Ross TenEyck's Journal

News to me

2009-11-07T19:21:25Z

I'd heard that after the disappointing box office of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Disney had canned the series. What I only found out recently was that it has apparently been rescued by 20th Century Fox... or at least the next movie has been. According to the IMDB and the Wikipedia article, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is scheduled for a December 2010 release.

And the Wikipedia article links to some pictures of the Dawn Treader being built in Australia. Here's the whole ship:

Nice!

I am ashamed I did not think of this myself

2009-11-07T08:55:31Z

In the bookstore today, I saw these prominently displayed on the "For Teens" table:

Yes, that's right: Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and Romeo and Juliet, all reprinted with covers that by a remarkable coincidence are all strikingly evocative of another well-known recent book cover:

The question is: will the teens keep reading them once they realize that there are no vampires in? Or will they gravitate towards the compromise position?

Remember, remember...

2009-11-05T22:02:52Z

On this day four hundred and four years ago, a Catholic footsoldier set into motion a chain of events that would lead, with the relentless inexorability of history, to Alan Moore disliking a movie.

Since we just fell back...

2009-11-03T06:18:31Z

...I've posted this chart before, but it seems timely to see it again:

Liturgy is dangerous

2009-11-01T23:02:06Z

Today is All Saints' Day, which among other things is one of the four Sundays a year that are customarily held to be particularly suitable for baptisms. So today at St. Mark's Cathedral, we got our baptism on.

The baptismal font at St. Mark's is a large stoneware urn which we obtained from a well-known supplier of sacred vessels. (Not exactly that one, but pretty similar.) Before the service, we fill it within a few inches of the top; then, during the service, just before the baptisms, we have a bunch of people from the congregation bring buckets of water and fill it -- to the top, and then overflowing onto the floor. The kids love that part.

After the baptisms, just before the Peace, the clergy take bowls of water from the font through the congregation and use evergreen branches to sprinkle the people with water. This is called "asperging," and it is meant to remind everyone of their own baptismal covenant.

So today, when it came time to do that, the clergy each grabbed a child volunteer from among the crowd that had come up to watch the baptisms, and had the child hold the bowl while the clergy sprinkled people. Except one of the clergy, in fact the Canon Missioner for the cathedral, who decided that she would hold the bowl and the kid would get to get people wet. This was a boy about, I would guess, six or seven years old. It so happened that I was sitting at the end of the pew in the front where they began, and as they came up I wondered to myself if this kid had grasped the notion of "sprinkling."

He had not.

He grabbed the branches and basically scooped about half the water out of the bowl and onto me with a mighty splash, incidentally whacking me with the branches at the same time -- fortunately he wasn't tall enough to hit me in the face, so the branches just hit my chest. But he got me good with the water. The left half of my head and chest were pretty well soaked.

This was startling for a moment, although not completely surprising, kids being kids and all. Then I thought it was pretty funny, which was fortunate because so did most everyone else. A kind soul brought me a spare towel -- we had several ready to hand to wipe up the floor where the font overflows -- so I could dry off a little, and later during announcements the Canon said she wasn't sure about the validity of second baptisms, but I sure wasn't going to forget this one.

And how was your church service this morning?

The Catholic/Anglican announcement: the Ross Report analysis

2009-10-21T22:31:21Z

In reference to this, some background, a few more links of reactions and news stories, and then some thoughts of my own.

Background

The Church of England, and now the Anglican family of churches, has always had to balance Catholic and Protestant strands. Henry VIII wanted his own national church, of course, but wasn't much interested in the Reformation going on over on the continent; however, some of the people who were seminal in actually creating Henry's church were interested. As a result, the newly-formed Church of England was informed by the Protestant Reformation, but stood partially to the side of it. Over the course of its early years, the pendulum swung back and forth on how Catholic or how Protestant the church was -- depending on who held the throne at the time -- until Elizabeth directed the creation of a very carefully-worded prayer book that people with either Catholic or Protestant sensibilities could use without doing too much violence to their beliefs.

Nevertheless, as time went on, the praxis of Anglican worship became very strongly Protestant -- minimal ceremonial, a strong emphasis on preaching and Scripture as opposed to sacrament, and so on. This lasted until the mid-1800s, when something called the Oxford Movement began to try to recover much of the Catholic theology and praxis that, they believed, had been thrown out with the bathwater. This caused bitter controversy at the time, both in the Church of England and in the colonies (including the U.S.), but eventually the Oxford Movement was successful enough to cause significant changes. A lot of the elements that are now considered typical of Anglican worship -- vestments, processions, ceremonial and ritual -- date from this time.

The result is that now the Anglican world includes significant numbers of people with "Catholic" sensibilities -- meaning more elaborate ceremonial and a sacramentally-focused theology -- as well as significant numbers of people with "Protestant" sensibilities -- typically less-elaborate worship and a Word-focused theology. (This is of course a great over-simplification, but broadly speaking it's true.) There are also a lot of people in the middle who straddle the fence. The more "Catholic" group is sometimes called "high church" or "Anglo-Catholic," the more "Protestant" group is sometimes called "low church" or "Evangelical." The ones in the middle are called "broad church" if they're called anything at all. It is sometimes said that Anglicans are either "high and crazy, low and lazy, or broad and hazy."

It should be noted that this Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical axis is largely orthogonal to the liberal/conservative axis. For instance, I would be a liberal Anglo-Catholic. One of the interesting features of the current sexuality schism is that it has united conservative Evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics -- and the two groups are finding that, apart from opposing homosexuality, they don't have much in common. As an example, the ordination of women is typically a conservative Anglo-Catholic bogeyman; conservative Evangelicals are divided as to whether they oppose or support it, but mostly aren't that concerned with it either way.

As one might gather, the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism is not that far removed from the Roman Catholic church in theology or praxis; and as a result there is a fairly constant stream of movement across the divide -- in both directions. Roman Catholics who for one reason or another can't or won't stay in the Roman church often find Anglicanism the most reasonable alternative. Anglo-Catholics may disagree with the direction the Anglican church is going, or decide that being Anything-Catholic but outside Rome is theologically unsupportable; in either case they will often "swim the Tiber," as we say, and convert to Roman Catholicism.

