Picking up my new glasses with my 5yo

I had my 5yo Nathan with me at Costco when picking up a pair of glasses with a new, stronger prescription. They have a "take a number" system, and my number was 48.

When they called my number and handed me the glasses, Nathan asked, "So these are glasses number 48?"

Thornton W. Burgess Public Domain Countdown

Thornton W. Burgess

Public Domain Countdown

What books and other writings by Thornton W. Burgess are now in the public domain, and when will his remaining books enter the public domain? Answers here.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. YOU SHOULD CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE COPYING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE UNDER COPYRIGHT PROTECTION.

But first, some basic relevant principles of U.S. copyright law. This is just a simple overview; including all the details is beyond the scope of this blog post. For more information see a book like "The Public Domain" by Stephen Fishman:

• If published in the US before 1923, it's now in the public domain.
• If published in the US from 1923 - 1963:
• With a valid copyright notice:
• If properly renewed during the 28th year, it's protected for 95 years from publication date.
• If not properly renewed during the 28th year, it's now in the public domain.
• Without a valid copyright notice:
• It entered the public domain upon original publication (this rule is for works published before March 1st, 1989, after which copyright notice is not required for copyright protection).
• If published from 1964 - 1977, it's protected for 95 years from publication date.
• If unpublished, it's protected through 2035 (70 years after Burgess' 1965 death).
• In 1998, US copyright protection for works published 1923 - 1977 was extended from 75 to 95 years. So works published in 1923 enter the public domain in 2019 instead of 1999. Due to that 1998 extension, no work's copyright protection expires in the 20 year period from 1999 - 2018.
• However, this does not re-protect works that were already in the public domain when the law went into effect in 1998, or that ever went into the public domain for any other reason.
• US copyright protection never ends in the middle of a year. Protection always extends through December 31st of the last year a work is protected. When a work enters the public domain due to the expiration of protection, it always does so on the January 1st after the end of its protection.
• For example, if a work is published on July 1st of a year for which 95 years of protection are provided, that work gets 95 and 1/2 years of protection, then enters the public domain at the start of January 1st.
• Most of the copyright dates given below come from my own collection, but I also relied on the excellent "Thornton W. Burgess: A Descriptive Book Bibliography" (2nd edition) by Wayne W. Wright.

Main Thornton W. Burgess Fiction
Now in the Public Domain

(and when it entered the public domain)

• All 8 books in the Mother West Wind series
• Published 1910 - 1918, PD 1986 - 1994
• All 20 books in the Bedtime Stories series
• Published 1913 - 1919, PD 1989 - 1995
• Tommy and the Wishing Stone (both single title and series)
• Published 1915, PD 1991
• All 4 books in the Green Meadow series
• Published 1918 - 1920, PD 1994 - 1996
• Burgess Bird Book for Children
• Published 1919, PD 1995
• Burgess Animal Book for Children
• Published 1920, PD 1996
• Lightfoot the Deer
• Published 1921, PD 1997
• Blacky the Crow
• Published 1922, PD 1998
• Whitefoot the Wood Mouse
• Published 1922, PD 1998
• Serialized newspaper stories
• "Little Stories for Bedtime" (1912-1920), then "Burgess Bedtime Stories ("1920-1960"), and sometimes "Nature Stories".
• Printed 1912-1960, PD 1941-1989
• Why did these newspaper stories enter the public domain so soon? Why did they not get the 75 (for those published 1912-1922) or 95 (for those published 1923-1960) years of protection that was possible for works published those years? Because they were not renewed during their 28th year, at a time when that was required. For serial works, an additional 4 years may? be allowed, but they were not renewed in that time frame either. They were never renewed at all. 
• What if they had been properly renewed? In that case, the stories published 1912-1922 would have entered the public domain 1988-1998 (after 75 years), and the stories published 1923-1960 would have entered the public domain 2019-2056 (after 95 years).
• What about the books based on the newspaper stories, where the book is still protected? The book copyrights cannot extend the newspaper story copyrights. Where books were based on earlier copyrighted newspaper stories, the book copyrights protect only the creative differences. Sometimes Burgess rewrote whole sections (clearly a creative change); other times he simply omitted the daily recap of the previous day's story (probably not a creative change, but it would be up to a judge to decide).
• What about the copyrights on the newspapers themselves? A work cannot be protected by two different copyrights, and a copyright cannot protect something that the copyright owner does not own (or more precisely, does not have the right to copyright). Burgess newspaper stories were syndicated. With most syndicated authors, the syndicate had ownership and copyright. Burgess was unusual in that he retained copyright, aside from a handful of early stories for which he sold the rights (and that are now public domain). Since Burgess had ownership and copyright of the newspaper stories, the copyright on the newspaper itself did not protect the Burgess story in it.
• Does that mean someone could repackage the original newspaper stories that were behind a book that is still copyright protected, and sell them as the same title? For example, Burgess' book "Longlegs the Heron", published 1927, properly renewed, and copyright protected until 2033? 
• No. Book titles cannot be copyrighted, so there is no copyright infringement in naming a new book "Longlegs the Heron". However, other laws give the public the right not to be deliberately misled about the contents of a book. If a book is issued as "Longlegs the Heron" by Thornton W. Burgess, with text that differs substantially from the well-known book by that title and author, it must at the very least be clearly marked as such, but probably should have a different title that makes clear it's origin, such as "The Original Newspaper Stories That Became Longlegs the Heron". 

Main Thornton W. Burgess Fiction
Yet to Enter the Public Domain

(and when it will)

  

