Jury Duty Part IV: Deliberation and Verdict

Note: to read the case from the beginning start here

At 4PM we left the court room and got down to the business of deliberating in the jury room.

During the trial we were allowed to take notes in notebooks provided to us by the court. In many cases the evidence is submitted during the trial, and the jury gets it as part of their deliberations. In our case we had no evidence, so all we really had were our notes on the testimony in the courtroom.

We also were instructed to decide innocence or guilt based on the evidence presented in the trial. It really had nothing to do with whether we liked the prosecutor or defense better. We could use our own life experiences to help us judge the testimony.

The first thing the Jury is supposed to do in deliberations is choose a foreperson. We decided not to do that up front, and instead decided to take a little bit of time to see what each person thought about the case. So the 6 of us each took a turn and discussed it.

Here's what we generally thought of the testimony we had heard:

1. 1st Police Officer--Many of us including me, thought that he was enhancing his testimony unnecessarily. When pushed by the prosecution at one point, he claimed the defendant was speeding as they followed him down the road after the first turn. He actually put a number on what he thought the defendant's speed was--30 MPH, "because we had to go around 40 to catch up to him". He also claimed the second turn was about 1/4 mile down the road. One juror pointed out that there was no way a guy in a BMW could be speeding on that road, because of the numerous speed humps on it. This officer also described the odor of alcohol on the defendant as very strong. It also turned out that the distance from the first turn to the second left turn was much further down the road probably closer to a mile which is where the defendant placed it. Most of us seemed to question this officers credibility on his recall of that night.

2. 2nd Police officer--This officer seemed to be more straightforward in his description of the events. When asked if he saw any erratic driving other than not using the left turn signal, he said no. He was asked specifically if he thought the defendant was speeding and he said no. He did say that the defendant did not use the turn signal on the left turn into the neighborhood of the party. He described the odor of alcohol on the defendant as "low or moderate, but distinctly alcohol" and that he smelled like "he had an alcoholic beverage."

3. Forensic Expert--We all pretty much had no idea why she was testifying. We felt she was very believable in her knowledge, but her knowledge of alcohol on the body, though fascinating, was not considered in our decision.

4. The Defendant--The consensus was that we did not believe that he had not had a drink that night before leaving the party. He was definitely nervous on the stand. We also were disappointed that we did not get a clearer explanation for why he did not submit to the roadside maneuvers or the blood test. His testimony was shaky at best.

First the DUI Law for Colorado: Driving under the influence means driving a vehicle when a person has consumed intoxicants which affects the person to a degree that he or she is substantially incapable, mentally or physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.

As we talked through it, none of us felt that any of the testimony indicated that the defendant's driving that he was driving unsafely even if he had been drinking. None of either officer's testimony showed anything unsafe. They admitted they were wrong about the left turn arrow at the light, and even at 30 MPH, he was probably not speeding because the main thoroughfares are between 35-45 MPH. So nothing was indicated that he was driving recklessly other than not using the left turn signal, which is fairly common by sober people. And without any evidence submitted as to the Blood Alcohol level, the prosecution really had nothing concrete to convict.

On the DUI Charge--NOT GUILTY.

On to the DWAI Law: Colorado DWAI (driving while ability impaired) is similar to Colorado DUI, except that to be convicted of Colorado DWAI, the prosecution is only required to prove that the defendant was affected to the slightest degree, so that the person is less able than he or she ordinarily would have been to exercise clear judgment.

One of the jurors on the initial discussion thought he was guilty of the DWAI, and another was waivering on it or wasn't completely convinced that he wasn't guilty on that. My opinion relied on the second police officer, who I felt was the most believable, in that he said more than once that the man had had "an alcoholic beverage", not "alcoholic beverages" in the plural sense, but very specifically one drink. And once again, there was no evidence of any impairment based on the testimony. I think this argument swayed the two jurors who were uncertain and we arrived at a decision.

On the DWAI Charge--NOT GUILTY.