Conservative Anglican Evangelicals who leave the fold typically go to a conservative Protestant church; the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod seems to be a popular choice in the U.S.

Beginning back in the late 60s and continuing off and on since then, the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church have been exploring what common ground they have; the joint effort has been known as ARCIC (the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission) and more recently as IARCCUM (the International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission.) The most recent publication of this group was in 2007, titled Growing Together in Unity and Mission. Despite this publication, a lot of the ecumenical work was halted (at least on the Roman side) in 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire; and the ordination of women was a sore point even before that.

[ETA: Forgot to mention -- in the U.S. (not the rest of the world) there has been an option very much like this in effect for some time. Under the terms of this "pastoral provision," parishes of former Anglicans may petition the local Catholic bishop to become an "Anglican Use" parish. As with the Apostolic Constitution, former Anglican priests can be re-ordained as Catholic priests (even if married) and the parishes are permitted to use a version of the Book of Common Prayer adapted and authorized for Catholic use. This has been in place since the early 1980s, but my understanding is that only a handful of such parishes actually exist.]

Now, as I said, conservative Anglo-Catholics often oppose that practice. Back when the Anglican Communion as a whole started ordaining women -- which was in the late 1970s -- some groups split off from the mainstream Communion. Collectively they tend to call themselves the "Continuing Anglican" movement, and they have no affiliation with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the other Instruments of Unity. One of these Continuing Anglican bodies is the "Traditional Anglican Communion," or TAC. A couple of years ago their bishops -- I believe unanimously -- signed a copy of the Catholic Catechism, stated that they accepted it without reservation, and approached the Vatican about joining the Catholic Church.

As near as anybody can tell, it was the TAC petition that was the proximate cause for this announcement about "personal ordinariates"; however, scuttlebutt suggests that Benedict XVI also has in mind Anglo-Catholic groups who are still in the Communion. Examples would be the groups that call themselves "Forward In Faith" in the U.K. and North American. The English FIF crowd in particular has been unhappy recently because it looks as though the Church of England Synod is going to ram women bishops down their throats. By which I mean, "women bishops will exist," and the Synod is effectively telling the FIF types that their choices are to like it or lump it.

That, then, is the background against which the Vatican announcement has been made.

Some More Reactions and Other Links

The Primate of the TAC is happy. No surprise there.

FIF UK is also pretty pleased. FIF NA doesn't seem to have a response online yet.

Somebody at the Telegraph reports that, according to a "good source in Rome," both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the people in the Vatican responsible for ecumenical relations opposed this plan.

ACNA (the Anglican Church in North America -- remember that this is the group formed from breakaway Episcopalians and other disaffected Anglican bodies) has a positive but somewhat cautious response. More on this below.

Bishop Iker, bishop of the breakaway diocese of Fort Worth -- and a prominent Anglo-Catholic -- is even more measured in his response.

The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina (and maintainer of the blog Titus One Nine, where I get a lot of my Anglican news) offers this analysis. I think this part is especially interesting: "It represents a judgment that the real story going forward is between Rome and the East. Do not underestimate the significance of the fact that in this present unusual 'arrangement,' if I may call it that, Rome has drawn the line at Episcopal celibacy. That is a gesture Eastward, among many other things." He's referring here to the fact that the announcement stipulated that married Anglican priests would be allowed to be re-ordained as Catholic priests, but no married Anglican bishops could become Catholic bishops. The Eastern Orthodox churches permit married priests but not married bishops.

My Thoughts

Some people, within the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, as well as outside observers, are describing this move as "poaching." Others (including Fr. Harmon) view this as an ecumenical slap in the face and an indictment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Myself, I don't think so.

To the extent that this move is directed at the TAC, it obviously has nothing to do with the Anglican Communion or the ABC at all. The TAC wants union with Rome, and Rome is prepared to offer it. Good for both of them; it's none of our business.

To the extent that this move is directed at FIF or other Anglo-Catholics within the AC, that's a bit of a different story. It could well be viewed as the Vatican's public opinion that the Church of England (in particular) and the Anglican Communion (in general) can't be counted on to provide a safe harbor for conservative Anglo-Catholics, and so they will provide one themselves.

Of course, that "harbor" has always been available on an individual basis, just as the converse has been available for Roman Catholics departing for Anglicanism. This provision simply makes it available on a corporate basis, and permits the formerly-Anglican bodies to retain some aspects of their Anglican worship. Still, the fact that the Vatican is publicly endorsing this option could be seen as a criticism of the Anglican Communion.

However, I think the key phrase comes from the joint statement released by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster: "Today's announcement of the Apostolic Constitution is a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and are willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church." The "Petrine ministry," for those of you who aren't hip to the secret Catholic lingo, is the Pope: according to tradition, the Apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and if you accept that the primacy of that office is "willed by Christ for his Church" then you're basically agreeing that Jesus wanted the Pope to have authority over all Christians. And, in my opinion, if you accept that then you have no excuse for not joining the Catholic Church and placing yourself under that authority with as much expedition as possible.

In other words, as I see it, this provision is meant for people who really ought to have been Catholics all along.

It should be noted that not all Anglo-Catholics do, in fact, "accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church." For instance, I do not. Conservative Anglo-Catholics who would otherwise be tempted to take this offer, but who have reservations about Papal authority, are going to be in something of a pickle here.

Now, how is this going to play out politically?

In the U.S., I don't see this having much effect on the Episcopal Church. The Anglo-Catholics who were disgruntled enough to leave have mostly already done so, whether to ACNA or to Rome as individuals. Certainly there will still be the usual osmotic movement of this or that individual to Rome, and the corresponding movement the other way; but I don't see any bodies within TEC that would likely be interested in departing en masse.

The effect it may have on ACNA is more interesting. ACNA is at the moment a somewhat uneasy alliance of conservative Evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics, but the Evangelicals are calling the shots. As a whole ACNA came to a compromise position on ordaining women: individual bodies within ACNA may decide whether or not to ordain women as priests, but no women bishops would be allowed. The Anglo-Catholic bodies in ACNA find even that compromise troubling, and some of them are also unhappy about ACNA's interpretation of the 39 Articles. So for the Anglo-Catholic wing of ACNA, this offer might look very tempting indeed. If they do head for Rome as a body, then that leaves ACNA both somewhat smaller and almost completely Evangelical. In effect, there would be no safe harbor in the U.S. for conservative Anglo-Catholics who couldn't stomach TEC, apart from Rome.

