Ethnic Diversity

On Monday I attended both a General Faculties Council (GFC) meeting and a strategic retreat.  The retreat consisted of members of the GFC, the Board of Governors, the Senate and the Alumni Council.  We essentially had roundtable discussion regarding the future of the university.  Overall it was very interesting and enjoyable.

The GFC is headed up by the President of the University.  All the Vice Presidents, plus the Provost and Vice Provosts are members.  All the Deans and department/program heads are also members (I think).  And then there are elected members that represent various other groups on campus, like the Students' Union, the Graduate Students' Association (GSA), the academic and non-academic staff unions, etc.  I'm considered a Graduate Student-at-Large on the GFC as I was nominated by the GSA to be on the council.  Last week we had a brief overview of university governance and it turns out the GFC is 33% students, but most are undergraduates.  Students are also members of the Senate and the Board.

Anyway ... the retreat was organized into 12 tables.  Each table was assigned a specific topic to discuss.  Each table was also assigned a facilitator and a scribe.  The facilitator mediated the discussion and the scribe (obviously) made the notes of what was said.  The scribes consisted of actual staff members in the President's office and other Governance offices.  The facilitators ended up being Deans.  For example, table 1 (my first table) was lead by the Dean of Physical Education. Table 5 (my second table) was lead by the Dean of Science.  Table 3 was the Dean of ALES.  Table 4 was the Vice Provost and Head Librarian.  Table 7 was the Dean of Students.  Table 10 was the Dean of FGSR.  And table 12 was the Dean of Native Studies.

My point here is that the assignment of Deans as facilitators was pretty deliberate.  It probably had something to do with the fact that there were enough of them to spread between 12 tables AND they could naturally take on a leadership role.

Near the end of the retreat, when each table was sharing what they'd discussed, someone raised their hand and pointed out that we unintentionally assigned only white people to be facilitators of each table.  She also mentioned that she'd already mentioned that fact to the President and said -- very forcefully -- that we could not continue to do that.

I understand where she was coming from (although ironically she was a white woman), but I don't understand what she expected as an alternative.  If there are no Deans with non-white ethnicities, what were they suppose to do?  Would it have been appropriate to assign someone as a facilitator ONLY because they weren't white?  Wouldn't it be odd that some facilitators were white Deans and others were non-white something else's?  I think one of the purposes of having Deans be facilitators is because they already had a certain level of power at the table and people would respect their leadership.  If you assigned a non-Dean to facilitate at one table simply because they weren't white, would they receive the same level of respect as per leadership?  And if they didn't would it be automatically assumed that they weren't respected as well because they were non-white or because they weren't at the Dean level?  Wouldn't that open more problems?

Again, I can see her point but I'm not sure the organization of an event like this is the problem.  The problem is more systemic and related to the fact that there are very few Deans who are non-white.  Isn't that the larger problem?  Why aren't there more non-white Deans?  Do we have a balanced number of white and non-white professors (who could one day be a Dean)?  Do we have enough non-white interest in a Dean job?  Does the U of A have a diversity hiring policy?  

But then doesn't it go even deeper?  Maybe there are a lot of white Deans because the majority of professors are white as well.  And maybe the professors who are skilled enough to be a Dean also happen to be white.  Then the question is -- why don't we have more non-white skilled professors?  Is it because we don't have enough non-white graduate and undergraduate students?  Is there enough interest in this profession from non-whites?  If so, are they at a disadvantage, and if so, how?  And doesn't that mean it really starts from the bottom (i.e. kids)?  

You can't change someone's ethnicity once they reach a certain level, you need to have a variety of ethnicity at every level.  But unless you start with giving all kids an equal chance to pursue whatever they want, that'll never happen.  You can't wait till you get to the Dean level and they say "we're only going to hire a non-white person."  If the only skilled people at that level are white, you can't hire an unskilled non-white person to do the job -- that's not helpful to anyone.  

