I have gotten upset at times hearing people complain about being called for jury duty. They say that they get called too much; the system is unfair; they don't want to waste their time; it is a nuisance; etc., etc.
I will make no comment about the fairness of the system - I don't understand how the selection process works and know that some people seem to get "called" with more regularity/frequency than others. What I DO believe is that people can really miss the point.
After the complaining rant, they generally follow up with ways they intend to attempt to avoid service - either before showing up at court or during the "voir dire" process. (The time attorneys and/or judges - depending upon jurisdiction - ask questions of prospective jurors and eliminate some from service on a trial.)
I ask them something like this: "If YOU were a party in a lawsuit, civil or criminal, wouldn't you like someone JUST LIKE YOU on the jury?" The response is always: "Of, course!" I then say: "Then why would you want to deprive another individual of the opportunity of having someone JUST LIKE YOU on his/her jury?"
There is generally no rational reply to this query.
It makes no sense to me. With all of its faults (and there are many) our system actually provides the opportunity for an impartial group of strangers to decide facts in the context of litigation. I would guess that many of those of us who abhore the thought of jury service and do everything within our means to avoid it will also complain the loudest when the system does not work for us.
Go figure. "I wasn't there! And if I was there - I didn't do it!"
Well, I guess many of us remember the story of Lot trying to negotiate with God about the fate of the twin cities of lust and perversion in the Bible. Lot wondered how many "good men" would be enough to prevent the destruction of these cities as Lot and his wife (whose name was really Morton) were preparing to depart the Sin Cities.
Well, I had a "similar", albeit totally unexpected, experience today -
I had two reimbursement checks from my employer - one was for about $94.00 and the other for about $26.00. They were drawn on Fifth-Third Bank. (By the way, in these times, any financial institution named after an improper fraction should be suspect.)
I had the choice of going to "MY" bank, and simply depositing the checks and withdrawing cash for my upcoming East coast trip or going to Fifth-Third and cashing them. I chose the second option because of other errands I was running and the relative locations of the banks.
Well, I presented the checks and my driver's license and indicated that I was not a Fifth-Third account holder and would need their little ink pad so I could place my thumb print on the check. No problem for me - I like being fingerprinted. The teller told me that there would be an $8.00 fee because the checks being cashed totalled more than $100 and I was not an account holder. I was also told that I could avoid the fee if I "took a few minutes and opened an account." Well, I have enough bank accounts already thank you and I only have a one-half hour lunch. So I declined to start yet another banking "relationship" (was it good for you?) and agreed to the ridiculous fee.
I then asked the teller: "What if I cashed only one of the checks, left the bank for a moment and then returned to cash the other check? Since neither check was over the $100 threshhold I shouldn't have to pay the fee, right?" Wrong! He said that given what I said, if I left and returned in 5 minutes my intentions would be clear and he would, by bank rules, be required to charge the fee. I then asked what would happen if I waited 10 minutes (rather than 5)? Would that make a difference? How about 15 minutes? How about a different teller? He didn't get the humor/absurdity or my point at all. And why have a $100 threshhold? Does it cost more to cash a check for $101 than one for $99? Are they charging for the ink used for the thumbprint? Are they expending any more than they would if I had simply "cashed" the checks by depositing them in my own account at my bank?
I wanted to ask him how long they expect to remain in business. If this is what is necessary to sustain them they are in big trouble. Of course, I am an idiot for not simply cashing the larger of the two checks and coming back some later date to deal with the other one. I was so angered and amused that I could not think clearly.
Oh well.
Good news and better news about the embattled Illinois Gov.
First, he has agreed to resign his post, testify against the guilty, help absolve the innocent, help get his wife a job at Walmart, and alter the pronunciation of his name to "Smith."
The better news? He has agreed to "step in" as Mayor of Detroit so that all of us here in southeast Michigan can be assured of continuing our fine tradition of high-minded, ethically sound, non-arrogant leadership.
To help sweeten the deal for Chicago, our recently ousted and apparently incompetent Detroit Public Schools leader can take over in the Windy City now that they are losing their leader to the new administration. Let's hope that Chicago can tolerate simple ineptitude and arrogance without the blatant corruption.