I'm less familiar with the situation in England, but what I hear is that the conservative Anglo-Catholics there are feeling persecuted by the Synod, which has failed to provide what they consider adequate provision for those who cannot accept women bishops. Leaving for Rome is a bigger jump for them -- the American Anglo-Catholics in ACNA have already shaken the dust from their sandals to depart from one church, while FIF UK is still a part of the Church of England -- but it's bound to be a tempting thought. If, of course, they decide to accept Papal authority, which is still going to be a sticking point for some of them. But if they do go, or even a significant number of them, then that leaves a noticeable hole in the Church of England; and that is unlikely to make Rowan Williams a happy camper.

So ACNA and the C of E are the areas I'm going to be watching with some interest.

The other question is what effect this might have on the Roman Catholic Church itself. Numerically it won't be significant -- the RCC is so much bigger than the Anglican Communion that even if we all came over at once it wouldn't make a lot of difference -- but the more liberal RCs are likely to be displeased, both over the end-run around the existing ecumenical efforts and at the influx of conservatives. How that might play out, I have no idea.

[ETA: I forgot to add -- I would imagine that the provision for married Anglican priests to become married Catholic priests is going to rankle with some of the celibate Roman clergy.]

Interesting times, to be sure.

Catholic Church creates provision for Anglo-Catholics

2009-10-20T21:34:58Z

"NOTE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ABOUT PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

"With the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.

"In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy."

Read the whole thing here.

"JOINT STATEMENT BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER AND THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

"...The Apostolic Constitution is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition. Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured. In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion."

Read the whole joint statement here.

Rowan Williams' letter to the bishops of the Church of England and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is printed in this news article.

A statement from Bishop Christopher Epting, the Deputy for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations for the Episcopal Church, is here.

A news article with a rather over-the-top headline is here.

"There's a lesson in all this."

2009-10-19T07:28:39Z

"Never let sixty angry kids use a herd of laser cows to take over your house."

The Case of the Terminated Medical Assistant; -or- Please, May We See Another Timesheet?

2009-10-14T22:52:08Z

The Basics

This was a civil case about wrongful termination. The plaintiff alleged that she had been fired from her job, in part, for taking leave under the Family Medical Leave Act -- which, if true, would of course have been illegal. The defendant (her former employer) denied the allegation and asserted that she had been fired solely for being chronically late to work.

The Cast

The principal players in this case were:

The Plaintiff -- to protect her privacy, I will refer to her as Ms. Plaintiff. She had worked as a medical assistant at one of the clinics operated by the University of Washington Medical Center.

The Plaintiff's Attorney -- I will call him Mr. P. Attorney.

The Defendant -- the defendant on the suit was the UW Medical Center, which I will refer to as the UW Medical Center because I think they can handle the exposure.

The Plaintiff's Former Supervisor -- appearing as the human face of the UWMC was the plaintiff's former supervisor, who had of course had a major hand in the plaintiff's termination. She was an RN who had taken over the clinic in question in January of '07. I will dub her Ms. Manager.

The Defendant's Attorney -- let her be named Ms. D. Attorney.

Also appearing were a number of witnesses, the judge, the bailiff, the court clerk, and the twelve-plus-an-alternate jurors; plus assorted spectators who came in and out of the courtroom.

The Story

This is what happened, and was largely undisputed by both sides.

Ms. Plaintiff had worked at this particular UWMC clinic since mid-2005, and until the beginning of 2007 there was no difficulty with the performance of her duties. However, in December of '06 and January of '07 a couple of things happened:

First, she had surgery which had complications. As a result, she had chronic recurring episodes involving significant pain. She applied for, and was granted, permission to take "occasional, intermittent, 3-7 days at a time" leave under the auspices of the Family Medical Leave Act.

Second, the daycare she had been using closed. This was significant because that daycare had allowed her to drop her daughter off at 5:30 AM. The next best daycare she could find was in Auburn and wouldn't take her child until 6:00 AM. Ms. Plaintiff's shift at the clinic started at 6:30 AM and went until 3:00 PM; and if you know the Seattle area you will see that this gave her an almost impossible commute in the morning. Getting from Auburn to the U-District in half an hour at that time of the morning is possible, just, if there's no traffic; but there's almost never no traffic.

In addition, she often had to pick her son up after school at 3:00; since her shift went until 3:00, that was also clearly a problem.

As a result, beginning in January of '07 she began to be chronically late to work, and often left work early. In addition, she would not notify the clinic when she was going to be late (she wouldn't know whether she was going to be late until she was on the road, and she didn't have a cell phone) and she wouldn't tell anyone when she left early -- often someone would come out from the back, where surgeries were going on, and discover the front desk unmanned. (Ms. Plaintiff testified that she did always tell someone when she was leaving early, but she wasn't clear about who she would tell, and in any case she did not ask for permission from her supervisor before leaving.)

Ms. Manager was also hired at about that time, and Ms. Plaintiff asked if her hours could be changed. Ms. Manager said they could not, and in fact there was good reason for this. The clinic began doing surgeries at 7:20 AM, patients would begin showing up at 6:30 AM, and someone needed to be there to check them in. Also, the instruments needed for the day's surgeries had to be checked, and if anything was missing it had to be brought over from the main hospital; this was part of Ms. Plaintiff's job. If she wasn't there promptly at 6:30 AM, then a nurse would have to be pulled from his or her duties to cover for Ms. Plaintiff until she came in.

In February of '07, Ms. Manager had what the UW calls an "informal counseling session" with Ms. Plaintiff about her coming in late and leaving early. In accordance with UW practice, this meeting was documented and the specific complaints spelled out.

In late March or early April of '07, Ms. Plaintiff injured her ankle on the job. The injury wasn't that serious, but she did have to stay off her feet for a while and her job involved a lot of walking around; so she took off three weeks under FMLA for that injury.