Anyway, as I've already said, I understand where this person was coming from, but I'm not sure pointing it out in that particular situation was useful.  Ironically, up until that moment no one was probably thinking about white and non-white people (i.e. they looked at everyone as simply a member of the university community).  But the minute it was pointed out everyone starts to notice the ethnicity of everyone else -- for the wrong reasons.  

Many of the topics discussed at the various tables were too high-level to include ethnicity (or any specific type of demographic).  But the ones that did have the ability to include ethnicity, did.  It wasn't ignored or forgotten.  It was discussed naturally not because it was suppose to be, but because it was important.  

Although -- the main ethnicity focus was Aboriginal peoples.  Is that racist?  To focus on a specific ethnic group over others?  I'm not sure.  Are Aboriginal peoples more important than other ethnicities here in Alberta or Edmonton or the U of A?  Is that fair or reasonable?  I have no idea.

As an aside, immediately after this comment was made to the group, a professor asked a question. She happened to be of an ethnic minority.  As she started her question she made the comment that she would be the ethnic minority representation.  I don't think she said this to be funny, she said this sarcastically.  I don't think she appreciated being distinguished because of her ethnicity, she would have preferred being treated as an equal.  

Annoying Little Things

I'm in the middle of reading this book.  It's part of a series by one of my favourite romance authors.  This is book 7 in her current series, but this series is a continuation of a previous series that had at least a dozen books.  It's based in Scotland, but the author is American.

Based on just standard knowledge that most anyone should have, there are a few things that authors shouldn't mess up.  When authors do mess up on these things, it bothers me. There are several things that annoy me in this specific book:

1. The fact that the lead female character calls herself a masseuse and she works at a fancy spa in South Carolina.  No respectable person who gives massages for a living would  call themselves a masseuse -- they'd call themselves a massage therapist.  It's a thousand times more professional and respectable.

2. The lead female character had checked into her flight at the Edinburgh airport, but never got onto the flight.  Twice now she's made a comment about how her luggage would already be back in South Carolina.  Anyone whose been on a plane in the last 5 years or more would know that your luggage NEVER flies without you.  It doesn't matter if you check in.  If you don't go through the gate, your luggage is taken off the plane.  Therefore her luggage would still be in Scotland.

I also watched the movie Edge of Tomorrow last night.  It stars Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt and it was surprisingly good, I liked it.  Tom Cruise's character is American.  To make a long story short, he gets thrown into a situation he's unprepared for.  However when making a plan with Emily Blunt's character he refers to a trailer attached to a mini-van as a 'caravan.'  He's in France when he says this.

I know that folks in Britain call trailers 'caravans.'  Americans and Canadians call them trailers.  I'm sorry, but there's no way that Tom's character would refer to the trailer as a 'caravan.'  My guess is that most Americans don't even know that the Brits call trailers something different.

The same series of books I'm reading had a situation earlier in the series where a woman was living in a mountain cave.  Someone had set it up for her with a generator, etc.  But somehow she was able to talk on her cell phone ... from inside the mountain ... in the middle of the Scottish Highlands.  There's no way she would ever get reception out there, especially not inside a mountain.  I actually pointed this out to the author and her response was that the story had magic in it, so the magic allowed her to be able to use her cell phone.  While that may align with the story, it's a bit of a cop out!  

I don't know why these little things bug me, but they do!!  

----------

Oh, another annoying little thing ... it bugs me when people post something really vague on social media like ... "I can't believe that happened last night, I'm so glad we're okay" ... but then never actually say what happened.  It's like they're looking for blind sympathy from their social media friends.  

If you're going to post it on social media, explain what happened.  If you're uncomfortable explaining the details on social media, then don't mention it on social media.  For some reason you want to advertise the fact that something happened to you, but you don't want to say what it was.  It might be something big ... it might be something small ... no one has any clue.  And obviously you're hiding something from your social media friends.  I don't find these posts sad or concerning, I find them annoying.

I guess tonight is pet peeve night!

My Recent Job Shadow Experience

Every year the library school students' association organizes job shadows for the students.  They call this event Partner's Week, although it's scheduled for one week in October and one week in January.