Now the decisions so far took about 20 minutes of deliberation. The left turn signal charge was much more difficult. Five of us initially went for guilty on the charge, while one person thought he should be not guilty on that charge primarily since he was being followed for the wrong reason in the first place. Surprisingly, we had a nice civil discussion as he raised several other issues about why he thought we should go not guilty, and the other five gave him our reasons for why that didn't persuade us. He eventually got me to waver on my vote briefly. One of the arguments was that we didn't believe the police officers on the alcohol related charges, so why should we believe them on the turn signal? Plus they had been wrong on the left turn arrow in the first place. My final argument was that I was believing the 2nd Police officer in both cases. His testimony had told me that he didn't believe that the defendant was alcohol impaired because he had chosen his words carefully. But I also had to believe him when he said the defendant didn't use his turn signal. The defendant also didn't really defend the left turn signal charge. His only response was that he didn't remember whether he used it or not.

After about 40 minutes of discussion on the left turn signal we arrived at a final decision.

On the Failure to Use Turn Signal: GUILTY.

I made the comment that the attorneys, judge and defendant were probably in the courtroom thinking we were trying to decide between DUI and DWAI and here we were trying to figure out the left turn signal.

Since we still didn't have a foreperson, I volunteered to do it, which just required me to sign the forms with the verdicts and give them to the judge when we returned to the courtroom.

We pressed the button to summon the clerk, and when he came in he asked us if we had reached a verdict, we told him yes, and moments later we were back in the courtroom where the verdicts were read.

Next: Oh, the Things We Didn't Know!

Jury Duty Part III: The Trial Day 2

The next morning we arrived around 8:30 AM ready to start, however there were two problems, one of the witnesses was stuck in snow in the Mountains, and one of the Jurors was in the emergency room with his son. After the judge conferred with all parties, we were told to return at 1:30 PM to start.

Once we got back into the courtroom, the Prosectuion's third and final witness, was a forensic expert, who described what happens to a person as they consume alcohol in fine detail both outwardly and physiologically. The defense's cross was one question "Did you ever examine my client (the Defendant). Answer: NO.

The prosecution rested and the Defendant called one witness: The Defendant.

The defendant (probably in his 50's or early 60's) testified that he had gone to the party with a date, and did not have any alcohol that evening. One of the guests became obnoxious and belligerent and very drunk, so the defendant offered to take the man home who lived a few miles away. It took him about a half hour to get the man home because he was confusing on his directions. He finally got the man's license and the address and since he was familiar with the area, finally found the man's home and drove back to the party. The policemen the day before had already acknowledged that upon further review they had been wrong to think that the defendant had gone through a red arrow, which the Defendant agreed with. He didn't remember whether he had used his turn signal or not on the left turn. When he parked at the house, he saw the police lights. He refused the roadside maneuvers, because people were coming out of the party to see what was going on. (The 2nd policeman acknowledged this also, as his first move out of the car was to keep them back). He was handcuffed and taken to the station, where he initially refused the blood test. He was also bothered by a back/neck condition which was exacerbated by handcuffing behind his back and he had requested them handcuff him in front and he would go willingly. He said that after sitting in the station awhile he then asked to take the blood test.

The defense rested and closings began.

The prosecutor based her argument on a premise that if you were leaving a store and were asked to look in your bag on your way out to make sure you weren't stealing something, most innocent people would do so. Relating that to the roadside maneuvers, why would he refuse to let someone "look into his bag" if he were innocent? The cops had no reason to lie, and smelled alcohol, so the defendant was guilty.

The defense countered that he was wrongly followed to begin with, he did nothing wrong and the police were pre-dispositioned to finding DUI's that night and that is why they were following him. We should find him not guilty.

The prosecutor got one more chance and reiterated the "not showing us his bag" metaphor.

The judge then gave us 20 pages of instructions which included the charges, with two options on the first count: Driving under the influence of Alcohol (DUI) or Driving While Alcohol Impaired (DWAI)

We then retired around 4 PM for deliberations.

Next: Deliberations and Verdict

Jury Duty Part II: The Trial Day 1

If you missed Part I go here

After we were selected around 11:45 AM, the six of us on the jury were told to come back around 1:30 PM after lunch.

We met back in the Jury Room after lunch, and read through a notebook outlining what we were expected to see and do for the trial. We also got to know each other a little until we were called back into the courtroom shortly after 2 PM.