It is clear that we apparantly love and need to know insignificant stuff. We want to know which actor is dating which actress/actor; who is in rehab?; what are the twins names?; can we see baby pix? There seems to be many people whose celebrity is based primarily on celebrity - as opposed to their work, or deeds. Worse still, I think, is that too much celebrity is based on "looks."
Why does this carry over to news reporting? Do I need to know that the victim of a crime ("man's body found outside Detroit church") is "black"? Or: "The suspects, all black men in their 30's, were spotted driving away in a "late model" light colored SUV."
Does this help - with anything? In a world where we over-classify and people are apparently still looking for superficial distinctions to find reasons, rationales, and resonance, why report or dwell on the irrelevant? DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE "COLOR" OF AN INDIVIDUAL HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME? Only, of course, when individuals are responding to stereotypes that are helped to be perpetuated by the "media."
If you are going to tell me a bunch of irrelevant info about a suspect or a victim - why stop at skin color? How about this: "A five foot eleven inch tall "light complected" man, who has athlete's foot and prefers boxers to briefs, and who once got a pair of fake reading glasses just to try to look smart, and who likes Pepsi rather than Coke, and whose parents met at a Detroit fireworks night, and who regularly visits a physician to get treatment for Transformational Recursiveness, and who last read a book in 2005, was found leaning against a wall in a no-parking zone and arrested by police. Prosecutors are withholding comment (most of the prosecutors are between 5'3" and 6'2" tall and tend to dress conservatively) until they can determine the significance of the man's "reading glasses" and whether, in fact, his alleged actions actually violate any law. Film at eleven.
Am I correct in what I recently heard? Is there really an election coming up soon? Is it important? Should I pay attention? I can't believe it - I am still working on my plans for Halloween. Do I really need to stop THAT just to avert my eyes from the annual begging for candies from strangers ritual simply to vote with conscience and intelligence?
Am I, like many, off-put (god do I hate that "word") by a complex and intelligent candidate?
Do I really care how many times someone actually "reached across the aisle?" (I tried that once at a movie theater and was in the hospital for weeks.)
My friends, I know what I knew and have always known, and I have never been more convinced that I am unresolved to attack any problem that does or does not exist - as long as it can elevate your FEAR and discomfort. I will say whatever I am told is necessary to win so we can all lose. "We have always been at war with Eastasia."
My "party" will be a quiet but excited expectation of moving to a new ground - a place where what can be done is not dominated primarily by what has been done. There will be champaign, or Yoo-hoo, or whatever the appropriate beverage may be for you.
That will happen when the President of the United States is elected despite his name and skin color - and because he offers, and will hopefully provide, a new approach.
Hey, they said that the "no-smoking" laws in NYC would never work.
Let's be positive.
Respectfully submitted,
Your average socialist, communist, left-wing ultra idealist liberal nut-wag.
This, believe it or not, has been bugging me for some time.
We all learned the "Pledge of Allegiance" early in our school careers. Nothing wrong with that. And, with few exceptions, we ALL learned to say it the same way - probably to promote memorization among the young. It goes (as we learned it) something like this:
"I pledge allegiance - to the flag - of the United States of America - and to the Republic - for which it stands - one nation - under God - indivisible - with liberty - and justice - for all."
If you get the chance to hear young kids recite it, you probably will hear: "I pledge OF allegiance ..." Or, "One nation, under God, INVISIBLE ..." (God, of course, being invisible.)
I was really disheartened several months ago when I watched a cable TV broadcast of a local monthly meeting of retired execs and professionals - all well over 65 years of age. Not surprisingly they commenced their meeting with a recitation of the Pledge. These very distinguished looking and very well dressed folks all stood and said:
"I pledge allegiance - to the flag - of the United States of America ..." etc.! Still spouting the words, tempo, and phrasing they had learned many years ago. A true "recitation" if I have ever heard one.
How many of us who say the "Pledge" consider WHAT we are saying? What, exactly, are we pledging?
As I see it, we are pledging "allegiance" to TWO things: The FLAG of the United States of America, and, the COUNTRY which that flag represents. A country, according to the pledge, that is ONE, united under God, and incapable of division, and which strives to provide "liberty" and "justice" for every one of us.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not a pin wearing, "love it or leave it" kind of guy. I don't tell people we live in the greatest country in the world for a lot of reasons - not the least of which is that I don't know if that is a true statement - I simply don't have enough infomation, etc.
