by the Bush administration? False claims of anti-Americanism and unpatriotic behavior came fast and loose. They told disenters to shut up and support the President’s policies. They accused them of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. And now the shoe is on the other foot. And these folks don’t like it very much. Though I doubt they can see their own hypocrisy. Hypocrites rarely can.

But let’s not let the other players in this political battle off too easy. The democrats/liberals are just as bad. They certainly felt it unfair to be falsely labeled as unpatriotic for questioning the deeds of the Bush White House, yet they seem to have no problem demonizing their opponents this time around. For example, last week on “Hardball,” Chris Matthews painted town hall protesters as racist by opining, “I think some of the people are upset because we have a black president.” One universal truth about hypocrisy is that it’s not the domain of any one group.

So if, let’s say, you’re considering boycotting Whole Foods because you didn’t like the CEO, John Mackey, giving his honest opinion about the best way to reform our health care system, if you think he betrayed his customers because he doesn’t support the Democrats’ plan, try to remember how the Dixie Chicks were treated when they spoke out against George Bush. Try to remember how they were vilified and their concerts boycotted simply because they dared to publicly express their opinion. Try not to be a hypocrite too.

And if you were one of those people who criticized the Dixie Chicks as un-American or felt that those opposed to GW Bush and his policies were just a bunch of left wing wackos, try to remember how it feels to be derided and marginalized simply because you don’t agree with those in power. Try not to be a hypocrite the next time you’re tempted to do the same.

So to anyone who engages in this type of behavior, but then complains when it’s done to them, let me simply say this — a little less hypocrisy, please.

Two weeks ago I had jury duty and I thought I’d share some of my perspective on this experience. This was the first time I’ve ever been called to serve, and to tell the truth, I was kind of looking forward to it. That may seem strange, but I’ve always been intrigued by the workings of our legal system and almost chose to attend law school. I also think that serving on a jury is one of the responsibilities we have as citizens. It’s one of the few instances where the government cedes back to the people the power to make important decisions – sometimes life and death decisions. And the alternative – ceding to the government all power to arrest, try, and convict citizens for alleged breaches of the law – is not a pleasant prospect. I therefore didn’t offer any excuses trying to get out of the obligation.

The major drawback was that I was called to serve at the Metropolitan Courthouse. This is primarily a traffic court located in far downtown Los Angeles, south of the 10 and east of the 110. The commute took about 45 minutes to an hour each way – not the best use of my time as the closest court to my home is in Van Nuys, about 10 minutes away. I would think the County would want to keep jurors as close to their home court as possible in order to reduce traffic and waste of fossil fuels, but apparently that’s not much of a consideration. They did however offer the option of taking mass transit, which I accepted, primarily because taking the subway from Universal to the court was fairly convenient for me and I hated the thought of driving from downtown back to the Valley in afternoon rush hour traffic. However, if I had to take the bus or transfer more than once along the route, I would have driven.

The first day I was told to appear (which they don’t pay you for) was on Thursday and I sat around from 10:15 until about 3:30 when I was finally put into a jury pool. About 30 of us trekked down to the courtroom where we waited again until they were ready to start voir dire. This is the process where they pick the jury. We were ushered into the courtroom where the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and defendant were all present. We were told this was a DUI case and along with stating our name, profession, etc. (from a list of twelve stock questions) we should reveal any information that might prejudice us for this type of trial. Of course, since we started after 4:00, we only got through four people, so we were all told to return the next day at 1:30.

On Friday, although we were supposed to start at 1:30, we didn’t actually get going until about 2:30. The rest of us potential jurors gave our answers to the twelve questions. It was clear that more than a few people were hoping to be excused for various reasons, but most of the potential jurors seemed to take the process seriously and answer honestly. Then the prosecutor and defense attorney had their chance to ask more detailed questions or follow up on anything that was revealed during the initial statements. Each side got to excuse jurors for various reasons and finally twelve of us were picked with two people chosen as alternates. I was originally juror number 13, but since a couple of people were excused, I ended up one of the twelve regular jurors. Again, since we had started late, and court ends at 4:30, there was no time left in the day for additional business and we were told to report back on Monday at 1:30 to begin the trial.

At this point I should note that I was beginning to understand why so many people try to get out of jury duty. Not only had they dragged me all the way downtown, but the process was taking much longer than it had to. We were originally told that there would be three or four witnesses and the trial was expected to take five days. I initially couldn’t fathom how a DUI case with such few witnesses could take so long, but it was quickly becoming clear. In addition to ending at 4:30 every day, the court closes down for an hour and a half for lunch starting at noon, hence the 1:30 start time. I’m not sure where you work, but I’d never heard of any business closing down for an hour and a half each day for lunch. But, of course, this is the government, where apparently the employees work so hard that they have to get a half hour longer for lunch than the rest of the working world just so they don’t have a nervous breakdown. If you do the math, that’s 130 hours (or just over 16 work days) a year, every year, in lost productivity. Now before you think me some cold-hearted taskmaster, I’m just saying that in the real world, where businesses have to be profitable to survive and people work at least as hard as court employees, a half hour or, at most an hour, for lunch is generally sufficient. But since court employees are paid with a never ending supply of tax dollars, being profitable or even efficient doesn’t seem to be much of a priority. I should add, however, that everyone who worked at the court was pleasant, professional, and treated us respectfully and I was actually finding the whole experience fairly interesting.

See my next post about the trial itself.

On the content side, I’m going to attempt to post at least once per day when I have something relevant to communicate. I’ll be discussing current events as they relate to the topic of personal freedom on both a local and national level. And since Election Day is fast approaching, I expect I’ll spend a good deal of time discussing the presidential race as well as the often confusing ballot initiatives here in California. In regards to those initiatives, I’ll be explaining the arguments for and against and letting you know which side I come down on and why.

On slow news days, I’ll be blogging about general principles of a free society and will be taking on such hot button topics as gun control, abortion, and environmental protection. Two upcoming posts to look out for: 1. My choice for President and why. You can probably guess the who, but the why is at least as important. 2. An in-depth discussion of why I believe a free market economy is the best and only way to achieve prosperity for the most people. I’ll also take on the criticisms usually leveled at the free market and why many believe those objections are generally not valid.

In the future, I’ll also be keeping an eye out for any attempt by those in power to erode our civil rights or personal freedoms and informing you what you can do about it. This leads me to the newsletter I have planned. You’ll have an opportunity to sign up and when there’s something I think you need to know about and possibly act on, you’ll receive an email with the details. If possible, I’ll also include an easy way for you to find and contact those to whom you can make your opinion known. Together, we will make a difference.

Also on my to-do list is a recommended reading list and links to other blogs or web sites you might be interested in.

Well that’s what I have in store for you if you want to go along for the ride. I hope you’ll join me.