• Burgess Flower Book for Children
• Published 1923, PD 2019
• Buster Bear's Twins
• Published 1923, PD 2019
• Reprinted 1999 by Dover Publications, with no indication that it was used with permission. Copyright violation?
• Billy Mink
• Published 1924, PD 2020
• Reprinted 2012 by Dover Publications, with no indication that it was used with permission. Copyright violation?
• Little Joe Otter
• Published 1925, PD 2021
• Jerry Muskrat at Home
• Published 1926, PD 2022
• Longlegs the Heron
• Published 1927, PD 2023
• Burgess Seashore Book for Children
• Published 1929, PD 2025
• Reprinted 2005 by Dover Publications, with no indication that it was used with permission. Copyright violation?
• Color illustrations, including additional illustrations, all by Harrison Cady, in new editions of 8 of the Bedtime Stories series books, published by Little, Brown in 1941 and 1944. All included the original 6 illustrations, but now in color.
• Published 1941 with 10 color illustrations, PD 2037:
• Reddy Fox
• The additional illustrations show (a) Old Mistah Buzzard perched in a tree, (b) Reddy Fox crying, with Granny Fox, (c) Granny Fox walking, and (d) Unc' Billy Possum watching Farmer Brown's Boy.
• Peter Cottontail
• Buster Bear
• Jimmy Skunk
• Published 1944 with 8 color illustrations, PD 2040:
• Johnny Chuck
• The additional illustrations show (a) Johnny Chuck meeting Polly Chuck (also on the cover), and (b) Sammy Jay finding Johnny Chuck's family.
• Danny Meadow Mouse
• The color illustrations are shown at Project Gutenberg, in violation of copyright law:
• http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25301/25301-h/25301-h.htm
• Grandfather Frog
• The additional illustrations show (a) Grandfather Frog showing off his handsome clothes to Old Mr. Toad, and (b) Farmer Brown's Boy carrying Grandfather Frog.
• Bobby Coon
• The additional illustrations show (a) Farmer Brown's Boy waving goodbye to Bobby Coon, and (b) Buster Bear standing.
• If these color editions sound interesting and you're thinking of collecting them, note that they were poor quality. The paper and binding were very cheap, and the boards were thin. In the 1944 books, the reproductions of the illustrations range from bad to really awful (they are much better in the 1941 books). However, they are interesting for the additional illustrations, none of which were ever printed in any other editions, though in at least some cases they were redrawn for the later Grosset & Dunlap editions (see below).
• On the Green Meadows
• Published 1944, PD 2040
• At the Smiling Pool
• Published 1945, PD 2041
• The Crooked Little Path
• Published 1946, PD 2042
• The Dear Old Briar Patch
• Published 1947, PD 2043
• Along Laughing Brook
• Published 1949, PD 2045
• At Paddy the Beaver's Pond
• Published 1950, PD 2046
• New illustrations by Harrison Cady in all 20 books in the Bedtime Stories series (14 per book), published by Grosset & Dunlap. Some of these were new versions of the original illustrations, while others were completely new. All were line drawings designed for printing on cheap plain paper, rather than paintings intended for printing on art plates like the original 1910s illustrations:
• Published 1949 - 1957, PD 1949 - 1957
• Why did these new illustrations enter the public domain when they were published? Because they were published without proper copyright notice, back when that was required. Also, they were not renewed during their 28th year, so even if they had been published with proper copyright notice, they would have entered the public domain 1977 - 1985.
• If Grosset & Dunlap had immediately reprinted them with proper copyright notice, protection might have been preserved. But GD did nothing of the kind. To the contrary, they published 4 editions over almost 30 years, all with exactly the same copyright problem. First there were the jacketed hardcovers of 1949 - 57, then the pink hardcovers in 1962, then the pink hardcovers were reissued with ISBN numbers (a new thing then) around 1970, and finally the library editions (tan hardcovers, tough as nails, many of them faded to green by now), of 1977. In some cases it was arguably 5 editions; several of the earlier jacketed hardcovers were later reissued with different covers, endpapers, and bindings.
• Some of them were published with the 1941 or 1944 copyright date of the color editions, while some others were published with the 28th-year renewal dates (1941 - 1947) of their original copyrights. US copyright law allows backdating copyright protection when the year in the copyright notice is earlier than the actual publication year. But that is intended for when the date in the copyright notice is inadvertently earlier than the publication year, normally due to a delay in publication after printing. It's highly unlikely that it would be accepted when the earlier date given is clearly the copyright date for earlier material -- or worse, merely the renewal date of the copyright of an earlier edition. Even if it was accepted, US copyright law is clear that the earlier date becomes the legal publication date for copyright law purposes, so the requirement at the time for renewal on the 28th year would fall 28 years from the earlier date. Those renewals, on the 28th year after the dates given in the copyright notices, happened for only 5 of the titles. In those 5 titles, the color edition's earlier publication date was listed in the Grosset & Dunlap edition as the copyright date, and the 28th-year renewal was really for the 1940's color edition. But again, the publication date of one edition is highly unlikely to be accepted as a backdated copyright date for another edition.
• Titles where the 1941 or 1944 copyright date of the color edition is given:
• Peter Cottontail
• Published by G&D in 1950 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was when the color edition was published. The 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright was 1942.
• Danny Meadow Mouse
• Published by G&D in 1950 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was when the color edition was published. The 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright was 1943.
• Buster Bear
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was when the color edition was published. The 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright was 1944.
• Titles where the 28th-year renewal date of the original copyright date is given:
• Johnny Chuck
• Published by G&D in 1952 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1913 copyright.
• Unc' Billy Possum
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1942 copyright date. 1942 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright.
• Mr. Mocker
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1942 copyright date. 1942 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright.
• Jerry Muskrat
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1942 copyright date. 1942 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright.
• Grandfather Frog
• Published by G&D in 1952 with a 1943 copyright date. 1943 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright.
• Chatterer the Red Squirrel
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1943 copyright date. 1943 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright.
• Sammy Jay
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1943 copyright date. 1943 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright.
• Old Mr. Toad
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright.
• Prickly Porky
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright.
• Old Man Coyote
• Published by G&D in 1952 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright.
• Paddy the Beaver
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1945 copyright date. 1945 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1917 copyright.
• Poor Mrs. Quack
• Published by G&D in 1953 with a 1945 copyright date. 1945 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1917 copyright.
• Bobby Coon
• Published by G&D in 1954 with a 1946 copyright date. 1946 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1918 copyright.
• Jimmy Skunk
• Published by G&D in 1955 with a 1946 copyright date. 1946 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1918 copyright.
• Old Mistah Buzzard
• Published by G&D in 1957 with a 1947 copyright date. 1947 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1919 copyright.
• Title where it is ambiguous whether the date given is the copyright date of the color edition, or the 28th-year renewal date of the original copyright date:
• Reddy Fox
• Published in 1949 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was when the color edition was published. 1941 was also the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1913 copyright.
• Title where only the original copyright date is given:
• Bob White
• Published by G&D in 1956 with only the original 1919 copyright date.
• The later Grosset & Dunlap editions of the Green Meadow Series, Green Forest Series, Smiling Pool Series, and the Wishing-Stone Series, all had new versions of the original illustrations, redrawn for printing on cheap plain paper rather than on art plates, and they all had the same copyright issue as G&D's Bedtime Stories series. However, the quality of the redrawings in these series is too poor to have been Cady's work, even though they have his signature and the cover and title pages say they are his. G&D must have gotten Cady's permission to have an anonymous artist make the new versions of his work for these series.

Riding a "Low Performing" King County Metro Bus

The bus I take to work is always standing-room only. This morning the aisle between the seats was packed like a sardine can and there wasn't room for me to move out of the yellow restricted zone by the driver and front door where theoretically no one is allowed to stand while the bus is moving. Soon even that restricted area was too packed for any more people to squeeze in. Then the driver found enough spare room just inside the back door, normally only used for exiting (because you pay at the front as you get on), to squeeze in a couple more riders.