(This was actually a point of discussion in the jury room when we were deliberating: Ms. Plaintiff testified that she had asked the person who processed the payroll for the unit whether she needed a separate FMLA approval for her ankle injury, and he'd told her to just go ahead and take time off using her existing FMLA approval. Later, the payroll person testified that he had said no such thing and wouldn't have had the authority to do so in any case. However, neither Ms. Manager nor any of the other witnesses who were in Ms. Plaintiff's management chain testified to having raised any objection to her taking time off this way, either at the time or after the fact, so we concluded that since everyone had apparently acted as though it were approved FMLA leave we should treat it as such.)

Aside from the time she was out for her ankle, Ms. Plaintiff's record of showing up to work on time and staying until the end of her shift had improved, somewhat, but it still wasn't perfect.

In May of '07, Ms. Manager had what is called a "formal counseling session" with Ms. Plaintiff. This is the next step in the escalation process at the UW; this process eventually ends, if the problems in question are not resolved, in termination. At this counseling session, the specific complaint was spelled out as "Tardiness, leaving work early, and failure to follow proper notification procedures for unplanned absences." The third clause had not appeared in the informal counseling write-up. We would eventually become very familiar with this phrase.

In June of '07, the process escalated again to a "final counseling session," at which the same complaint with the same language was cited. Also, Ms. Plaintiff was asked to call Ms. Manager's voicemail as soon as she got to work, and again just before she left -- the voicemail system would timestamp the messages, and this would provide a more accurate record than the timesheets.

According to these voicemail timestamps, Ms. Plaintiff was late to work every single day for the next two months, and left early more often than not.

During all this time, aside from the three weeks for her ankle injury, Ms. Plaintiff had taken "occasional, intermittent" days off under her FMLA approval. Fortunately, it turned out that her complications were not as serious as her doctor had initially feared. She took a week of FMLA leave in July, but pretty much all her other FMLA days off were single days here and there.

In August of '07, the process escalated to the final level, and there was what the UW calls a "pre-determination" meeting -- this is the last-ditch, "explain why we shouldn't fire you" meeting. Ms. Manager was not present, as per UW policy, but her manager and her manager's manager were, along with Ms. Plaintiff, her union representative, and an HR representative. Ms. Plaintiff reiterated that her attendance issues were childcare-related, but offered no other defense. The paperwork for the pre-determination meeting carried forward the same "Tardiness, leaving work early, and failure to follow proper notification procedures for unplanned absences" language that had been used in the previous stages of the process.

Shortly after the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Plaintiff was terminated.

The Trial

All of the above came out, in mind-numbing detail, in witness testimony and in the exhibits admitted into evidence. However, let's hop back a little and talk about how the trial went.

First of all, down in the jury selection room, they told us there were pulling thirty potential jurors for a trial. (They'd pulled a hundred for the first one -- the grapevine had it that that one was a particularly nasty criminal case. I am so very, very glad I was not on that jury.) So we were all issued cards with numbers on them (I was number 14) and told to head to the seventh floor, where we were met by the bailiff. She had us line up in order and go into the courtroom -- the first twelve went into the jury box, the rest of us sat in the benches.

Then the judge told us how long he expected the trial to take (Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of that week, plus Monday of the following week, plus however long it took us to deliberate -- the court had another trial scheduled for Thursday, and he planned to spend Friday on motions and other business that did not require the jury) and asked if that would be an undue hardship for any juror. "Undue hardship" included things like not being able to be away from work that long, having dependents and nobody else to take care of them, having an upcoming trip scheduled, or that kind of thing. Maybe eight or ten jurors raised their hands, and after listening to their explanations the judge dismissed them all back to the pool downstairs. Then he had us fill the empty slots in the jury box in order, so that was the point when I went into the box.

The judge gave a very brief capsule summary of the complaint -- i.e., the plaintiff alleged that the UW had fired her in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act -- and proceeded to ask the jurors as a whole a series of questions about whether we know any of the parties involved, had experience with the UW or the FMLA, and so on. We raised our hands in response to the questions, and the attorneys for both sides got to follow up. I said I'd had experience with the UW, in that I'd been a grad student there and had worked there for about a year after getting my Master's.

Each attorney could challenge jurors for cause, which the judge had to approve -- Mr. P. Attorney tried a few, all of which were overruled. Then each attorney got to dismiss three (I think it was three) jurors without giving a reason (a "peremptory challenge") and so we lost a number of jurors that way. By the time we were done, we had twelve in the box, including me, one alternate, and two left in the benches. They were dismissed back to the pool.

I was a little surprised at some of the people who were left on the jury. It had been clear that they couldn't dismiss everyone who had ever been involved with the UW -- there wouldn't have been anyone left -- so I was not too surprised that I made the cut; but they did leave one guy who had been the CEO of a medium-sized corporation before he retired.

In any event, at that point we were a jury and the trial began.

Both the attorneys made their opening arguments, and my first impression was that Ms. Plaintiff was not well represented -- Mr. P. Attorney was not a particularly good speaker. Admittedly, this wasn't Law & Order and no actual lawyer is going to come across as polished as a professional actor who gets to do multiple takes; but I could have given a better opening argument than he did. Ms. D. Attorney did a significantly better job. The overall effect, ironically, was to make me feel more sympathetic towards the plaintiff, since she had the weaker lawyer.

Then Mr. P. Attorney got to make his case, and he put Ms. Plaintiff on the stand. Her testimony lasted for the rest of the day (which wasn't much at that point) and most of the next two days, and that's where the bulk of the story given above came out. At length. Mr. P. Attorney spent pretty much all of Tuesday morning going through her timesheets from January through August of '07. Every. Single. One. That's the kind of drama you won't see on TV.

One thing that surprised me -- I'd never heard of this before -- was that the jury got to ask questions of the witnesses. Sort of. The way it worked was, after each witness was done -- direct examination, cross examination, re-direct, etc. etc. -- the judge would ask if any juror had a question for the witness. If any of us raised our hands, we'd be given a form on which to write out our questions. The judge would review them, show them to both attorneys -- who could object if they wanted -- and then the judge would decide whether to read the question, reword it and read it, or not read it at all. The witness would then answer the questions, although of course if they didn't quite understand what we were getting at there was no way we could clarify.

What was interesting about this was that it was not only the only window the attorneys had into what the jury was thinking, it was the only window we had into what other jurors were thinking. During the trial, we were forbidden to talk about the case even amongst ourselves. More on that later.