The Judge welcomed us and then had the clerk read the charges:
1. Operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol
2. Failing to use left turn signal

Then the trial actually began with Prosecutor stating her case in opening followed by the defense attorney.

The prosecutor's story was that the guy had been drinking and initially was pursued by a police car because they believed he had gone through a red arrow, and then made a left turn into a development without using his turn signal. They then stopped him as he pulled up to a large holiday party at a house in the development. He refused roadside tests.

Defense: The defendant was returning to the party after taking home a drunk guest from the party, when he made a legal left turn before the police followed him. He had not had a drink that night. He emphasized that the roadside tests were voluntary.

The prosecutor's first two witnesses were the police officers who stopped the defendant. They were from another city working with Douglas County on a DUI Saturation, looking for Drunk drivers primarily.

At one point they were driving westbound and were facing a red arrow with a green light when an eastbound car turned north. The officers assumed the eastbound side also had a red arrow and that the driver ran the light and pursued him north. He then made a left turn without using his signal. They then turned their lights on and the car drove a little bit further, turning right, and then parking. The first officer went up to the car and talked to the driver and smelled alcohol on him. He asked him to get out and go to the back of the car, where the second officer saw him and also smelled alcohol. The driver refused to take the roadside maneuvers so they took him to the police station nearby.

After the two officers testified, we took a break and went back to the jury room. About a half hour later, the clerk came back and told us we were done for the day. Apparently the lawyers were having a hearing over something.

So we were dismissed until the next morning.

Next: The Trial Day 2

Jury Duty Part I: Getting on the Jury.

A few weeks ago, I got called for my first Jury Duty. I've known other people that have been called but never had to show up. I've never known anyone who actually had to go in, let alone get on a jury.

The way it works in Colorado is this: They send you a summons via mail when your name is picked at random from Voter Records, Drivers Licenses, Income Tax Filings and State ID Cards. A pool of several hundred is picked and you are assigned a number. Then the night before you are to appear you check online or by phone to see if you need to show up. In my case over 500 numbers were eliminated and 65 were left to appear.

Now right here I have to say that many people talk about trying to avoid getting a trial by saying various things. Since I went in to jury duty instead of working, and I had no work to do, I was hoping for a trial, but I at least wanted to get into the courtroom and be questioned.

We signed in, watched a video explaining a little bit of what to expect, and then about 25 of the Jurors were let go leaving about 40 or so. I was one of the ones still remaining.

That day they had two trials starting, and for the first trial they had selected 20 people to go in for a 6 person Jury. They lined us up in the order we were selected and I was #3. We were lead into the courtroom through the front door and the first 14 of us took our places in the Jury Box.

The judge was very pleasant but serious in giving us background on trials and why we were there. She made us feel pretty comfortable and spent 20 minutes describing what we were about to do. The trial would start that afternoon and go into the morning and we would be done by noon. Starting with Juror #1, we had to go through a questionaire that was posted on an easel in front of us, regarding some personal information, Name, marital status, how long in Colorado, how long in the county, Children's ages and occupations, Spouse's occupation, parent's occupation, and then several questions about the hobbies, books, TV shows and Movies that we liked. The judge would occassionally interrupt us and ask us questions about our answers.

After all 14 of us in the box went through the questions, the prosecutor got to address us. Since it was a drunk driving case, she asked us questions about drunk people, usually setting up a hypothetical situation to bring us to her question. I was only asked one question and that was whether a person could be has to be loud and obnoxious in order to be drunk. My answer was "No". She was very business like, kind of like a teacher.

The defense attorney then got up and asked questions. His demeanor was more friendly, but seemed fake, in that he wanted you to like him. He asked me no direct questions, but asked many others questions.

Then came the elimination round. Juror #1 was excused by the judge, as she had members of her family who were alcoholics, and felt she could not make a fair judgement. Juror #7 who now became Juror #1 was let go by the prosecution. Juror #4 was let go by the defense, Juror #8 became Juror #4, and after a few other elimations the Jury was set and Juror #3 was still in the box. I was going to trial.