From a student's perspective, we're provided with a list of potential librarians to shadow divided into three categories -- public, academic and special.  Each listing includes the librarian's name, their work location (and maybe address), when they're available and a very, very brief description of their job.  I don't know how the organizer's collect this info, and what sort of screening they do, if any, before they put someone on the list.  Based on my personal experience, I suspect they don't do any screening of librarians.

I selected a librarian that worked in a 'special' library as a research analyst.  Based on the organization where she worked and the brief job description, it sounded like an interesting job and possibly something I'd like.  How very wrong I was!!!

The job shadow I signed up for was in Calgary -- therefore it was a 3 hour drive (one way) to get there.  I was there for 3 hours on a Friday afternoon.  The woman seemed very nice, but I discovered pretty quickly that while she'd graduated from SLIS a couple of years ago, this job was the first one she had related to library science, and she only started it 2 months earlier!!!  I have absolutely no idea why she thought it would be a good idea to sign up to have someone shadow her when she's only been in the job for 2 months!!!  

Unfortunately the job shadow went downhill from there.  She showed me her job posting and I discovered that they had only been looking for someone with a bachelor's degree.  It was very much an entry-level position and not designed for someone with an advanced degree.  And while there was some content management involved, it did not require someone with a degree specifically in information science.  Essentially she was over-qualified and under-employed in this job.

By the end of the job shadow I did learn that -- for her -- this job was perfect.  It seemed right up her alley and she seemed to really like where she worked.  But it was also apparent that there was no need for her to have a masters degree.  In fact, she worked in an extremely similar job for 7 years before she went back to school to get her MLIS.  Technically I don't think her MLIS was necessary, she could have gotten this job based simply on her past experience.  Interestingly, even her past experience made her over-qualified.  I'm just glad she seemed happy where she was and didn't seem to think she was in the wrong place or at the wrong level.

Having said that though, when I asked her what her career plans were for after this, she had none.  Not because she wasn't yet sure what she wanted to do, but because she didn't want to do anything else.  She claimed she loved this job so much she'd be happy in it for the rest of her life!  She had no plans to ever get another job, a promotion or change organizations!  If she's that happy, power to her.  But I'd like to ask her that question again in a year and see if she still feels the same way!

While I learned a lot about her and the job she does, none of it was helpful for my own career plans or future.  The job she was doing was something I could do with one hand tied behind my back.  Most of her job consists of gathering data from online sources and giving it to someone else to use in an analysis.  She doesn't actually do any analysis, so I'm not really sure why they called the position a 'research analyst.'  It should just be 'researcher.'

She had also apparently taken one database course in school over a year ago that did go over Access a little bit.  Based on this limited knowledge she actually argued with me about what Access can and can't be used for.  I've used Access for a large variety of projects for years.  For every suggestion I made, I had done it before in Access myself -- therefore I knew it could be done.  But no matter what suggestion I made, she claimed it couldn't be done.  Based on her understanding of Access, it can't be used for much.  That is very unfortunate as Access can be a great tool if you know how to use it right.

Ironically the tools she did have she didn't know how to use.  She showed them to me, but couldn't explain their purpose or what they were suppose to be for, only what she had been experimenting with.

Overall I was very disappointed and a little annoyed.  It wasn't until after that a fellow LIS student mentioned that she checks all the librarians on Linkedin before she decides if she wants to shadow them.  I totally should have done this, but in all honesty I never thought someone with so little experience would have been included.  If I can volunteer to run the event next year, I totally will.  Not only can they benefit from using more automated methods in the whole thing, but they could benefit from screening out some of their librarian candidates.  After all, based on who had signed up in the books, they had more librarians than students, so it wouldn't be a bad thing to screen some of them out.

I sure hope that other students had a better experience than me.  And I sure hope that I have a better experience in January at my next 2 shadows.  Before I contact those people, however, I will be checking them out online to make sure the same thing doesn't happen.

Responding to Emails

I've had the unfortunate experience lately of having a number of people not feel it necessary to respond to my emails.  Or, not to respond to my emails in a timely manner.