Ms. Plaintiff's testimony was interrupted a couple of times by other witnesses, for scheduling reasons -- both attorneys were clearly put a little off their stride by this, because it messed up the way they wanted to build their cases, but they both rolled with it. In particular we heard from Ms. Manager's manager, and her manager, both of whom had been involved in the later stages of the disciplinary, and ultimately terminatory, process; both of them were put on the stand by the defense. They testified that Ms. Plaintiff had been terminated solely because she constantly came in late, left early, and typically didn't tell anyone when she was going to come in late or leave early; and that her FMLA leave had nothing to do with the decision.

During cross-examination of these witnesses, Mr. P. Attorney questioned them closely on the use of the phrase "unplanned absences" in the various counseling documents. He also put up a copy of the UW "Attendance Policy," and focused on one of the defined terms. We saw it so often that I can repeat it here close to verbatim; in the section "Definitions," the policy said:

Unscheduled Absence -- any unplanned absence, except for those covered in [reference to list of exceptions], for which notification is given.

So, for example, if you were to call in sick one day that would count as an "unscheduled absence" by this definition. Mr. P. Attorney claimed that this sentence defined an "unplanned absence" as "an absence for which notification is given." This struck me as a bizarre and seemingly willful misreading of the plain sense of the document, so I was surprised when he managed to confuse both of these witnesses into eventually agreeing with his reading of it. I tried to use one of my juror questions to prod Ms. Manager's uber-boss into taking a second look at the definition and reading it correctly, but it didn't work.

In any event, Mr. P. Attorney then tried to use this peculiar reading to get the witnesses to agree that the phrase used in the counseling documents, "failure to follow proper notification procedures for unplanned absences," was contradictory because an unplanned absence was by definition one for which notification had been given. At that point the witnesses were so befuddled they simply didn't know what to make of it.

After these witnesses were allowed to retire in confusion, Ms. Plaintiff's testimony resumed. When her attorney was at length done with his direct examination, it was time for Ms. D. Attorney to cross-examine.

The cross-examination of Ms. Plaintiff was notable largely because it turned out that she had given a lengthy deposition to Ms. D. Attorney about six months ago, and Ms. D. Attorney had the transcript of it. The cross-examination was largely a litany composed of variations on the following theme:

Ms. D. Attorney: "Question?"
Ms. Plaintiff: "Answer A."
Ms. D. Attorney: "Do you remember giving Answer B in your deposition?"
Ms. Plaintiff: "No."
Ms. D. Attorney: "Please turn to page X in your deposition. Do you see where you answered B there?"
Ms. Plaintiff: "Oh, yeah, I did say that."

Given that the deposition had been six months ago and the events in question had been close to two and a half years ago, I was prepared to cut Ms. Plaintiff some slack on remembering exactly what had happened; so this didn't make me think, "Why, she's a liar!" But of course it did speak to the credibility of her memory of events.

The gist of the story, which I have given above, survived Ms. D. Attorney's cross-examination; but it did appear that Ms. Plaintiff had, for instance, been rather less diligent about looking for other jobs with more congenial hours during this period than she had claimed in her direct examination.

But finally, Ms. Plaintiff's testimony was finished. At this point, Mr. P. Attorney rested the plaintiff's case, and I remember being surprised and thinking, "That's it? That's all you've got?"

Ms. D. Attorney began her case by putting Ms. Manager on the stand. Ms. Manager's story was that Ms. Plaintiff was frequently late to work, frequently left work early, typically didn't tell anybody when she was going to be in late or out early, that these issues had been discussed with her on multiple occasions, and that ultimately she had been fired over them. Her FMLA days had nothing to do with the decision. Since she had taken notes of all her meetings with Ms. Plaintiff, and could produce them -- not to mention all the paperwork for the "counseling sessions" -- she had a paper trail to back her up.

During Ms. Manager's cross-examination, Mr. P. Attorney tried for a hat trick on confusing witnesses with the definition of "unplanned absence" in the attendance policy. Unfortunately for him, Ms. Manager was able to read plain English and refused to go along with his misconstrual of the sentence.

[ETA: -- I forgot to include this in my initial write-up, but I should probably add it: Mr. P. Attorney pulled out an e-mail that Ms. Manager had sent to the HR rep she was working with on this matter, wherein Ms. Manager had said something like, "Should we put in that she was out for a week in July?" -- the week in question being FMLA leave. He clearly thought this was something of a smoking gun. Ms. Manager replied that her question had been in reference to a spreadsheet she was filling out with the timestamp data from the voicemail system -- you recall that Ms. Plaintiff had by this point been asked to call into Ms. Manager's voicemail upon arriving to and leaving from work -- and she just wanted to know if she should leave those days blank, or fill them in with "FMLA" so that people didn't ask why they were blank. Smoking gun neutralized.]

After Ms. Manager, there were a few more witnesses -- for instance, the person who had processed Ms. Plaintiff's timesheets, and the HR rep who had been part of the termination process -- but they were all on and off the stand fairly quickly. The bulk of the testimony had come from Ms. Plaintiff and Ms. Manager.

At that point -- this was Monday afternoon -- the evidence phase of the trial was over and the judge gave the instructions to the jury. This was a sheaf of numbered pages, so we could refer to "Instruction number four" or the like. The first instruction was general procedural stuff -- we had to pick a presiding juror, we needed a majority of at least ten jurors to reach any finding (since this was a civil case; in a criminal case we would have needed to be unanimous), and so on. Others were miscellaneous points and clarifications. The important one was what, exactly, we needed to find in order to reach a verdict: that Ms. Plaintiff had had a serious medical condition qualifying for FMLA leave, that she had been granted FMLA leave by her employer, that she had taken FMLA leave, and that FMLA leave had been a negative factor in her employer's decision to terminate her. The first three points were not in dispute, so it all came down to the last question.

We were also instructed that, in a civil case, the burden of proof was by "preponderance of evidence," which the instruction defined as meaning that we had to think it was "more probably true than not" that something was the case.