Since the buses normally jerk around like a bucking bronco, I was a little worried about falling into the driver, but luckily he was driving slowly. He explained that he was being cautious because the extra weight was making the suspension bottom out. 

One advantage to riding up in that yellow restricted area is that it's easier to get out when the bus reaches my stop. Not so easy for those who got in at earlier stops along the route and have to squeeze by 20 other sardines.

This bus route -- route 240 in Bellevue, WA -- is one of many "low performing" King County Metro routes slated for reduction this Fall due to insufficient funding by voters. I'd like to see one of the "high performing" routes. Do those buses have handles on the outside, looking like century-old photos of trolley cars with as many people hanging on the outside as riding on the inside? Maybe seats on the roof would help too.

These reductions coming up are going to force a lot of bus riders into cars, further slowing down our already notoriously glacial commuter traffic (the 3rd-worst in America, after LA and Miami) for everyone. Maybe I'll be one of them.

Telephone Poles

Yesterday we took a walk, and our 5yo Nathan pointed to a telephone pole and asked what it was. When we answered he replied, "A TELEPHONE pole?!? You mean you have to climb up there to call someone?!?

What's Wrong with American Public Schools

We hear over and over and over that Chinese kids are learning much, much more than American kids, and that this is because American public schools are failing our kids. Meanwhile, kids in American public schools today are learning things at a much younger age than their parents learned the same things, have vastly more homework and at a much younger age than their parents did, and have much less lunch and recess time at school than their parents did. What gives?

When American and Chinese kids are compared, what are they comparing exactly? They're comparing the available data. So what data is available? The data available is all Chinese kids in school, and all American kids in public schools. Is that a good and useful comparison?

First, it's generally understood that wealthy kids do better in school than average and poor kids. There may be many reasons for that. Wealthier parents may have more time to help with and enforce homework and may be more motivated to do so, wealthier households may have more intellectually simulating things to do in and around the home and have the means to do more intellectually stimulating activities outside the home, and DNA that performs better in school may bubble upward on the economic ladder.

That wouldn't matter for this comparison if all Chinese kids were being compared to all American kids, but in fact, only the wealthiest Chinese kids go to school at all. The majority of Chinese kids cannot go to school and are not factored into the comparison. So we're comparing the wealthiest Chinese kids to American kids.

Further, most of the wealthiest American kids are in expensive private schools. They too aren't factored into the comparison. Only American kids in public schools are included. That means most of the highest performing American students are not part of the comparison. 

But there's still more. In America, public schools are tasked with educating ALL kids, even the most troubled kids who make no effort to learn and do nothing but cause trouble, and even the most mentally challenged kids. In China, such troubled kids are removed from school while mentally challenged kids never enter school at all. 

So the comparison excludes many of America's best students, while including America's most troubled and most mentally challenged kids. The average American student being compared is well below the performance of the real average American student. But for China, the comparison includes only the top performers. 

The comparison is perfectly absurd, and of no real use at all. We're comparing America's below-average kids to China's top performers. No one should be surprised that the below-average kids of one nation aren't up to speed with the top performers of another. The weird thing is that we're actually trying to bring America's below-average kids up to the level of China's top performers. It's idiotic and dysfunctional, and it's not going to work.

This isn't really the fault of the American public school system or its teachers. We the voters are ultimately responsible for having tasked them with this impossible goal. The problem is the American media, and the mindless drones among their readers and viewers, who compare top-performing Chinese kids to below-average American kids, find that the below-average kids are not up to speed with the top performers, and decide, all logic to the contrary, that this means American public schools are failing our kids.

So what should really be compared? The richest X% of China's kids who are fortunate to go to school should be compared to the richest X% of American kids, the overwhelming majority of whom are in expensive private schools. American kids of average wealth, who are mainly in public schools, should be compared to Chinese kids of average wealth -- who sadly have no opportunity to go to school at all.

Those comparisons can't be done well today because good data isn't available. For China, good data probably won't be forthcoming in the foreseeable future because it would make China look bad. But we do know about what percentage of Chinese kids go to school, and that those are generally the richest kids. The obvious next step is to find out who the same percentage of richest American kids are, and get their data. Most of those kids are in private schools. If private schools won't provide that data under current laws, there's a simple fix for that without violating anyone's privacy; a law can be passed requiring each school to just provide the numbers without names attached.

What would that comparison show? Who knows, but one thing's for sure -- it would show something dramatically different than what the current sorry excuses for comparisons show.

Thoughts on the Teardown of My Ugly Old High School Building and Its Less Ugly Replacement

I graduated from Eisenhower High School in Yakima, Washington State in 1983. The original 1956 building was recently torn down and replaced. It was interesting to read comments in response to the new building, especially how many loved the old building and would rather it was preserved.

I was not at all sorry to see the building go. Like so many major buildings of the 1950s and '60s, it was ugly, ugly, ugly, and then some more ugly. Only the gymnasium roof offered a little flair. It wasn't just lack of maintenance; it was a determinedly ugly design. The west and east entrances were designed to look like large pieces must have fallen off. On the south side was a gigantic thing sticking out of the middle looking like a big schnozz, or perhaps it represented one of the architect's fingers. It seemed every side of the building was designed to look like the back of a grocery store facing an alley. 

Some buildings should be preserved, but others should never have been built, and the community is improved when they are finally torn down. The old Ike firmly anchors the far end of the latter group.

The new building is moderately Deconstructivist, the current architectural fashion. At least it doesn't have the slanted walls (!) of the Deconstructivist elementary school recently built in my neighborhood in Bellevue. The ideal Deconstructivist building looks like random pieces chopped off of random buildings and glued together by a monkey. Thankfully the new Ike is much moderated from the pure ideal.

The architect says that the big curved blue wall represents the Yakima River. That reminded me of a comment made by the architect of the library branch built recently in our neighborhood. The windows there are covered with strange markings that, says the architect, represent brain waves when learning, and are meant to make us learn better when reading there. It's a fair guess that those window markings will never have their intended effect on a single library patron; instead they just look weird and block the view. In all likelihood it will be the same with Ike's Curved Blue Wall -- few students are likely to feel they are drifting lazily down the Yakima River on a gorgeous summer afternoon, beer in one hand, Slim Jim in the other, as they walk past it toward their Algebra II class. Unless a plaque is mounted on it explaining its symbolism to future generations, someday it will probably be painted to match the rest of the school, and students will assume the wall's curvature is just there to be different.

The new Ike is not ugly like the old one, but neither is it beautiful. The architecture of major buildings became ugly after WWII when the architectural community broadly agreed, in an epic example of truth being stranger than fiction, that national differences in architecture had caused WWI and WWII. Bizarre as that may sound (because it is), I am not making it up nor exaggerating; it's absolutely true. Scrambling valiantly to save us all from WWIII, architects made large buildings all look the same by removing traditional architectural forms and ornamentation, leaving only plain boxes, each striving to make their boxes plainer than the others. They called it the "International Style".