In general there is no set rule on how quickly emails should be answered, but I do think there's general etiquette and respect that can be followed by everyone.  I do not think it is unreasonable to respond to emails within 48 to 72 hours.  Keep in mind that these initial responses do not need to include full and complete answers to the original emails.  They can simply include acknowledgment that the original email was received and you are looking into the matter.

This is what I consider to be respect.  Respect for the person sending the email, but also respect for whatever type of position you have.  If you are employed in a certain profession, your actions help create the overall reputation for that profession.  Remember, chains are only as strong as their weakest link -- don't be the weak link that brings your whole profession down and gives it a bad reputation.  Or worse, helps its existing bad reputation continue.  

And for the love of all things holy, do NOT use the "I'm really busy" excuse.  YOU are not the only one who is busy.  YOU are not the only one who has a lot of things on the go.  You may have your own priorities, but so does everyone else.  YOUR priorities are NOT more important than anyone else's, no matter what your position is in comparison to anyone else.

The worst part about using the "I'm really busy" excuse is it assumes you actually know everything there is to know about the person to whom you're too busy to deal with.  By saying you're too busy to deal with them, you're implying that you are more busy than they are.  Yet in reality you probably don't know that person well enough to truly know what's going on in their life and how busy they may be.

Not being able to answer emails within 48-72 hours and claiming it's because you're so busy also implies (a) you have bad time management skills or (b) you have too much on your plate.  Either way, it's not anyone else's fault that you either can't manage your time effectively or have taken on too much, it's yours.  Yes, maybe there's an underlying reason why you have too much on your plate and can't handle it, but that doesn't mean you throw respect out the window and resort to being "that person" who ignores people.

I've had a lot of different jobs in my time and I've met some insanely busy people.  Oddly, some of the busiest people I've met have been the most responsive via email or other forms of communication.  Either because they have help, they've figured out how to manage their time to respond to their emails, or because they've figured out that ignoring emails is disrespectful and that's not the sort of person they want to be.  Whatever the reasons why they were able to be responsive, it demonstrates that the "I'm really busy" excuse is just that, an excuse.

As is probably obvious by now, this lack of response via email has escalated to the point of extreme annoyance and frustration for me.  It makes me feel disrespected and unimportant.  And I don't like feeling that way, it's not fun.  I don't know why my emails are not responded to.  Did the other person receive them?  Were they lost in cyberspace?  Did the other person see it and then ignore it, or did they not notice it at all?  Are they waiting for something before responding?  Is there a reason why they can't let me know they're waiting for something?  Did they accidentally delete my email and are waiting for me to follow-up?  Are they categorizing their emails somehow and I'm in the "don't care" category?  Did they see who the email was from and have deleted it?  Did they think they responded but didn't actually respond?  The point is I'm left in limbo not actually knowing what's going on at the other end.

You might be thinking to yourself, "why doesn't she contact them in another way"?  Excellent question.  One, in the case of some folks I don't have any other way to contact them.  And two, in the case of other folks the only other way I potentially have to contact them is during a very limited timeframe that is either too far away and I need a response sooner.  Either way I'm SOL.

Revenue Generation

I've become involved in many councils and committees at my university this year.  I did this for two reasons.  One - because I was interested to learn more about the governance of the university.  And two - I wanted to be on the 'inside' of what was going on.  So far it's been quite interesting.

At a recent council meeting for the Faculty of Arts, the Acting Dead introduce a document that outlined potential revenue generating ideas for the faculty.  It met with mixed reviews.

As I listened to the feedback, I grouped people into two categories.  Those who were looking at things from a logical, realistic perspective.  And those that were looking at things from an historical perspective.

The historical perspective was expressed by a number of professors ... loudly and critically.  This group is against revenue generation because (they claim) it goes against what a university stands for, and is suppose to represent.  In general they viewed revenue generation as contrary to what a university should be focusing on, which is pure, un-obstructed research.

The logical and realistic perspective look at revenue generation as a necessary evil.  None of them wanted to do it, but they understand why it was being introduced.  And they could see the benefit of it if it worked properly.  But given the choice, they wouldn't do it.