Next: The Trial

Looking For An Opportunity

Life is funny. One day you are sitting at a desk getting paid to do nothing and bored to death, and the next you are kicked out on the street--no job, no pay, and very excited!

That's what happened to me last week, as I got called into the Boss's office on Thursday, just before lunch and told that I would be laid off effective February 4th. He was very congenial, blaming the economy, nothing in the works, blah, blah, no hurry to clean out my desk and get out of there, take my time, blah, blah. All that was going on in my head is thinking I couldn't wait to get out of there and start finding my next opportunity--and I know I will be better off in the long run.

I'm finding out that my reaction is not typical, as my wife seems totally astounded that I was not bummed out about it, as was my son when I talked to him on Friday. My co-workers are befuddled as to why I was laid off, but I prefer not to look back and dwell on what happened. Instead I prefer to use my energy to look forward.

Here are my reasons to be optimistic:

1. Preparation--Having been a consultant for the last 12 years, I know I have to be prepared on short notice to go on a job search. Most of the time the company I work for works to get me a gig. So in preparation, you always need to keep your resume updated. As soon as I get a new contract, I put it on my resume. A few months in, I'll update the job duties as I know it, and then about a month before the end of the assignment (although it's usually extended) I update it again. I save all my resume updates by year and month, so I know what the latest update is and when I last updated it. My current version is 200902.

2. Network--Using social networks like LinkedIN or FaceBook have made this a lot easier, but go to everyone you used to work with, or agencies that can place you. Don't overlook anyone's potential even if you are sure they can't help you directly--because inevitably someone knows somebody who knows somebody who will end up helping you.

3. Have Confidence, but not cockiness--Over the last 12 years, I've had a lot of experience on both sides of interviewing--mostly by phone. When looking for a new assignment at one point a few years ago, I had four phone interviews and got three offers and on only one of them did I need to follow up with a face to face interview. I've even gotten a job by taking the time to interview from Hawaii on vacation. My key is to treat every interview as a conversation, not a Q & A session. I find a lot out about the other person by making it a conversation, making a few offhand comments, joking a little bit, because the last thing I want to do is go work for someone who is as stiff as a board. This is a huge change from 12 years ago, when I wanted each and every job so bad, I just didn't relax and interview the interviewee. But don't be cocky, don't oversell and say you can do something you know you can't do.

3. Don't be desperate--This is tough for many people (as it was for me a while back), mainly because people tend to work one potential job at a time. I don't get too latched on to one thing, but I always like to have something potentially going. Don't be too eager either, because you will probably sell yourself short. Make sure you want them as much as they will want you. And don't stop looking just because you have an interview. Only stop looking after you have accepted an offer--and then you only stop looking temporarily.

4. Listen Carefully--NEVER TAKE A JOB!--You're probably saying WHAT!? Did he say don't take a job? Yes, absolutely. Don't think of it as a job. Think of it as an OPPORTUNITY. A job is something you dread and do only because you need money. And you usually hate it. An opportunity is something you go to and enjoy doing. And guess what? You still get paid to do it, AND you will usually enjoy it more.

Anyway, I'm in the middle of my job search, and I continue to have income through most of February, so I won't be out on the street very soon. I also haven't wasted my days brooding and going through the "Why me" or "My life is ruined" phases. I expect to hear back on a couple of my opportunities this week, as well as continue to contact more people I know. I'll let you know how it goes.

In the meantime, Stay Gruntled.

Headlines #2

Today's entry into the Headline Category.

Winning posthumous acting Oscar not easy


Isn't it obvious? The first thing you have to do to qualify is be dead! Not many actors go to that extreme to win an award.

Then inside the story there was this quote:

"The fact that only one actor has ever won an Oscar from the grave tells us that in general at the Oscars, the feeling is when you're dead, you're dead," Tom O'Neil, a columnist for TheEnvelope.com

Thank you, Captain Obvious! And what does that even mean?!

I think Ledger has a great shot at winning the Supporting Actor Award this year, but I hope it has more to do with his acting ability than with his death.

Just for the record only six people have been nominated for an Acting award after their death. James Dean holds the record with 2 Posthumous Nominations (presumably he only had to die once to achieve this.)