But they soon lost interest in the original goal of international homogeneity, leaving only an irrational loathing of traditional forms and ornamentation. For some, traditional forms and ornamentation were elevated to a sort of sentient evil incarnate, apparently all but intent on detaching themselves from buildings and marching off to wage WWIII all on their own. Others tried to maintain a vague sense of causality, painting traditional forms and ornamentation with guilt by association with past totalitarian regimes. Why would you want the architectural style of past fascists, they are quick to say reproachfully, ignoring two very obvious points. First, traditional forms and ornamentation were as much a part of free societies as they were of dictatorships. And second, dictators have hardly stuck with traditional architecture; to the contrary, modernist architecture is as much a part of the unfree world today as of the free. It's as plain as day by now that architectural style neither causes totalitarianism nor is a symptom of it, but don't waste your time trying to explain that to a modernist architect. Others who needed a more logical rationalization for rejecting traditional forms and ornamentation spoke of "form follows function", by which they meant nothing of the kind except in the most shallow and illusory sense.

No matter how they rationalized their hatred of traditional architectural forms and ornamentation, all was going well for Modernists until Postmodernist architects brought traditional forms, and sometimes ornamentation too, back into the game in the 1980s and 90s. There are ugly examples of all styles, and Postmodernism is no exception, but the better examples were more beautiful than a Modernist would ever allow a building to be, on principle. Modernists, shocked to discover that people liked beauty in architecture and were glad to pay for it, were forced to regroup. Their response was brilliant -- they swapped in chaos for bland monotony, making their buildings interesting but not beautiful, and most importantly, still rigorously devoid of traditional forms and ornamentation. They called it "Deconstructivist". I guess calling it "Deconstructionist" would have been too obviously to the point.

With the move to Deconstructivist architecture, the nonsense about "form follows function" had to be dropped because not even a child would believe it, but that was a small price to pay to keep out the evil traditional forms and ornamentation. Instead, Deconstructivist architects' unspoken philosophy appears to be "form working against function while the architect talks about form serving function with cosmic perfection". Strange spaces in Deconstructivist buildings purport to be perfectly suited to their purpose, but in fact are so inflexible that they never serve any purpose well. For example, try using any of the Seattle Public Library's specialized spaces for any purpose at all other than marveling at their dysfunction; surely no library as expensive has ever served its purpose as badly. At least you no longer have to worry about banging your head against the dangerously slanted metal supports, as they've put fences around them to keep people from getting too near.

I had thought such an ugly and dysfunctional style as Deconstructivist architecture would be a short-lived fad but I was so, so wrong. It has routed Postmodernist architecture, which survives mainly in its most conservative flavor, Modern (or Contemporary) Classicism. Modern Classicist architecture soldiers on in a small corner of the market because a few customers will choose a beautiful building if given the chance. To get an idea of what a nice Modern Classicist school building can look like, google "Cambridge Judge Business School". Deconstructivists hate, hate, hate it; one even called it, with unintended irony, "architectural terrorism".

Traditional architectural forms and ornamentation were not invented by warmonger-architects. They became popular because they are at the same time comforting and inspiring. They help us relax while encouraging our loftier thoughts to crowd out our pettier ones. If the loftiest thoughts of a few disturbed individuals are still immoral, violent, and destructive, that doesn’t make the architecture responsible for their crimes. Modernist and Deconstructivist architecture can be impressive and innovative, but they are also deliberately discomforting and, once the novelty wears off, oppressive. Try driving through a canyon of Deconstructivist buildings in a large city, and drive the same street again and again until those buildings' innovative novelty wears off. Notice how it's replaced by a distinct feeling of chaos. 

I like to believe, all evidence to the contrary, that someday over the rainbow beautiful buildings will be in fashion once again. If there is any sign of hope, other than the continued survival of Modern Classicism, it is in the philosophy of the best Deconstructivists that Deconstructivism allows the freedom to do anything. Left unsaid is that they really the mean the freedom to do anything not involving any traditional forms nor ornamentation. But if they can someday let go of that last rule, beautiful buildings may one day rise again.

I wonder if I will live to see it. One of two things would have to happen: either Modernist/Deconstructivist architects will have to get over their strange loathing of traditional architectural forms and ornamentation, or customers -- such as the Yakima taxpayers who paid for the new Ike building -- will have to demand beautiful buildings for their money and find architects who are willing to deliver. Which will happen first?

Why it's so hard for single women to find single men in Seattle

Seattle has one of the highest single men to single women ratios in America. So why are so many single women in Seattle unable to find their guy?

Sally, 35, has lived in Seattle all her life, and has dated over a hundred Seattle men, but has never had a relationship last longer than 3 weeks. 

"I carefully explain to each man I date that they were born a rapist and will always be a rapist", Sally explained. "They need to understand that. The first step toward healing is to realize that they are inherently evil and can never become good."

"My friend Penny's husband Bill understands that. He's a rape prevention activist and is always talking about how horrible men are to women. He's awesome! Why can't I find a guy like that?"

Demographer Yvonne has been researching the Seattle dating scene professionally for 10 years. She explains:

"Although there are far more single men than single women in Seattle, most of the single women are looking for men who are feminist activists, are obsessed with gender politics, and have no self respect. There are more men who fit that description in Seattle than anywhere else in the world, but still not anywhere near enough to go around. 

"It's a zero-sum game where every ounce of respect for men is seen as necessarily going hand in hand with an ounce of anti-feminist self-loathing. The vast majority of single women in Seattle grow old without ever getting one of those über-feminist men for herself. Meanwhile, the single Seattle men who don't fit that description have few single women to choose from.

Not that the men are blameless, by any means. Yvonne continues:

"It doesn't help that Seattle single men are without a shadow of a doubt the world's most inept when it comes to meeting women and asking them out. Playing with video games and science-fiction toys all day is not a helpful path to finding lasting love with most women.

"A little encouragement from a single woman would go a long way toward bringing these awkward men out of their shells, but there has been no documented case of that ever happening, perhaps due to the rumor that the Space Needle will spontaneously combust if any Seattle single woman ever does that.

"The sad result is a large city with many singles who have great difficulty finding lasting love, and who in too many cases never will."

However, many of Seattle's single women do have plenty of sex. Yvonne continues:

"When these frustrated women decide it's time to hook up for the night, they are attracted to the polar opposite of the type of man they have been looking for, and spend the night with a macho misogynist. Then, her disgust with how he treats her that night fuels her continued search for Mr. Right.