The reason why this 2nd group saw it as a necessary evil is because overall funding from government, private and student sources is declining (or has declined).  And while there's a chance it could increase in the future, there's no guarantee.  As an alternative to this 'outside' funding, the Faculty of Arts is looking at ways to generate revenue that can go directly back into their pocket for programming they could not otherwise afford.

Departments like engineering, some sciences, business, law, medicine, density, pharmacy, economics, education, etc., have obvious things they could do to generate revenue.  Departments like history, classics, english, philosophy, anthropology, etc., have less obvious things they could do to generate revenue.  And I don't think it's a coincidence that the negative feedback about revenue generation is coming from those departments without obvious sources of revenue generation.

I don't blame them for being unsettled.  For them it's a completely new way of thinking and in some cases will be a big change from what they've done in the past.  But I'm also a realist and I can see the short-term benefits of exploring revenue generation projects.

I'm also offended that so many people in academia find the concept of 'capitalism' so offensive!  We live in a capitalistic society.  Our economy (for the most part) follows capitalistic 'rules.'  Universities receive funds in order to provide services.  Those services are education and research.  Research is a service.  It's providing information and knowledge about something that did not exist before.  From a financial perspective, the service may not be worth much in a capitalistic market, but it's still a service.  Professors are paid for the services they provide to the university.

Those professors then use that salary to buy things they need in order to live (food, shelter, etc.).  And I'm pretty sure that most professors do NOT live at the lowest financial level possible and give the rest of their earnings back to the 'system.'  I'm pretty sure some of them buy cars (even fancy cars) rather than take transit.  I'm pretty sure some of them go on vacations.  I'm pretty sure they buy new clothes every now and again that they don't actually need.  In other words, they take advantage of their salary to participate in a capitalistic society.

Because of this, I find it very annoying that some professors complain about having to think capitalistically, but use every capitalistic advantage they can in order to live their daily lives.  You really can't have it both ways.  If we lived in a country that had an endless amount of money to give to academia and academia didn't have to worry about trying to fund itself, then maybe we could have it both ways.  But we don't live in that country.  And I'm pretty sure if our existing country was to say that we could increase academia funding at the expense of health care, those same professors would be up in arms about losing their health care!

Yes, our current (and hopefully outgoing) government has destroyed many of the things Canadians have held near and dear, and those things need to be reversed with the next government.  But the majority of Canadians actually did elect them in the first place (not me, but someone did) and as a democratic society we do have to live with the consequences of our decisions.

In the meantime, while we wait for a new government to 'fix' the problems caused by the old government (and to create new problems of their own), we need to do something.  We can't just sit back and wait and hope something changes in the future.  That's not realistic.  Instead we have to figure out short-term solutions to the problem, and revenue generation is one of those short-term solutions.

If the Faculty of Arts wants to implement projects and programs that have no other source of funding, they need to come up with the funding themselves.  If we're able to figure out a way to sell some of our services for money, then we can use that money to fund those projects and programs.  If we can't raise the money on our own, then we can't offer these projects and programs, and worst case scenario, we have to reduce some of the projects and programs we already have.  You can't spend money you don't have.  (Well you can, but I'm not sure that the faculty is allowed to incur debt.)

Here's the thing ... revenue isn't profit.  Revenue minus expenses is profit.  Revenue is simply incoming funds.  They key to the revenue generation program the Faculty of Arts is hoping to implement is to have an equal amount of money coming in (revenue) to the money going out (expenses) to balance to zero.  As in NO PROFIT.  They aren't looking to create a nest egg!  They aren't looking for ways to make a profit for giving people bonuses or extra merit increases or to invest in long-term financial investments (like a for-profit corporation would do), they're simply looking for a way to offer more things to their students in order to break even.