After we had received our instructions the attorneys got to make their closing arguments. Mr. P. Attorney went first, of course, and we jurors subsequently all agreed that his closing argument was far superior to his opening one. He stipulated that Ms. Plaintiff had been chronically late to work, and that even though she had childcare issues that this was not the university's problem, and that the university had every right to fire her over being chronically late to work, and even that that had been the primary reason she was fired. But, he said, we did not have to find that her taking FMLA leave was the primary reason she had been fired in order to rule in her favor -- we simply had to find that it had been a reason, no matter how secondary or minor. And, he argued, the use of the phrase "unplanned absences" in the disciplinary process paperwork must refer to her FMLA leave, because they had already listed out her other attendance problems separately. He also pointed out that the second disciplinary meeting had followed a period in which her lateness and early departures had improved -- not gone away, but improved -- but in which she had taken three solid weeks of FMLA leave, and it was only after that point that the "unplanned absence" language appeared in the disciplinary papers. This meant, he argued, that her FMLA leave had been a factor -- not the primary factor, but a factor -- in her termination, and that therefore we must find in her favor.

Ms. D. Attorney's closing argument did not rise to quite the same level; she basically reiterated that Ms. Plaintiff had been late to work a lot, had left work early a lot, had persisted in this despite being notified several times that this was unacceptable, and that she had been fired for those reasons and only those reasons.

And with that, the case was in the hands of the jury.

The Life of a Juror

Allow me to digress briefly to talk about what it was like being a juror on this case.

Our day began at 9:00 AM -- in fact, shortly before that, as the bailiff had told us to be there by 8:45 at the latest. We would drift in one by one and gather in the jury room and chat about anything not related to the case -- which, as I have said, we were forbidden to discuss until deliberations had begun.

The judge admitted to us, when he gave us that instruction on the first day of the trial, that it was awkward: we were thirteen randomly-chosen people who had nothing in common beyond the case, and we were not allowed to talk about it. We found that we could safely discuss (a) how we had gotten to the courthouse that morning, and (b) where we had gone for lunch. As time went on and we began to know each other a little better, conversations ranged more broadly. In fact, we ended up being kind of a boisterous bunch; we were told afterwards that the people in the courtroom could hear us laughing in the jury room.

At 9:00 AM, the bailiff would come to fetch us and we would line up in numerical order -- it only took us two or three days to master this task, which after all involved counting all the way to thirteen -- proceed into the courtroom, and take our seats in the jury box. Then we would usually dive right into testimony.

We'd been given notebooks with our individual juror numbers on them (I was Juror Number Three) and encouraged to take notes during the trial. I think almost all of us did so. We had to leave the notebooks on our seats when we went into the jury room, except of course when we finally retired to deliberate; we were told that after the case the notebooks would be destroyed. That means that nobody will ever see the various editorial comments I wrote in my notes as the trial progressed, which is probably just as well.

We got a fifteen minute break halfway through the morning, during which we were sent into the jury room -- the bailiff didn't want to have to wander the halls fetching us all from wherever we might have scattered to if we'd been allowed out. We were dismissed for lunch at 12:00, and we were allowed out then -- but we were asked to keep our "Juror" badge visible while we were in the courthouse or any of the surrounding shops and restaurants, so that lawyers and so forth would know not to discuss any cases in our hearing.

We would reassemble in the jury room after lunch, and court would resume at 1:30. We got another fifteen minute break in the middle of the afternoon, and then at 4:00 we were done for the day.

That may sound like easy hours -- 9:00 to 4:00, with an hour and a half lunch and two quarter-hour breaks is only five hours of work a day, and sitting down at that. I am here to tell you that sitting still, paying strict attention to everything that everyone is saying, taking notes, and not being permitted to speak for five hours a day is surprisingly exhausting.

We were, I thought, a pretty good jury -- we came from a fairly diverse group of backgrounds (although this being Seattle, there were three Microsoft people and two Boeing people) but we were all prepared to take our job as jurors seriously and do our best to determine the truth of the case based on the evidence we'd been given. We also got along pretty well, there in the jury room. As I said, they could hear us laughing, out in the courtroom; which must have been a little odd for them.

Deliberations

When we finally retired into the jury room to begin our deliberations, it was 3:30 PM on Monday afternoon. I had hopes -- admittedly slim hopes -- that we might be able to finish that day, but it was not to be.

My opinion was that it was pretty clear-cut: the plaintiff had not proven, by "preponderance of evidence," that her FMLA leave had been any kind of factor at all in her firing. Her case wasn't completely baseless -- the "unplanned absences" language in the counseling paperwork could have been read that way -- but I thought it was tenuous at best.

We began our deliberations by doing a quick around-the-table to say what our initial thoughts were. At that point we had nine in favor of the defendant, two for the plaintiff, and one undecided. We debated back and forth for a little while, but then it was 4:00 and we were kicked out and told to come back in the morning.

Tuesday morning we gathered again at nine, and as soon as all of us were there we dived right back in. I pointed out that in the phrase we were all becoming rather tired of, "Tardiness, leaving work early, and failure to follow proper notification procedures for unplanned absences," "unplanned absences" was a modifier to "failure to follow proper notification procedures"; that is, the complaint was about notification rather than absences per se, and since based on the testimony Ms. Plaintiff had generally called in her FMLA absences the phrase couldn't be referring to that. Other jurors pointed out that Ms. Plaintiff had not brought up the FMLA complaint at her pre-determination meeting, which was held precisely for the purpose of airing grievances like that -- and Ms. Manager had not been present for that meeting, by policy, so that the employee would feel able to speak more freely. Furthermore, based on the testimony given by Ms. Manager's uber-boss -- the one who had ultimately made the decision to terminate -- the packet she received with the recommendation to terminate and the supporting evidence did not include a record of Ms. Plaintiff's FMLA absences, so it really couldn't have been a factor in her decision.

The two jurors who were initially on the plaintiff's side pointed out, accurately enough, that it was not as though anyone in the UW management structure was ever going to write down on a piece of paper, "I want to fire this employee for taking FMLA leave." However, we argued that the plaintiff needed to have something to support her belief that she had been fired over FMLA -- an overheard conversation, an indiscreet e-mail [ETA: -- there was the e-mail from Ms. Manager, described in the "ETA" note above, but we felt that she had explained that convincingly], anything at all; and Ms. Plaintiff had testified to none of this. All she had on her side was some vague language in the disciplinary paperwork.