"Ironically, Seattle is an excellent place for misogynist single men who want to have a lot of sex but not get tied down. They can spend virtually every night with a beautiful, intelligent, highly educated young woman."

Trail Life vs. Boy Scouts: A Future History

In the wake of the Boy Scouts' decision to allow gay boys, a new organization has been formed: Trail Life USA. Trail Life aims to be much like Boy Scouts but with no gays allowed. Also no non-Christian leaders, and no troops chartered by non-Christian organizations. 

Trail Life was modeled after American Heritage Girls, a Christian alternative to Girl Scouts started in 1995 in protest to Girl Scouts allowing girls to substitute a word of their choice for the word "God" in the pledge. Today in 2014 American Heritage Girls claims 32,000 members to Girl Scouts' 3.2 million.

So is Trail Life going to overtake and replace Boy Scouts? Not likely. First, look at their model, American Heritage Girls. After almost two decades, they have only about 1% of the membership of Girl Scouts. Perhaps that's why Trail Life declined to call themselves American Heritage Boys.

But it may not be a pertinent comparison. American Heritage Girls was started because Girl Scouts wasn't about God anymore. Trail Life was started because Boy Scouts weren't about excluding gays anymore.

Some say Trail Life isn't about excluding gays, it's just about not forcing boys to attend gay parades and memorize gay propaganda. But before the change, Boy Scouts were denied their badges if outed as gay. Gay boy scouts were only allowed to earn badges if no one knew they were gay. And there were no reports of gay propaganda actually being forced on scouts; only a lot of fearmongering about the possibility.

So the point of disagreement with the old organization was much broader for the girls ("They took out God!") than for boys ("They let the gays in!"). That alone would suggest proportionately less support for Trail Life than for American Heritage Girls. For Trail Life to do better compared to Boy Scouts than American Heritage Girls does compared to Girl Scouts would suggest that there is more hatred of gays in America than there is love of God.

What demographics are likely to prefer Trail Life over Boy Scouts? Certainly people who don't want their boys around gays, and people who want the stronger Christian emphasis. Anyone else? Probably not. It return, they offer a tiny organization with a tiny fraction of the financial support, and none of the history.

Here's how I think this is going to play out:

First five years:
2013-2017

Lots of excitement, lots of new troop charters, lots of glowing endorsements from high-profile celebrities, rapid growth like wildfire.

Broad agreement among fans that Boy Scouts is in its last throes, and that soon, very soon, virtually all heterosexual boy scouts will transfer to Trail Life, and that Boy Scouts will be left only with gay boys and (soon!) gay leaders, and that Boy Scout troop meetings will become gay pedophile orgies. Everyone agrees that the Trail Life Freedom Award will mean even more on a resume than Eagle Scout.

Though Trail Life doesn't have enough financial backing to offer the breadth of learning experiences offered by Boy Scouts, members agree that it's only a matter of time before parity is reached, and they are glad to make do with what it does offer for now. Also, they don't want to invest their time in an organization that is in its last throes.

Boy Scouts gains a few members who had stayed away due to the exclusion of gays, but most of those are still unhappy with the exclusion of gay leaders. Boy Scouts loses more members to Trail Life than they gain from people who join only because gays are now allowed.

The future looks uncertain for Boy Scouts. The news media piles on, with every other report practically a eulogy.


UPDATE
November 2016

So how is my prediction coming so far, about 4 years in? 

First, I was way, way off on how long it would take Boy Scouts to accept gay leaders. That happened in the Summer of 2015. Even though I was in favor of it, I was stunned at how soon it happened.

Second, I was surprised and disappointed to watch the collapse of my neighborhood's Cub Scout pack, during a time when young families have been moving into the neighborhood. Founded in 1965, the pack had around 30-35 boys when my oldest joined 4 years ago when he was in 2nd grade (he's a Boy Scout now). But about a year later scouting was in the news over the gay issue, and we had no recruits at all (or at least none that stuck around) until my youngest was old enough to join last year. That year the pack consisted entirely of 6 Tigers (1st graders). I was hopeful that that year's sudden membership surge was a sign that membership would build back up year by year, but this year there were only 4 boys in total, and only two parents interested in being involved. It was too much work for the two adults, neither of whom wanted to be Cubmaster, and not enough kids for it to be much fun for them. They're now attending meetings at a nearby Cub Scout pack instead. The local Scouting executive remains hopeful that eventually membership will return.

But what about Trail Life? They now claim 20,000 boys. Boy Scouts currently claims 2.4 million boys. That puts Trail Life at about 0.8% of Boy Scout's membership. The chartered Trail Life troop nearest to me still has no web site, though they've had the traillifetroop316.com domain for over 3 years. I sent them a message today; I'll report back here if they respond.

The next-nearest chartered troop is nearly an hour's drive away, and their website is their host church's website (nwcfoursquare.org), which says Trail Life meets there weekly. They also host Awana, and their website says their Awana program is so full they can only put newcomers on a waitlist. They don't say anything about Trail Life being full.


UPDATE
End of 2017

So how did the rest of my prediction go for this first 5-year period?

Trail Life now claims 26,000 boys, just over 1% of the membership of BSA. BSA membership hasn't grown since I last looked in 2016, while Trail Life gained 6,000 members, so they are by definition technically gaining in BSA, though at this rate it would take them centuries to catch up. On the other hand, they are falling further behind American Heritage Girls, who now claim 43,000 girls, up about 34% since Trail Life started.

Trail Life hasn't been as loud in the media as I had expected. They've been pretty quiet. I almost never hear of them.

Their troop finder tool on their website now shows a troop only 13 miles away (I searched on zip code 98006). But the website given for them, svachurch.org, a church, does not mention Trail Life at all. The next closest is the one same one I mentioned in 2016; nwcfoursquare.org. I don't see any change to their brief mention of Trail Life on their website, except that I think the contact person is different. I asked the previous contact person to be on their email list, and there were a couple of missives from them early on, but I haven't heard from them in a long time. That church is now also doing American Heritage Girls, and the bit about their Awana group being too full and having a waitlist is gone. The troop finder also now points me to a third troop, this one 24 miles away, but with no website. All in all, quite lame compared to BSA.

I'm surprised at how little web presence local Trail Life troops have in my area after 5 years. Web presence is so easy and cheap. The fact that they have hardly any in my area speaks volumes about how active they really are here, and how much enthusiasm there really is for them here. I'd say this is my biggest surprise about them after 5 years. I was expecting a big, splashy web presence for local troops. 

I had predicted a small loss in BSA membership for this 5-year period, but that doesn't appear to have happened, perhaps because the entire Trail Life membership is barely enough to amount to a rounding error in BSA membership numbers. Also I had predicted that their future would look uncertain, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. BSA appears to be holding on just fine.