And here is where I may be a little biased.  I'm one of those students.  I'm one of the many Arts students who is unfunded this year.  That means I get zero help from the faculty to pay for my education (unlike least year).  If a revenue generating project were to create a funding opportunity for me, I would not be opposed to this.  To me it's a simple calculation - something versus nothing.  Whereas, for a tenured professor (who many of the complainants were) their paycheque isn't likely to change.  Or if it does, it'll only change slightly.  They aren't in a situation where they need to figure out how they're going to pay for food or shelter, as they already have a decent income with which to do this.  They are, however, being asked to do more work for zero increase in pay (under some circumstances).  In other words, there's a lot less incentive for them to make this happen, especially if they already have decent grants.

And this is where I question some of the opinions.  Many folks said they were against revenue generation because it was capitalistic and that goes against the principles of academia.  But is that the real reason they're upset?  Or are they upset because they're being asked to do more work for possibly no additional pay?  That - to me - would be contradictory.

Maybe, and hopefully, there are other reasons as well.  If there are, they weren't explicitly expressed at the meeting I attended.  But whatever the reasons, I wish someone who was against this process could present an alternative solution rather than just complain.  If this option isn't going to work for them, what options would work for them?  Do they have any ideas on how to fund projects and programs without selling a service?  Do they have any suggestions on how to balance the budget via another method?  How can we make this work while still living within the historical principles of academia?

I hope your don't own GM stock.

I just read an article on cbc.ca about the fact that GM has agreed to a settlement where they're to pay $900 million dollars to the victims of the ignition switch problem found in some of their small cars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gm-agrees-to-pay-900m-us-to-settle-ignition-switch-probe-1.3231785

So much about this story frustrates me ...

"... the deal calls for two criminal charges to be dismissed if the company complies with terms of the agreement for three years."

This means they will not be held criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100 people.

"The company acknowledged that some of its employees knew about the problem for more than a decade, but no cars were recalled until early last year ... found no wrongdoing on the part of top executives ... the problem [is due to] ... bureaucratic corporate culture that hid problems and failed to take action."

Whoever these employees were, they should be criminally charged.  How can you live with yourself knowing you knew about a problem that was killing people, but you did nothing about it?  Even if the corporate culture was such that you couldn't convince higher-ups to do something, you could have gone to the media anonymously, or even hired a lawyer.  There are ways to get this info out and there is no excuse for the people who kept it secret.

The part I really hate about this comment though is that a "report" didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of executives, but instead blames the corporate culture.  Executives are what MAKES a corporate culture.  They're responsible for how their employees act and react to things within the organization.  In this case they obviously created a culture where killing people was okay as long as they didn't lose money.  In a situation like this the executives should be held responsible for the behaviour of their employees.  The buck stops at them.

Of course, there's also the problem of this so-called "report".  It was written by an external person who was hired to investigate the issue inside GM.  It doesn't say who paid him, but I got the impression from the article that his paycheque came from GM itself.  If that's the case, the investigation and report is automatically biased.  Would you write a report for GM executives that says that GM executives are responsible for something bad?  I don't think so.

$900 million dollars is a LOT of money - but it doesn't replace the 100+ people who died due to such a shameful act.

Outlander Book 6

I had a goal ... I wanted to finish A Breath of Snow and Ashes before the school semester began so I could concentrate on readings I have to do for class. I think the first have of the book (> 700 pages) took me at least 2-3 weeks. The second half of the book (another ~ 700 pages) took me maybe 4-5 days!

But why is it that we can get so attached to books and their characters?  I feel a deep sense of loss now that I'm done - even though book 7 is sitting downstairs and book 8 is available in stores. It doesn't matter. My daily life without Claire and Jamie is so empty. And it's only been like 1-2 minutes since I finished!

I'm not sure exactly how historically accurate Outlander is, but I think it's pretty spot on. And I've also read that the info about Claire's use of herbs for medicine is also very accurate. I actually am really interested to learn more about the use of herbs for things. It's really fascinating!  And some of my recent articles for wikiHow have included natural remedies that are identical to the ones Claire used!

My biggest dilemma at the moment is to wonder what to read tomorrow. I need a book for the bus and I don't know yet which novel we'll be starting with for my YA reading class. It's not like I don't have 6 million options - I just always have such a hard time choosing! In fact, when I was figuring out what to read before I picked A Breath I stood in front of my To Read bookshelf for over 10 minutes trying to decide. Maybe I'll pick a non-fiction book for tomorrow so I won't feel as bad if I don't finish it quickly. 

