I wish they'd take my blood, dammit. I totally don't mind the procedure.
Just texted some unboredom advice to a HS senior stuck at what she terms a feminist art display with too much nudity. I suggested she apply what we've told her about the fetish map as needed.
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo.
Made appointment with doctor about finger--Monday. Other people have verified existence of lump. Hrrrm.
Now I have to do a referral chasedown to get my new migraine guy covered by the new insurance.
And I have to work out how to convince myself to eat. I don't want to grow out of many more of my clothes, but this isn't the way to do it.
There's an article in this month's Vanity Fair about Giuliani: [link]
Basically, the article makes the case that Giuliani is (very) bipolar.
I think training on it'd probably end up contrary to my pacifism
Why are you a pacifist? What in pacifism appeals to you? Because I think that one could definitely do krav well and be a pacifist, but it depends on why you're doing krav and why you're a pacifist.
Please, Dana, do!
Dana, I'd love to hear about it.
I'm anti-Giuliani because all/most of my NYC friends are. I figure I should listen to the people who actually lived under his rule.
Learning some form of self-defense is always appealing, but I just haven't found the time.
I went in for jury duty. Out of a group of 61 people (should have been 62, but one was missing), I was number 50. We were lined up in order and herded over to the criminal courts building, kindergarten-style. Once we were inside the correct courtroom, we were seated on the benches in order, with cards that identified us by juror number, so that if we answered a question, the court reporter could note who was speaking.
By the time the judge talked to us, it was probably 10AM. We'd had to report at 8AM. I don't know if this counts as part of voir dire, though I suspect it does, since she was basically asking questions to see if any jurors would be eliminated for one reason or another (though no one was ever told they were eliminated -- we were all kept until the end).
She asked who had served on a jury before, and what the case was. One guy, who was number 6 but was ultimately not picked, had been on three juries including a capital murder case. Out of the 61, probably less than 10 had ever served on a jury.
She asked if anyone had been arrested or convicted of anything beyond a traffic ticket. That was an interesting run of answers. Again, less than 10 people, and the most common answer was domestic violence. There were a couple of DUIs as well.
She told us the case we were trying was aggravated sexual assault, meaning that the defendant had (allegedly) used a weapon to threaten or compel the victim. She asked if anyone had either been the victim of a violent or sexual assault, or was close to someone who'd been the victim. And that was a depressing 20 minutes or so, because fully half of the people there raised their hands. There were several cases of child molestation, either the person themself or a case where they had a family member. A few women had been raped. A few people had relatives who had been murdered. One man said his brother and brother's wife had been killed by their son in a murder-suicide.
I'm sure the judge had more questions, but those are the ones that stick out to me. After that, it was time for lunch. They told us that there was a cafeteria, and not to leave the building.
That Vanity Fair article was awesome. And it's true that people who weren't here and/or paying attention when he was mayor really don't get it, I think partly because who could believe all the stories are about the same person?
Continued ~ma for Grace and Noah.
Man, your jury duty is more more involved. I spent fully half the day, longer, actually, just stuck in one of two rooms waiting for a judge to need a jury. Read two books, a newspaper and did crosswords. Then 60 of us got called and did a quick & dirty voir dire (lasted maybe 15-30 minutes) and I was one of the lucky 12 to sit on the jury for the STUPIDEST CASE EVER. Man.
When we came back from lunch, it was the lawyers' turn. They were both in the courtroom the whole time, as was the defendant, though I didn't notice him there until they pointed him out, due to where I was sitting.
The prosecutor was most concerned with finding out whether we believed we could convict based on the testimony of a single witness, assuming we believed that witness completely. She got herself in trouble several times by coming too close to talking about the specifics of the case -- that was my understanding, at least. The defense attorney objected several times, and several times the judge called them up to the bench to discuss it.
She also (or possibly this was the judge) said that the full range of possible punishment in this case was anywhere from five years' probation to life imprisonment, and we were asked if we would be able to "consider" the full range of punishment options, if the defendant was convicted.
The defense attorney was mostly concerned with the lower range, and wanted to know who would not be able to consider giving the defendant probation. A lot of people spoke up for this one, and it looked to me like several people considered this their way out of having to serve on the jury.
After that, the judge and attorneys conferred. The judge said that the attorneys were "lenient" or "forgiving", I forget which one, and that they'd come close to not being able to make a jury. As number 50, I was the last regular juror called. The alternate, who was somewhere around 55, was not too pleased.