Next five years:
2018-2023


At Boy Scouts, the most fervent anti-gay leaders have by now left, and pressure continues to mount to allow gay leaders. With the wall eroding and the pressure behind it mounting, eventually Boy Scouts make a decision to end all discrimination based on sexual preference, for both boys and leaders. When that happens, a huge backlog of families, mainly in heavily populated urban areas, that have avoided scouting for a generation or more because they are uncomfortable with discrimination against gays, start joining Boy Scouts. For every boy Trail Life gets from gay-hating families, Boy Scouts get two or more from non-gay-hating families. 

When the Boy Scouts lost the gay-haters to Trail Life, they also lost many of the people who were most interested in keeping the requirement that scouts be religious, as many of them were the same people. With them gone, the remaining proponents of that requirement, so often danced around and frankly lied about today, are outnumbered. However, they have to be careful not to lose the valuable support, mainly in the form of free use of facilities, of the many churches that charter the troops. Since they had already allowed literally all beliefs except atheism (and agnosticism), they simply reword the requirement to allow atheists and agnostics as long as the boys express commitment to patriotism and good citizenship. The decision seems more momentous to outsiders than to insiders, and there is much chatter about it in the news media. Families who had been avoiding Boy Scouts for generations due to that requirement start joining in droves.

A few churches do drop their charters as a result of the decision, but most of the churches where there would have been any appetite for doing that had already switched to Trail Life. Most churches decide that the opportunity to convert otherwise unchurched scouts was too important to throw away. Some churches start making more of an effort to entice the scouts at their church's troop to attend Sunday School. Where charters were dropped, most are picked up by community centers and schools.

With those changes, Boy Scouts go into a large growth phase, gaining back much of the mainstream demographic lost since the 1960s. They become a mainstream organization once again, emphasizing mainstream values, much to the disgust of Trail Life fans. As Boy Scouts becomes more mainstream, the demographic attracted to it changes accordingly and demands further change in that direction, in a continuous cycle that brings in still more boys from mainstream American families.

Trail Life fans no longer say that Boy Scouts is in it's last throes, since no one believes it anymore and it's started to sound silly.

Though growth at Trail Life was rapid in the first few years, it has eased off somewhat. It's still growing but at a slower rate, and leaders have stopped talking about rapid growth. Financial backing is still tiny compared to Boy Scouts -- and has even shrunk, because many early enthusiastic donors dropped out as the initial excitement subsided. 

As new families come into scouting -- those who's oldest boy has become old enough to start -- many of those families are now in the position of having to choose between Boy Scouts and Trail Life. Which do they choose? 

If they hate gays and strongly prefer a more overtly Christian organization, they lean toward Trail Life. But more of them are now asking how the overall experience compares to Boy Scouts. Trial Life still has a tiny fraction of the financial backing of Boy Scouts. They can't offer boys a similar experience without charging families much more for it. Where Boy Scouts is a very inexpensive way for families to give their boys a huge amount of useful learning experiences, Trail Life had to choose between inexpensive and extensive, and wisely chose the former.

Many decide that although they like the Trail Life philosophy, they prefer the Boy Scout overall experience. With the initial excitement over Trail Life over, many of these new families now start choosing Boy Scouts.

Awana saw membership decline as Trail Life took off. They had hoped the decline would be temporary but it continued. After an internal struggle they decide they need to become more like Trail Life to survive. They introduce new programs resembling Trail Life. Trail Life fans deride it as "Trail Life Lite", but it succeeds in stemming the tide. Christians now have a choice between the two, and a small percentage are switching from Trail Life to Awana due to the stronger emphases on teaching the Bible.


UPDATE
May 2018


Boy howdy, I didn't see THAT coming -- Boy Scouts are now accepting girls and are changing their name to just "Scouts", though still under the umbrella group "Boy Scouts of America".

From the time we joined in about 2007, our Cub Scout pack welcomed girls who wanted to participate. We had several who said they didn't like Girl Scouts because their local one was really only about doing crafts, and they preferred the Cub Scout activities. Unfortunately we couldn't award them badges etc., much as probably everyone in the pack would have liked to.

One fundamental difference between Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts is that each Girl Scout troop is given a lot more leeway in what activities they do. A friend's Girl Scout troop in a nearby city is as much about hiking and camping as Boy Scouts. Others are apparently more about crafts. Boy Scouts are required to be more uniform.

Going forward, I think it's a positive that girls will now have a choice. I certainly don't anticipate Girl Scouts allowing boys. Some are concerned that Scouts will no longer be a place where boys can be boys without the social pressure of having girls around to try to impress. But genders will be separated by den, so they'll only be together at pack/troop meetings. I think they'll be fine.

And this just in a day later -- Mormons are pulling their support of Scouts, along with their well over a third of a million scouts, about 19% of BSA membership. They won't be joining Trail Life, and Mormons probably wouldn't really feel very welcome in such an Evangelical group. Instead they'll be starting their own group. Since that forthcoming group will have the official backing of a very large and well-heeled organization, I think they'll do better than Trail Life. They'll certainly be starting with far more boys -- about 170 (one hundred and seventy) TIMES as many boys. So, correction -- I think that group is going to do MUCH better than Trail Life.

Though in the short term this will be financially painful for Scouts, in the long run I think it will be good for them. When Boy Scouts started, they were a very mainstream group. They continued to be mainstream through the 1940s. But as the culture started to shift in the 1950s, and especially as that shift accelerated starting in the late 1960s, Boy Scouts did not go along, and over the decades they have become increasingly isolated from mainstream American culture. I think the Mormons' influence has been a big part of that. 

Look for Scouts to soon drop the weird requirement that scouts affirm that they (a) believe that people can only be good citizens if they worship a god, and that they (b) do in fact worship a god. Once Scouts drop that requirement, allowing that boys can be good American citizens without necessarily being religious, their path back into the mainstream of American culture will be wide and clear.


UPDATE
January 2019

Fox news had an interview December 12th with the Trail Life CEO, and it just reached my inbox today with the headline "New Faith Based Boys Only Scouting Group Surges". It's interesting that Fox is calling them "New" 5 and a half years after their founding. But I was more interested in the "Surges" part. Have they suddenly started growing a lot?

No. Last I checked, just over a year ago, they were at 26,000 boys. Wikipedia still shows that same number, but in this interview the CEO said 27,000. Does that count as a "surge"? The relevant Merriam-Webster definition of surge is "to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value". Going from 26,000 to 27,000 in just over a year -- an increase of just under 4% -- doesn't rise to that level.

After one year they were at 20,000 boys. Four and a half years later (five and a half years after their founding) they're at 27,000, an increase of 35%, or an average increase of about 7.8% per year. So it seems their rate of increase is slowing, not surging.