Sidetrack:

Speaking of the bus tomorrow.  It looks like I'll be up at 7:15am tomorrow in order to catch one of two possible buses between 7:55am and 8am. That should get me to school just after 8:30am or so. Registration starts at 8:45am and orientation starts at 9am. 

It's been a long time since I've taken the bus from home to campus and back. In an ideal world is like to avoid the LRT, but that might be fairly impossible. I also need a paper map of the buses. I like to be able to hold maps in front of me to make plans like that. 

I really like the route bus 43 takes but it really sucks that it only runs M-F at rush hour times. How stupid is that?  Especially considering it's only 1 of 2 buses that runs up and down 119th Street!

Orientation:

Orientation is for the School of Library and Information Studies. Technically it's for first years. And technically I'm not a first year. But it's my first year in SLIS. 

They've sent us an agenda but I'm still not 100% sure what to expect. It'll be nice to put names to faces of profs in SLIS. And it'll be nice to see whose been assigned my advisor. But we don't get much time to talk to our advisor, so that's not helpful. At least they'll be giving us food. And it's only a half day, so I'll be home after lunch - assuming I stay for the entire lunch. 

Delivery:

Speaking of which, I'm expecting a delivery from FedEx tomorrow. The tracking website says they're suppose to come before 12pm. I called and asked that they come after 2pm instead but they made no guarantees. So I'm leaving a note on my door just in case. Too bad it wasn't ready for delivery last weekend or even Saturday. 

I don't know why they specify before 12pm. Or why there's no way to ask for a specific time. And if the times they deliver never work out, I don't get why there isn't a way to automatically have the package left at a depot. Why bother having a delivery driver knock on the door when you know you're not going to be home?

I've actually had the most delivery trouble with FedEx. My personal fave is UPS. They seem to have things under control. FedEx doesn't even read postal codes or addresses when they make deliveries (long story). 

Mice:

I haven't found anymore dead mice in my house since this morning, so that's good. But there do seem to be a lot of flies. I think that's just because I leave the backdoor open when I'm outside with the cats and things get inside. For the most part they seem to be entertainment for the cats!

Back On Track:

I'm a little calmer about Claire and Jamie now. I think I'll be able to sleep. I hope anyway. 

At least I know Brianna, Roger, Jem and Mandy are safe and alive. And that Claire and Jamie are going to start a new life somewhere other than Fraser's Ridge. And I'm so mad at Arch Bug and his wife - two-faced weasels!  Grrrr

Waste of Packaging

Everywhere you look there's excess and unnecessary packaging. I order some socks via Groupon a little while back and they came in a massive box!  And every time I go to Costco I shake my head. Why do manufacturers insist upon all this extra cardboard and plastic to wrap their products in?

Actually, that reminds me of a quote from Ascension, a TV show about a whole bunch of people who thought they were in a space ship headed to a possible new earth, but really they're were just in a fake space ship still on earth and it was a big social experiment. Anyway, one of the guys from inside the experiment managed to get outside and ended up at a convenience store for stuff. Once he'd bought the stuff he asked why everything was cocooned in plastic!  Ironically that line was the best line of the whole show. 

I think it would be awesome if manufacturers tried to figure out ways to pack their products in anything other than plastic. And stopped packing their product, which is already in a container, inside yet another container!  One layer is enough!

And Costco should implement a policy whereby extra packaging isn't allowed. For example, if the item is $9.99 for 5 items packed together, then force the customer to pick up 5 items. And if they want less than 5 items, fine, but it's still $9.99!  Actually, come to think of it, I bet some customers would be okay paying the same price for less because it might still be cheaper than elsewhere and won't cause them to waste stuff. Or ... for every item under the limit Costco donates it to charity. So if you only want 3 of the 5, 2 get donated to charity. Everyone still makes the same amount of money, but there's less waste. 

I should write a letter to Costco!