James Dean 1955 East of Eden
James Dean 1956 Giant
Spencer Tracy 1967 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Peter Finch 1976 Network (Won the Oscar)
Ralph Richardson 1984 Greystoke:Legend Of Tarzan
Massimo Troisi 1995 The Postman
Heath Ledger 2008 The Dark Knight

Also, it's really hard to believe that no woman has literally died for an Oscar Acting Award.

How far would you go?

Over the weekend, I saw two good (not great) movies that seemingly were different but had a similarity in their overriding theme. Australia is the epic story of life on a cattle ranch in the Northern Territory of Australia during the outbreak of WWII there in early 1942. Gran Torino is the story of a crotchety old retired auto worker, whose bigotry is overcome in modern day Detroit following the death of his wife.

At the core of both stories is bigotry and the question on how far one would go to save another person. Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman try to protect a "Creamy" boy, born of mixed parentage, an Aboriginal mother and an Aussie daddy (who also is the main villain in the movie). The movie is nearly 3 hours long, the first part a battle between rival cattle companies and the second part the impending Japanese Naval attack where the boy ends up on an island of outcast children taken in by a Mission Priest, the island being the first place where the Japanese planes attack. In both parts Nicole and eventually Hugh go to great lengths to try to save the boy.

In Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood plays the bigoted (some say racist, but based on how the movie actually goes, I don't think so) Korean Vet who has distanced himself from his family and many people around him. He has lived in the same neighborhood all of his adult life and has watched Asian family after Asian family move in. The neighbor boy next door Tao, is being recruited into an Asian gang, and as an initation, the gang wants Tao to steal Clint's vintage '72 Gran Torino. Of course Clint catches him in the act, and pulls a "Dirty Harry" on him. Clint then comes to the rescue of Tao's sister Su when she and her white boy friend are being hassled by some black teens. This inevitably leads to a friendship in which Clint learns about the Hamong (Vietnam) culture. He also becomes a mentor to Tao and imparts upon the boy his wisdom as well as helping him land a job. This also leads to a showdown with the Asian gang, in which Clint teaches Tao one final lesson, and in the process saves Tao from a life in a gang.

So since both of these movies had elements of bigotry and self-sacrifice in them, it got me to thinking, how far would I go to help or save someone else totally unrelated to you? And how do you overcome your prejudices/bigotries?

I leave these questions for you to ponder in your spare time today. I also recommend seeing both movies.

Odds and Ends

Various things on my mind today--

Not to take anything away from the over-hyped media and celebrity event going on in Washington today, but an Inauguaration is probably one of the most important things that happens in this country. It's more than a man, the Presidency is an institution. Today represents a scheduled orderly transfer of power from one person to the next. It's a much better system than many other countries, where there are unscheduled disorderly transfers of power. Best Wishes, President Bush; Godspeed President Obama.

You never appreciate the convenience of indoor plumbing until you go without for a while. Ok, so we did have indoor plumbing, but not on the main floor so I got a lot of exercise over the past 3 months running up or down steps. But I'm happy to report that the sink and toilet are back in and functioning! WOO HOO!

A couple of my blogging friends have recently gotten good news regarding their careers, one a job and another some interviews for continued education. I congratulate both of them on these exciting times.

Meanwhile I continue to wait for work on something that my company calls bench, which is essentially getting paid to sit around waiting for another assignment. I'm lucky in this economic environment not to be laid off which happened in 2002, when I should have gone on bench, but that company decided not to provide it anymore. That also makes me skittish about it. It's also not as much fun as it may sound. At any time I could get a call for an assignment and have to be there in less than a week. The last two gigs I got "happened" in about 2 days. In the meantime I really can't plan day to day because I may need to do an interview at any time. And I can't focus on looking for other jobs in the normal sense, since I'd like to stay with the company I'm with because of their near future plans for me and what I do.

I'll write a full post about this soon, but I had my first experience with Jury Duty a couple of weeks ago. I had never been called before and I ended up participating in a trial. A definite interesting experience.

Finally, I'm totally bummed that neither the Eagles nor the Ravens got to the Super Bowl, but I congratulate the Cardinals and Steelers who did.