Meanwhile, BSA currently counts 2.4 million boys, the same number I read in 2016. But the Mormons announced in May 2018 that they would leave to form their own organization at the end of 2019, and when they do they'll take about a third of a million boys with them.

Has any of Trail Life's growth come as Awana conversions? I don't see data for that, but since Awana is for both boys and girls, it would probably mean converting to both Trail Life and Heritage Girls. I have no data on any such conversions but would be surprised if it wasn't happening. Most of the sponsors would be churches, and surely they'd see some costly duplication in having both. And BTW, Awana's founder just passed away in January 2018.



Years 11 - 15:
2024-2028

The initial excitement over Trail Life is long gone, and Boy Scouts is bigger than ever. No one pretends anymore that Trail Life will ever seriously challenge Boy Scouts, or that the financial backing will ever be there to offer a serious alternative.

Blog posts from Trail Life Freedom Award achievers are appearing complaining that the Freedom Award still has little or no currency in the job marketplace compared to being an Eagle Scout.

Instead, leaders emphasize the Christian aspect of Trail Life. Trail Life becomes more and more about learning and practicing Christian values. It becomes more like Awana, though still with more hiking and camping. As Trail Life moves away from general scouting to being more and more about Christian life, the demographic attracted to it changes accordingly and demands further change in that direction, in a continuous cycle.

Meanwhile Awana has not been resting on their laurels; they have been incrementally improving their offerings to better compete with Trail Life. Eventually Trail Life and Awana become so similar that there are more differences between individual troops than there are between the larger organizations.

As America celebrates its Sestercentennial (250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence), a wave of nostalgia about American history washes over America, and with it a renewed interest in Boy Scouts appears. By now Boy Scouts is as thoroughly mainstream as it was in the 1920s. Membership and financial backing both soar. Many boys start switching from Trail Life to Boy Scouts.

Years 16 - 20:
2029-2033

Trail Life merges with Awana. Though Awana is the older organization, Trail Life is now bigger, and the new organization is called "Trail Life Awana".

Years 21 - 25:
2034-2038

Many blog posts start appearing from young fathers who went through Trail Life as boys, and are now choosing Boy Scouts for their own sons, explaining their choice. Most say they would have been better off earning Eagle Scout than the Freedom Award.

Year 26 and beyond:
2039+

It's now been a generation since Trail Life was started. Trail Life Awana soldiers on as a tiny niche organization. Eventually it changes it's name to just "Trail Life" after the Awana old-timers have moved on.

You can search their entire website and not find a single word about homosexuality. As gay rights have become more and more accepted in mainstream society, it has become more and more socially unacceptable to be outspoken against gay rights. Even Trail Life Awana members are by now about as uncomfortable with it as they are with racism. As one pastor put it who's church charters a Trail Life Awana troop:

"Homosexuality is a sin, but it isn't for us to throw the first stone. Our place is to love the sinner. The Bible warns against gluttony and homosexuality, but we allow both overweight and homosexual members, and encourage them to earn their badges just like other members."

Enforce the National Do Not Call Registry Law

When the National Do Not Call Registry law went into affect 10 years ago, unsolicited sales calls to my number dropped from around 3 a day to nothing -- months or even years would go by between such calls. But in the last several years they've gradually increased, and now they're about where they were before the law went into affect. I can usually count on at least 3 a day.

I checked to make sure my number is still on the Registry, and it is.

From what I've read, the problem is that there is almost no enforcement. There have been rare cases of it being enforced, but for the most part telemarketers can ignore the law with impunity, and they seem to know it. Some of them even get sarcastic and condescending when I point out that the number they called is on the National Do Not Call Registry. They know they're breaking the law, and they don't care because there are no consequences.

Others are ignorant. I spoke at length to one who had never heard of the law, and after I described it, thought that her call didn't break the law for two reasons: (1) She had been trained to make these calls as part of her study to get licensed to sell real estate, and (2) it wasn't strictly speaking a sales call; she had called to ask if I knew about recent home sales in my area and did I want to sell etc. I explained that as a federal law it wasn't necessarily part of any real estate training, and that the law didn't exclude only sales calls. 

To be sure, the law does make exceptions. The main ones are for politicians, charitable organizations, and surveys, though I'd certainly prefer to be able to opt out of those calls too. There is no exception in the law for businesses making informational cold calls, and the law doesn't allow pretending to be calling for a politician, charitable organization, or survey, only to segue into disallowed conversation. Asking questions doesn't protect a business caller under the survey exception.

Maybe it would help if more people wrote their senators and representatives about enforcing the "National Do Not Call Registry" law. It's easy to look them up on the Web and send them a quick note. I did so for my senators and representative. If you're tired of unsolicited sales calls, I suggest doing the same.

Telemarketers have access to the list so they can comply with the law by removing the numbers from their own lists before calling. But with virtually no enforcement, there may be an incentive for them to use the "Do Not Call" list as specifically the numbers to call, since those numbers have probably not been called as heavily as numbers not on the list.

My Thoughts on Jury Duty After Being on Five Juries

The King County jury selection system picked me to come in 6 times for jury duty, and of those 6 times, I was picked to be on a jury 5 times. The last time, the jurors elected me head juror.

Having been on five juries, and selected to come in six times, has given me enough time and experience with the system to offer some reflections that may be helpful for others selected for their first time.


Selection process not so random

King County Superior Court insists that jury duty selection is 100% random, based on driver's license registrations. But I and many others are very skeptical that it is as random as they think it is. After first getting my driver's license, I went about 15 years without being selected. Then I was selected usually every other year almost like clockwork until I had been selected 6 times. Then I was never selected again; it's been about 10 years since the last time.

That doesn't sound very random, does it? But it's a very common experience. In fact, I've never spoken about it to a person who's jury selection experience did sound random, and I've asked many people. It would be very interesting to see the actual algorithm used that they imagine is so random. I'd bet a nickel there's a flaw in it that makes it so nonrandom.


Jurors Are the Least Informed

As a juror, prepare to be frustrated at being required to make a very important decision without important information that everyone else in the courtroom knows. Both attorneys will be at pains to keep you in the dark about various pieces of information that they think might influence the decision away from the decision they want you to make.

One of my cases was of a middle-aged man who had sexually propositioned a minor. We were tasked with deciding whether the violation fulfilled the requirements for a misdemeanor, and if so, whether it also fulfilled the requirements for a felony. We were given descriptions of each set of requirements. The first was easy but the second took some thought and discussion. We decided that it did in fact meet the requirement for felony. After the case the prosecutor came to thank us, explaining that this man had already been convicted THIRTEEN TIMES at the misdemeanor level, with trivial consequences for him, and that they'd been trying to convict at the felony level so they could put a stop to his propositions of minors.

