How is it that two days of jury duty can feel like two months in purgatory? Can sitting in a room with nothing to do but read a good book, away from the demands of one's job, the ringing of phones, the beeping of incoming emails... really be so horrifyingly, mind-scrapingly agonizing?
I'm here to say, it can be. All you have to do is tell a person they've got to replace their already meager salary with a ridiculous $40/day stipend, tell them they can't connect to the internet to check in with work, can't use their mobile phone to talk with their loved ones, threaten them with the possibility of 18 months in Grand Jury hell, and then leave them stewing for EIGHT HOURS at a stretch in a room full of strangers, with nowhere to stretch out, no way to heat up their own brown-bag lunch, and no information forthcoming about further service until the very end of the day. Oh, and travel costs are to be reimbursed at a rate of .55 cents a mile. Whose mass transit costs fifty-five cents? Or even twice that?
In today's uncertain economy, the already stressful and tedious obligation to serve as an essential part of the American judicial system can become overwhelmingly anxiety-producing - at least for those of us whose jobs don't pay us for days lost. Yet we can't do without jurors, or our whole legal system would collapse. And the government's highly unlikely to start paying jurors a wage comparable to their current salaries. So what's to be done?
Well, for me, I try to game the system - as ethically as I can.
I've got jury duty - pleh! I seem to get called every time I vote, renew my license, or, heck, breathe too loudly while walking past a government office. This time 'round, I even got summoned for TWO courts at roughly the same time, so I have to juggle how to serve and which one takes precedence.
In theory, I'm all about fulfilling my civic duty. I even get a feeling of pride knowing I'm contributing to society. Yet, when I arrive each time...
First off, no, it's not today that you have to change your clocks. This year, we "Fall Back" at 2 AM on Sunday, November 1st. Secondly, I'd like to take issue with a whole society adjusting its schedule twice a year. I've always found it a huge inconvenience and a misery each time we find ourselves with darkness encroaching that much earlier in the evening, just when it's getting colder and more bitter outside anyway. I say, if we're going to have it, why not have it all year round?
Here's a little history on Daylight Savings Time. It was originally conceived of by Benjamin Franklin, but not put into practice here in the U.S. until 1916. Basically, it was implemented to "make best use of daylight." Some studies say that it saves a significant amount of energy. Most people, chicken farmers notwithstanding, seem to like it. So my question is, why do we only do it in the summer?
Also, I'd like to point out that studies have shown that pedestrian fatalities due to traffic accidents increase significantly every fall around the time DST stops being in effect. Trick-or-treaters are often mowed down by cars at dusk because of drivers who have not yet become accustomed to navigating the earlier darkness, which is why the clock change has been moved back one week recently, to avoid the holiday.
So how about moving the reversion to Standard Time back to, say... never?
I take issue with my very biological clock being monkeyed with so casually.
Today in NYC there's a primary runoff election to decide who'll be the next democratic candidates for city comptroller and public advocate. And, in a city of 8 million, something like a whopping 170,000 are expected to vote. As the New York Times' Clyde Haberman drily puts it, this is about the size of the audience of a Yankees game.
So here's my question: Is it more, less, or similarly inexcusable not to vote in these types of little, local elections?
Fascinating news! I just read that PBS will air a series based on an edited version of a wildly popular Harvard philosophy class on ethics and morality. The class, called "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" is the brainchild of Professor Michael Sandel, who has taught thousands of students over the years. Subjects like affirmative action, social justice, same-sex marriage, religion, and much, much more are frankly discussed -- and the ambiguities that arise from the debates are both unnerving and wondrous.
I'm so excited! Will you tune in? Would you like us to keep you updated on the class?
Here's a preview:
I haven't figured out the PBS schedule yet (check your local listings), but each week a new episode airs on the professor's own website, so you can watch it -- and interact with other participants in a number of interesting ways -- by clicking here.
Yelling "You lie!" at your president during an address to the joint session of congress. Just... wow. Does disrespect come any more egregious, more shameful, more heinous? If it does, I can't imagine it.Is it because our president is young?...
Whether you're for it or against it, odds are, you feel passionately about health care reform. But how many of us have even made the attempt to dive into the 1,000-odd page health care reform bill H.R. 3200 "America's Affordable...
This blog is all about ethics. It's also about us--ordinary people facing ordinary situations. It's about asking ourselves the hard questions: What responsibility do we bear in our interactions (and yes, confrontations) with the people we meet? How do we best respond to those around us in a way that leaves us feeling good about ourselves and confident our behavior has done no harm? Have we helped or hurt our fellows in these moments? It's our belief that by asking some big questions (and some little ones too) we can grow as humans. We're glad you're along for the ride!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