Between all of this we eventually brought the two dissenters around to our side, and the undecided person decided that she was also in favor of the defendant; so in the end we were unanimous. We made sure to ask them if they really were comfortable with that decision, because we didn't want to just browbeat anyone; but they said they had genuinely become convinced there wasn't a preponderance of evidence after all.

So we rang the buzzer for the bailiff. We had to wait about an hour, while they summoned the attorneys and the principles, but then it was back into court for the big denouement.

The Verdict

The bailiff had warned us it wouldn't be exactly like on TV. We trooped back into the jury box for the last time, and the judge asked us if we had reached a verdict. Our presiding juror said we had, and gave the sealed envelope to the bailiff, who gave it to the judge. The judge noted for the record that it was properly sealed, and then set it aside so that he could address the jury -- which I'm sure the attorneys and their principles just loved.

The judge thanked us for our service at some length, and gave us certificates of appreciation -- with gold stars, even. I appreciated the sentiment, but I'm not sure what I'm going to do with the certificate.

Then the judge opened the envelope, observed that the verdict form was properly filled out and signed by the presiding juror, and gave it to the clerk. The clerk read it out loud to the court -- as you have gathered, we ruled in favor of the defendant, the University of Washington -- and with that the case was almost over. The judge thanked us again, told us that we were now free to discuss the case with anyone we wished, and dismissed us to the jury room for the last time.

This was not only so we could gather up our coats and whatnot, but also so the judge could come in and answer any questions we had -- he wouldn't discuss the substance of the case, or his opinion of the merits of it or our decision, but he would answer general and procedural questions. We had a few -- I asked whether the fact that everyone came into court with their expectations set by Law & Order or other trial shows was a net help or hindrance. He said he wasn't sure, but all in all he thought it probably didn't help.

After that, we went out into the hall. The attorneys were there, because they wanted to talk to the jury to get feedback about what had worked and what hadn't. I chatted for a little while with the defendant's attorney, who was naturally feeling pleased with the verdict.

And then it was off to work and my normal life, my brief period as an officer of the court and an instrument of justice done for the nonce.

Thoughts and Impressions

It really isn't like TV. The orientation video they showed us back in the jury selection room, on the morning of the first day, referred to the "slow and deliberate pace of the justice system," and they weren't kidding. This case, at least, was about carefully laying out piece after piece of documentation; and while it was quite tedious, it really was important to us that we had all of that when we were deliberating.

For that matter, once the case was over and we were allowed to do research, I managed to find the docket online -- this case was filed back in April of '08, and it took this long, with motions and filings and legal Latin terms I don't know the meaning of, to come down to these few days with us in a courtroom.

Attorneys are kind of assholes when they cross-examine. I suppose that's the point, but it was surprisingly uncomfortable to watch. For me, anyway.

After we were permitted to discuss the case, many of us on the jury agreed that we were glad we had been handed this relatively benign civil case, rather than some terrible criminal mess. We didn't have to decide whether to send anyone to jail, which I would have found hard even if it were justified.

I'm glad I did this. It would have been more convenient if the schedule had been a little different, but it was a good experience. The twelve of us, ordinary citizens, were brought together in service of the justice system, and we genuinely did our best to see justice done.

I feel good about that.

Jury Duty, Day 4

2009-10-13T00:29:52Z

As noted previously, we were in recess Thursday and Friday.

The evidence and closing arguments concluded today, so the case is now in the hands of us, the jury. Unfortunately we did not finish deliberating today, so we have to go back tomorrow. Even more unfortunately, this means I have to miss a second session of my Theology of Eucharist class; this makes me sad, but that's the way the dice fell.

With luck, we should be done tomorrow. Then I can tell you all about it.

Jury Duty, Day 3

2009-10-08T02:38:14Z

It is remarkably tiring to sit in a chair all day long and listen carefully to people talking about minutiae. It is especially tiring when you can't interject.

We're in recess Thursday and Friday, so I get to go to school and work as usual. We convene again on Monday, and with luck (and depending on how fast the jury can deliberate) we might be done then. If not, we should at least be done by Tuesday.

Jury Duty, Day 2

2009-10-07T01:05:48Z

I am filled to overflowing with observations and opinions which I am not allowed to speak.

So this is what sitting in a jury box is like

2009-10-06T00:25:30Z

I have been empaneled.

Now, obviously, I can't discuss the case until it's over; so here's what happened today before I was put on a jury.

I had to get up at some ungodly hour of the morning so I could make it down to the downtown courthouse before 8:00 AM. Then I had to completely empty my pockets so I could walk through the metal detector, which caused me to reflect that I carry a lot of stuff in my pockets. After asking the information desk person where I was supposed to report for jury duty, and having him point down the hall to the giant sign reading JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM¹, I checked in and cracked open my book. I'd been warned by experienced friends to take plenty of reading material.

At 8:00, they played a pleasant little video about how awesome we were for not just blowing off the summons like most people do², and what we could expect in exchange for our awesomeness. Then a judge came in and gave us a brief history lesson, beginning with King Henry the Nth³.

Then they started calling names. They began by announcing that they were going to call 100 names for the first trial; so I don't know what that's all about, but thank God they didn't call me for that one. I was called in a subsequent, smaller group shortly thereafter.

So I did not actually get to read that much of my book before I got to discover what voir dire⁴ is like. At this point we're verging into the territory I'm not allowed to discuss, so suffice it to say that by the time jury selection was over, I was in the box⁵.

¹Remember, this was before 8:00 AM

²Oddly, the summons itself did not mention this as a possibility; instead, it had a rather ominous note in bold print about it being a felony to not show up when you were summoned.

³Where N is a number I would remember better if it hadn't been 8:00 AM. Seriously, I am not awake at that time of the morning.

⁴If nothing else, it's fun to say.

⁵And apparently, thinking outside it is strongly discouraged.

Jury duty tomorrow

2009-10-05T05:32:09Z

On the one hand, this will be my first time and I'm curious to see how the process works. On a closely related hand, civic responsibility and all that.

On an entirely different hand, while it seems petty to put my own convenience above the pursuit of justice, I have to say that it would be convenient if this didn't last too long¹. It would begin to get awkward rescheduling everything.

It's the open-ended nature of the time commitment that's frustrating; I don't know how to plan for it.