Nevertheless, I am very happy to be living here and I admire my fellow citizens (present and past) and our dreams, and actions (sometimes).
So, my long-winded point: If we choose to say the "Pledge", we should state it and not merely recite it from early childhood memory. We should also know what we are pledging allegiance to and act accordingly.
And so:
"I pledge allegiance to the FLAG of the United States of America and to the country for which IT STANDS: one nation under God - indivisible - with liberty and justice FOR ALL."
We must always remain conscious.
Nuff' Said
Well...we've been back for a few weeks now so I think it's time to write a little somethin' about Hawaii!! As many of you know, Justin's dad flew him and I and the 4 kids out to his home to Kauai, HI from August 9th-17th for some serious relaxation and education. The flight from Dulles to Denver was only 3 hours, but that left a 7 hour flight from Denver to Lihue...ugh! Instead of posting every tiny thing that happened though I'm just going to do some highlights and then post some pictures :o) First day we went to the beach of Poipu and the coffee company that is on the island. The next few days we spend going to see the overlooks at Waimea Canyon, Opaekaa Falls, and Kilauea Point lighthouse and bird sanctuary. We also went to Lydgate Park beach and to go see some lava caves- one dry and one wet. We could go inside the dry one and take some pictures, but the wet one was full of water and some weird algae stuff so we could only see the outside of it. Justin and I also got to go to a luau one night together and spend some alone time while the kids stayed home with Siegfried and Glenda. The trip back to the continental US wasn't all too bad on the way back because we had two 5 hour flights (Lihue to LA and LA to Dulles). All in all the trip was heaven on earth, and I only wish that we could go back there again very very soon!!! Here are some pictures from the trip!!
This story actually appeared on my MSN local news site only one half hour ago:
"McCain's Wife Hospitalized For Hand Injury in Mich.
ROYAL OAK, Mich. - The wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain was taken Wednesday afternoon to Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak for a minor sprain after an enthusiastic supporter shook her hand too hard during a fundraising event in West Bloomfield. Cindy McCain's hand was shaken a bit too strongly at the event, which agitated a pre-existing condition with [sic] carpel tunnel syndrome, McCain's campaign said.
Cindy McCain has had several surgeries for her condition.
Cindy McCain was travelling with her husband as he planned to attend three Oakland County fundraising events Wednesday. He'll also meet with reporters at the Townsend Hotel in Birmingham, a site of one of his fundraisers.
Stay with Local 4 and ClickOnDetroit.com as this story develops."
I am sorry - I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the story developments! Please notice - in addition to the obvious silliness of the story - how poorly it is written. For example, was she with him as he was merely planning to attend 3 fundraising events or was she actually going to them with him?
What next: Obama's wife's sister's neighbor's uncle's dog was sent to a local vet today for, what insiders called, "a possible flea issue." Stay with us as we follow this rapidly spreading story.
It makes voting easier to know this stuff!
This story actually appeared on my MSN local news site only one half hour ago:
"McCain's Wife Hospitalized For Hand Injury in Mich.
ROYAL OAK, Mich. - The wife of Republicam presidential nominee John McCain was taken Wednesday afternoon to Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak for a minor sprain after an enthusiastic supporter shook her hand too hard during a fundraising event in West Bloomfield. Cindy McCain's hand was shaken a bit too strongly at the event, which agitated a pre-existing condition with [sic] carpel tunnel syndrome, McCain's campaign said.
Cindy McCain has had several surgeries for her condition.
Cindy McCain was travelling with her husband as he planned to attend three Oakland County fundraising events Wednesday. He'll also meet wuth reporters at the Townsend Hotel in Birmingham, a site of one of his fundraisers.
Stay with Local 4 and ClickOnDetroit.com as this story develops."
I am sorry - I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the story developments! Please notice - in addition to the obvious silliness of the story - how poorly it is written. For example, was she with him as he was planning to attend 3 fundraising events or was she actually going to them with him?
What next: Obama's wife's sister's neighbor's uncle's dog was sent to a local vet today for, what insiders called, "a possible flea issue. Stay with us as we follow this rapidly spreading story"
It makes voting easier to know this stuff!