Jack is Back! (And apparently Tony Too)

The much anticipated return of "24" debuted on Sunday night and apparently it is picking up some new viewers. When the show first was first put on the schedule in the fall of 2001, I thought the lifespan would be one season, three tops, but here it is going into season 7 (would be 8 if the writers strike hadn't pre-empted it last year) and seemingly is going strong.

I've only reluctantly watched Days 5 and 6, as my wife watches the whole season at once. It started with the first seasons on DVD, and then in later years, I've recorded all the episodes on DVR and then she watches them in a few days. During season 6 we started in late April watching 3-4 hours a week, but that didn't seem to be as entertaining. My mocking comments probably didn't help.

So in an effort to speed things up for the non-watchers, here is an outline of a 24 Season

Hour 1--Jack Bauer is generally relaxing (or hiding out somewhere), when a major event takes place killing people.

Hour 2--Jack wrestles with a decision on whether to help out, and eventually always chooses to help out. His Supervisor (which changes year to year) exhibits concern about Jack's decision.

Hour 3--Jack's hot on the trail of the suspects, and something goes wrong at HQ. The sinister subplot begins with some mole at a high level.

Hour 4--Jack has to defuse a situation--not with the suspects, but his supervisior and his/her superior--to allow him to stay on the case.

Hour 5--Jack evades the thugs that his supervisors have sent after him, while stumbling onto the hideout or next target of the suspects.

Hour 6--Jack kills at least 10 people, but the suspects are partially successful in carrying out their plan at the target. Someone Jack knows is taken hostage.

Hour 7--Jack confronts more terrorists, saves the hostage, and puts someone he loves in danger.

Hours 8-10--The loved one in danger is either a counter-spy or is held by someone who is a friend of Jack's, who is a counter spy. Jack discovers this, and will spend the next 3 hours defusing the situation, while the suspects take a short break.

Hour 11--Jack is back on the trail of the suspects, when the people at HQ realize he broke the law in saving his loved one, and is ordered brought in.

Hours 12-13--Jack evades the HQ people and is finally brought in to HQ just about the time that HQ becomes a target of the suspects.

Hours 14-18--Jack is at HQ, while Chloe and another person (who will die before the end of hour 18) breaks the rules to help Jack out. Usually at least one other lovable character dies during this span.

Hour 19--The mole(s) are identified by Jack, (although the "Big Guy" remains a mystery) and Jack subsequently leaves/escapes HQ in the confusion and is back on the trail of the suspects.

Hours 20-22--Lots of dis-jointed things happen, causing mayhem at 2-3 locations, and HQ finally realizes (again!) that Jack is still a good guy, and they finally help him out.

Hours 23-24--The two hour finale, where in the first hour, things go miserably wrong, followed by the ultimate saving of the world by Jack Bauer and the taking down or saving (temporily--they will kill him/her off in a future season) of some big political figure.

Happy Birthday, Mom!

Today, my mother turns 78--well, she would if she were still here, but we lost her to cancer 15 years ago, two days before she would have turned 63. But her nearly 63 years on this earth were very worthwhile. As sad as that seems, she nearly died 45 years before in a car accident. Had she not survived, I wouldn't be here writing about her now.

She did live to see all 11 of her grandchildren born. At the time of her death the oldest was 12 and the youngest nearly 2. In the time that she's been gone, 5 of her grandchildren have gotten married; and she has one great granddaughter.

My Mom was pretty strict by today's standards, but we didn't go without much that we needed. I'm grateful that she taught us how to clean the house, cook, and do other chores that have come in handy over the years (although I still resist cleaning most of the time.) I couldn't tell you if she favored any of her four children over any of the others. Maybe my siblings have opinions on it, I just felt that she loved us all a lot.

My Mom would probably thrive in today's economic atmosphere. We went on a three week camping trip in 1971, 6 of us in the Ranch Wagon across the United States to the Rocky Mountains. It's the trip that I fell in love with Colorado, and began my desire to live there. My parents had never had a credit card before, but decided to get one just in case they needed it on a trip that long. They of course, never used it, despite two emergencies--one involving the tent and another involving a blown tire on the Wagon. A few years ago, I saw the log and expenses that my mother dutifully kept of all of our trips. All told, the vacation cost my parents a little over $300, 6 people 22 days. I was totally amazed. Of course, gas at that time was about a quarter a gallon.