¹This is a "two days or one trial" deal. But they claim the average time served is 2.25 days, so I'm guessing an awful lot of people aren't picked for juries.

Everyone who wants this capability integrated into their cars, form an orderly queue to the right

2009-10-04T00:46:29Z

Ganked from astroaztec

Boeing Advanced Tactical Laser Defeats Ground Target in Flight Test

"During the test, the C-130H aircraft took off from Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and fired its high-power chemical laser through its beam control system while flying over White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The beam control system acquired the ground target -- an unoccupied stationary vehicle -- and guided the laser beam to the target, as directed by ATL's battle management system. The laser beam's energy defeated the vehicle."

See video of the "ground target" being "defeated" here.

I think we can all agree that having death rays from space -- well, from high altitude at any rate -- makes the world an immeasurably better place.

I did not know this

2009-09-30T21:31:22Z

Arlene Martel, the actress who played Spock's betrothed T'Pring in the classic Star Trek episode "Amok Time," also played the love-interest-who-couldn't-be, Consuela, in the classic Outer Limits episode "Demon with a Glass Hand."

Sunday was bright and sunny...

2009-09-28T15:32:59Z

...but let's see what the weather forecast says:

Today: A 30 percent chance of rain after 2pm. Increasing clouds, with a high near 67. South southwest wind between 9 and 17 mph, with gusts as high as 24 mph.
Tuesday: Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 59. South wind 7 to 13 mph becoming west. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Wednesday: Partly sunny, with a high near 60. Calm wind.
Thursday: A 50 percent chance of rain. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 61.
Friday: A chance of rain. Cloudy, with a high near 62.
Saturday: A chance of showers. Cloudy, with a high near 60.
Sunday: A chance of showers. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 60.

I think it's safe to say that fall is finally here.

Videos of a musical persuasion

2009-09-22T07:24:38Z

ptousig was inspired by the VMAs to post a list of music videos he liked, and I replied with this list. But then I thought I should just post it here so more people could see it. So here it is (slightly edited.)

Here are some recent(ish) videos that I like for one reason or another:

Sara Bareilles and Ingrid Michaelson -- Winter Song

Honeyhoney -- Little Toy Gun

Madonna -- Ray of Light (the quality on that one is terrible, but it was the best I could find)

Indigo Girls -- Least Complicated (one of the few music videos that teaches you how to play the song!)

Shania Twain -- I'm Gonna Getcha Good (surely one of the most inappropriate matches of visuals to lyrics ever)

Regina Spektor -- Laughing With

Regina Spektor -- Fidelity

These videos I can't say are good, as such, but I watched them repeatedly because the songs are evil, evil earworms. You probably should not listen to these:

SMiLE.dk -- Butterfly

Caramelldansen (not sure if that's the song or the group... also, trivia fact: despite what it looks like, this is not terrible J-Pop; it's terrible Swedish pop)

I have a friend who plays a lot of DDR, which introduces her to a lot of songs for which the rights were cheap, and she likes to pass on the links. "Butterfly," up above, was one of them. These are a couple of the weirder ones:

Becky -- Less Than 3

Fright Ranger -- Oh Oh Oh Sexy Vampire

And finally, I will admit that there are some videos that I have watched not because of the artistic merit of the video or the song, but for, let us say, other merits. I won't link to any examples here, because they strain (but do not -- quite -- break) my self-imposed PG-13 limit for this journal, but the thoughtful person can find the links. If you are thoughtful, remember: I didn't say I was proud of this.

G.I. Joe: the Movie

2009-09-21T05:22:30Z

Well, that was everything I expected it to be and not a bit more.

Sept 19

2009-09-19T19:36:42Z

Arrr.

Battleship: the Game: the Movie

2009-09-16T01:18:31Z

...coming in 2011.

(Ganked from psi_star_psi.)

From the article (emphasis added to highlight the WTF?):

Aside from "Battleship" and "Stretch Armstrong," U is separately developing "Clue" with Gore Verbinski, "Monopoly" with Ridley Scott, "Candyland" with director Kevin Lima, and "Ouija" with Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes.

So... yeah. That.

Speaking of Fantasy Hero...

2009-09-12T19:31:47Z

(...which I happened to mention in this thread...)

...apparently there is now a Sixth Edition. Or there will be, as soon as the slow boat from China gets here.

Huh.

Fifth edition Hero was to my knowledge the tabletop-RPG book that went the farthest out and lingered the longest in utter limbo before returning from those nebulous lands and actually being published. Since then, though, they've been cranking out supplements and genre books and whatnot at a pretty steady pace, eventually including the "5th Edition Revised" rulebook -- because the original 5th Edition book was only thick enough to stun your smaller and weaker oxen.

So I'm glad to see that they're still going strong. (Which, parenthetically, makes me wonder -- who is still alive in the tabletop-RPG publishing biz? Wizards of the Coast, of course -- the 800-pound gorilla of the industry, who are owned by Hasbro which by TPRG standards is so big it doesn't even register on the scale. HERO Games, as we've just been discussing. Steve Jackson Games is still making GURPS. White Wolf seems to be hanging in there with the World o' Darkness. Anyone else?)

Anyway: 6E Hero. I really do like the system, but I'm beginning to wonder if the ratio of pounds of Hero books I own (large) to the amount of time I actually get to spend playing Hero games (small) is a reasonable one. I think I'll wait and browse the books in the friendly local neighborhood game store before deciding whether or not I want to shell out the bucks for them.

One of the great questions of our age

2009-09-12T03:57:30Z

What the hell is it that makes centuries-old vampires hit on high school girls?

I don't mean the ones who only want to **** and/or kill them -- that's vile, but it kind of goes with being an evil blood-sucking monstrosity. The pointy end of a stake addresses that kind well enough.

I'm talking about the ones who go all gooey and sappy and angsty over some sixteen-year-old. If you're a few hundred years old, what do you talk to a teenager about? What's your shared experience that forms the basis of a relationship?

And what in the name of seven names would compel you to actually go to high school again? That's just a cry for help there; some kind of mercy staking would seem to be in order.

Occasionally I take classes in subjects other than theology...

2009-09-08T19:48:40Z

The topic for the next two days: test-driven development.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

2009-09-03T04:11:16Z

This.

And I haven't even seen the movie yet.