2004-03-09 - 8:02 p.m. Today I wasn't just a rock star, I was...Paula Carino, Instrument of Justice. Jury duty was amazing! I alternated regularly between extreme inner sarcasm and weepy patriotism. For instance, the orientation video, despite its ominous and accusatory title ("YOUR TURN!") and horrible acting and production values, was a stirring piece of poetry designed to make people feel the weight and privilege of serving on a jury. By the end of it I didn't just want to be on a jury, I wanted to, I dunno, grow wings and fly through the streets trumpeting the message of a fair trial for all, and innocent until proven guilty� I was placed almost immediately on a civil trial (but not before finishing the Jury Pool Newsletter crossword puzzle!), so the boredom that everyone warned me about wasn't so much an issue. I really enjoyed the jury selection process, which was how I imagine those �5 minute dating� workshops at the Learning Annex transpire: the lawyers ask you a bunch of pointed questions and make you feel like the belle of the ball and then they move on to the next potential juror as the next lawyer starts questioning you. One lawyer warned us that trials are �not a popularity contest.� Ah, thanks, Mr Weatherbee. Now, I�ve been hearing all my life about the various things�school elections, the Grammys�that are �not a popularity contest.� Wouldn�t it be nice if someone started owning up to things that were actually popularity contests? Or to have government sanctioned popularity contests, maybe with the loser being crushed to death between large boulders? Anyway, the case ended up being settled by the lawyers, and we were all free to go home at 5:00. Not a bad day�s work. I have a few thoughts about this op ed piece from today�s Times. (You have to register, sorry dude). We've got more to fear from the easygoing narcissism that is so much part of the atmosphere nobody even thinks to protest or get angry about it. I'm no apologist for Albom and his dopey books, but Brooks doesn't develop this idea enough for me to agree with him. He doesn't offer an alternative vision (except the vaguely-conceived idea that heaven is supposed to reflect "God and his glory"), so the sum of his argument amounts to a discomfort with the soft-focus language and emotions presented in books like _The 5 People...._ It reads as general uptightness, like a Dave Barry column but w/o the laughs They reconcile him with his father, who had been cruel to him. They remind him of what a good person he was. He gets to spend time with his wife, whom he'd neglected and who died young. He is forgiven for the hurts he accidentally committed while alive. These all sound like basic New Testament concepts of forgiveness--what's the problem here? In this heaven, God and his glory are not the center of attention. It's all about you. Of course it's all about "you"--let's not pretend that anyone practices religion without some thought of wanting a better life for themselves and their children. Americans in the 21st century are more likely to be divorced from any sense of a creedal order, ignorant of the moral traditions that have come down to us through the ages... Which "us" is he referring to? Us Muslims? Us Protestants? Us Satanists? Us Hindus? Us atheists? There is no "creedal order" in this country, which is, partially, the point of this country. I appreciate what this fellow is saying, in context of the furor surrounding the Mel G. movie, but I think he needs to figure out what he's for before he goes ranting about what he's against thoughts? (0 comments so far) previous - next blog archive contact