In some ways, it's a shame that my own kids didn't get to know her a little better. My daughter was only 8 when my mother died, but in other ways, my children have had my mother with them even to this day, as her Mother, My Grandmother and my children's Great-Grandmother is still alive and going strong at 99. Every time I visit with her, I always learn more about my mother. (More on that later).

Happy Birthday Mom, We Miss you!

Headlines #1

I'm still not sure what direction my blog will take, but I'm hoping this will be a regular feature.

Occassionally Headlines will appear in Newspapers (or now on the 'Net) in which I'm sure the Headline writer thinks sums up the article, but when the reader reads it, he (being me) finds it quite amusing.

Today's entry from the Rocky Mountain News Denver police seek SUV in I-25 shooting

From reading the Headline it appears to me that I-25 (a big interstate that goes through Colorado) was shot by an SUV. Not sure how extensive the injuries to the road were, but here's hoping the felonious SUV is caught soon and put behind bars, so it can't shoot again!

Home Remodeling

For a long time I thought my wife watched too many of those home remodeling shows on the various TV networks that had them. But now she's wrapping up a project in our house, and I have to say the results are wonderful. I just don't understand how those TV shows do it in a half-hour. It's taken her about three months.

Here is what she did: We had linoleum flooring in the main floor powder room/laundry room/garage entrance. She wanted to put Ceramic Tile down on the floor and repaint. She's also been wanting to put in a pocket door between the laundry part of the room and the powder room.

She enlisted the help of Jann, a friend who has been in construction pretty much her whole life. After painting and pulling up the linoleum, they decided to tackle the pocket door. That involved pulling out the existing partial wall that was there, moving the light switch and putting up a new wall with the pocket door frame.

Then they finished the tiling. The tiles are yellowish brown and are 12" She offset them, so it wasn't a straight pattern and it looks pretty awesome. Then the actual pocket door went in. They used a panel door instead of a flat door and it makes it look a lot more elegant.

Yesterday, they put up much of the molding and the sink is back in. They are telling me that I might have the toilet back in there by Wednesday.

It looks really nice, and I'm glad I was away for most of the construction.

Congratulations to the Utes!

I have long argued for a playoff in Division IA (Now called the FBS or Football Bowl Subdivision) and ever since the major conferences have tried to avoid a playoff I always root for it to get screwed over. Usually the final choice of teams in what is referred to as the Championship game is debateable, but the BCS officials always insist they get it right.

I laugh at their pompousness!

This year there is no doubt who should be the National Champions. Only one team has taken on their schedule and gotten through it blemish free. Tonight they beat the former #1 team Alabama in convincing fashion 31-17.

The powers that be will insist that their champion will come from a game in Miami next week, but they perpetuate a myth. The true champion came through unblemished tonight.

Congratulations to the Utah Utes

Odds and Ends of a New Year

Happy New Year to all my faithful followers--at last count ZERO?

Anyway, I'm just back from a trip to Utah with my Son and Daughter in Law. Had lots of fun, but a little sad as it was also the first Christmas I didn't spend any of it with my daughter (and Son in law).

Great things about 2009:

No longer will we have to see those stupid glasses with the 00 in the middle for eyes with a 2 on the left and the current year on the right. They were cute in 2000 but annoying ever since then. Although I'm sure someone is going to come up for a design next year for the two 0's in 2010.

Obama will finally take office, and maybe people will stop using the words hope and change in reference to him. I get it that he's a fresh face, and I hope he does well, but anybody that expects "hope" and/or "change" from their government is fooling themselves and is frankly a little disturbing. Change in government is rarely a good thing. Seriously, if you need and hope and want to change something--start with yourself in your own community. That's where we can all affect it and can be quite effective at it. And with things going so bad right now, everyone matters.

The MLB channel launched yesterday. I hope it's an alternative to watching cutesy ESPN and Fox Sports personalities. Saw a little today, and if nothing else, should be a great teacher of baseball history in the offseason for the greatest sport ever invented.

More later....for now Continue enjoying the New Year.