Another case was of a man who assaulted a woman in a car. The key witness was not allowed to say much. With some difficulty we reached a guilty verdict. After the case the witness came to us to tell us all about what he had seen that he had not been allowed to tell us during the trial. We were all relieved that we had made the right decision, without having that important information at the time.

I have no doubt that there are many cases where the wrong decision is reached due entirely to withholding critical information from jurors. It's legal but abominable. My advice: as a juror there's nothing you can legally do about it, so make your decision as best you can with what information you are given. If it later turns out that information withheld from you would have changed your mind if you had known it, it's the system's fault, not yours. So don't beat yourself up about it. DON'T go out to the crime scene yourself or anything else the judge tells you not to do.


Confirmation Bias

During the trial, jurors are under strict orders not to discuss the trial until it's over and jury deliberation begins. Bring a good book or three, or a lot of work to do on your laptop. Even if you bring plenty to keep yourself busy, you'll still get lots of practice doing lengthy small talk with complete strangers with whom you have little in common. 

But when it's time for deliberation to begin, there is often a big surprise. It's as if there were really two different trials, with different evidence and testimony, where some of the jurors went to one trial and others went to the other. Some of the jurors have little or no memory of evidence and testimony that other jurors remember very well -- and vice versa.

But in fact you were all at the same trial, all sincerely trying to listen closely. What gives? The reason for this is an interesting quirk of human nature called Confirmation Bias.

How does it work? During the trial, it's normal to start leaning toward one verdict or the other. There's no use trying to deny it. It's human nature. Resistance is futile. It's going to happen.

But that tendency in itself is not the problem. The problem is what happens next. Once you start leaning toward one verdict or the other, you start mentally pouncing on all evidence and testimony that confirms your leaning. And more importantly and dangerously, you start dismissing all evidence and testimony that contradicts your leaning. Soon after, you forget the evidence and testimony that you dismissed, while remembering very well whatever confirms your leaning.

So what can you do about it? First, just being aware of the tendency, and that it's normal human nature, and that it's going to happen to every jury member on every jury, is the most important first step. But there's more you can do.

The more you find yourself leaning toward one verdict or the other, the more important it is to make sure you fully understand every word, and every shred of evidence, that points toward the other verdict. Because your tendency is to dismiss it and forget it. Make every effort to understand the other side's case well enough that you can state their case as well and completely as they can state it themselves -- so well that they would have nothing to add.

Then you'll go into jury deliberation knowing that you attended "both" trials. You won't be surprised by anything brought up by jurors who disagree, and you won't wonder if it was really said at all, or said in quite the way they remember it. Because you'll remember it very well yourself -- and perhaps will be able to point out some nuance about it that they dismissed and forgot because it didn't confirm their bias.

Majority Doesn't Rule

The 12 members of the jury are expected to come to a UNANIMOUS decision. When you come out with your verdict, the judge will ask each and every juror, one by one, two questions: (a) was this YOUR decision? and (b) was this the decision of the jury? Everyone must answer yes to both questions, or you are all sent back to try again.

If deciding the case was easy, it probably would not have gone to a jury in the first place. The fact that it is a jury trial at all is an indication that there will be some disagreement among people who hear the case as to what the verdict should be. You can expect that some of the jurors will disagree with you. So how do you come to a unanimous decision? If you don't, it's a mistrial. Judges hate, hate, hate mistrials. You'll be sent back many, many times to try again and again and again before the judge will seriously consider declaring a mistrial.

Mistrials are expensive and inefficient. Court workers of all kinds aren't just twiddling their thumbs while the jury deliberates; they're efficiently doing other work, even if deliberation takes days or even weeks. But if a mistrial is declared, they have to reschedule the trial and go through it all again. Key witnesses may be difficult bring together again. A traumatized plaintiff may have to face her attacker's vicious attorney on the witness stand again. An innocent defendant may have to go back to jail to wait months or years for the trial to be scheduled again. As a juror the system depends on you to make every effort to come to a unanimous decision and so avoid a mistrial.

But just how do you do that? Some of your fellow jurors may be as stubborn as they are wrong. 

What you have to do is patiently go through your reasoning, step by step, with each other, patiently answering probing questions about your reasoning. Eventually you'll reach a point were someone feels something very strongly but not for any rational reason. If you're that person, it's your job -- the system is depending on you -- to give up your irrational feeling and go with reason.

On the other hand, some people just have difficulty articulating themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean they're irrational. If you are better able to articulate yourself than jury members with whom you disagree, be patient with them and try to help them -- sincerely -- to try to articulate themselves.



Attorneys think jurors are stupid

It's a fact. Attorneys think jurors are stupid. They seem to think jurors have the mental capacity of about a 5 year old child. But why? I've been on 5 juries and although I've certainly met flawed jurors, I've not met a stupid one, or at least not nearly as stupid as attorneys seem to think we are. So what makes attorneys think so?
 
At the beginning of the trial, each attorney gets about 10 minutes to tell the jury what they think is important about the evidence that will be presented and the testimony they will hear. Then at the end of the trial they each get about another 10 minutes to summarize what they think are the main points the jury should consider during deliberation.

Then the jury goes back to the jury room, and, in my experience, more often than not, agree that the attorneys did not address the most pertinent testimony, and that the attorneys' speeches were of little or no help in coming to a verdict. The disconnect is often so large that it almost seems the attorneys weren't paying attention to what was said on the witness stand.

So the jurors eventually come to a verdict based on the evidence and testimony, and not on the often largely irrelevant blathering of the attorneys. There is usually much disagreement and argument among jurors at least at first, but not once did I ever see it be about what either attorney said. If the attorneys truly believe that they were telling us all about the most important points, no wonder they think jurors are stupid.

The attorneys often seem to see only their own side of the case, and don't seem to take into consideration any of the points in the other side's favor. So they often emphasize points that are easily shot down by other points. To the jurors, that makes the attorneys look stupid. I remember one case where I was just amazed at how unbelievably stupid both attorneys were, seemingly blind to the obvious best arguments for both sides, each emphasizing instead only points that were easily skewered. The two attorneys seemed by far the two dimmest bulbs in the courtroom.

It seems to me the attorneys are so focused on the points they are trying to bring out and the points they are trying to suppress that they don't notice other points, which perhaps in some cases did not come out at all until the trial. Also they often seem distracted when the other attorney is busy questioning a witness. But jurors are focused the whole time.

I think the main reason attorneys think jurors are stupid is because the attorneys live in their own world of confirmation bias (see above). Unlike the jurors, who's confirmation bias is confronted by the conflicting confirmation bias of other jurors, attorneys don't have to discuss it with 11 peers until they come to unanimous agreement. So they each live blissfully in their own confirmationally biased world until those "stupid" jurors mess everything up with a "wrong" verdict.