Public Transit and Disappointment

Several things happened today -

(1) I finished watching season 9 of Supernatural, which is all the episodes on Netflix. Now I have to figure out where to get season 10, since that was technically last year. I wonder if maybe Netflix will post season 10 when season 11 starts airing?  Hmmmmm

That reminds me, I have to check if there are more episodes of The 100 to watch yet. And buy the books - yes, it was based on a set of books!

(2) I took public transit from 105th St and 82nd Ave to campus and back. I had appointments in both locations but parking on campus is ridiculously expensive, so I parked near my second appointment and took the bus over to campus. This is only the second time this year that I've taken public transit. Considering I pay over $300 a year for my UPasses through school, those were two very expensive public transit rides!

However, I intend to start taking public transit to and from school everyday starting in September - well, technically starting August 31st. Since I no longer have to drive all over town for cat sits, I no longer need my car with me!  And the extra time on the bus and LRT will allow me to read more!  And as of right now it's only 3 days a week. Since I already pay for the UPass anyway, this is one of my methods to save money - no parking passes or extra gas required. (Like my car needs any fewer kilometres in it!  It's a 2011 and hasn't hit the 70,000 mark yet!)

(3) And it's a good thing I'm looking for ways to save money because I also found out today that I am not getting an RAship to TAship this coming school year. While they aren't guaranteed, they're also not fair. Students have absolutely no idea how it's decided who gets an RA position and who doesn't. And what's worse, if you "luck out" and get picked to be in certain labs, you might get the chance to present at a conference. Yet students seems to have absolutely no control over this. 

I think it's quite an unfair process. Each available RAship and TAship should be posted and those interested should apply. Then the person chosen has to be someone who applied and was superior in some way to the rest of the applicants. Rather than the way it is now where I'm assuming you either have to bribe your way into one, or become a teacher's pet??  Who knows. The process needs to change. 

AND they need to complete the process earlier in the summer - somehow. By mid August good jobs for the fall on or near campus are already filled. So if you waited to see if you got an RAship before applying, you're out of luck. But if you apply earlier in the summer and get the job, and you later find out you also got an RAship, and you're not able to work both sets of hours, then you have to turn one down which means that hiring manager is probably pissed at you (and won't consider you again in the future) and they have to scramble to fill your spot. 

Now, if the RA jobs in HUCO were in anyway related to your thesis, research, or supervisor, then I can understand there not being an application process. But these jobs aren't related to anything. First off, most students don't know what they're going to research until after they start first year - and they won't look for a supervisor until first year. Now it is possible that someone who has an RAship with professor X then decides that (a) they like what they're doing in their job and (b) they like the prof, then they might use the RAship as a means to decide what their research is going to be, and who they want as their supervisor. 

Which means that in the end the domino effect happens. If you happen, by chance, to get into lab A with prof X, who also happens to have a decent amount of grant money, then you're set. You will probably be rehired year after year to work in that lab for that prof. And chances are no one else will ever be considered, regardless of qualifications, ability or skills. 

As I anticipated, this turned into a rant. But it makes me mad. I feel like any chances I had were taken away before I even did anything. And that I had absolutely no control over my own future in this regards. I also can't help but wonder if it breaks the collective agreement - I should actually look that up. 

Don't worry, I'll be saying and doing something about it - which will probably end up guaranteeing me NO job for my third year!

----------

Oh, that car pulling up outside reminded me. I wonder if the dudes in the camper will be back tonight? The last few nights they've pulled in at 2am. Apparently they're performers at the fringe festival and my neighbour has given them a place to stay. But they seem to spend the night in their camper rather than in the house. At least they did last night. And last night they had a girl over. And they either didn't think about the fact that they're outside in the middle of a concrete square surrounded by houses with windows open, or they didn't care!  My window is way too close, and I heard things I rather not have heard. 

It actually reminds me of a funny event that happened when I was a little kid. Our house backed onto the parking lot of an elementary school. And in the summer and on the weekends the parking lot was obviously empty. Well several times me and some friends watched a car pull in with a guy driving. He parked just on the other side of our fence, which I'm thinking he thought was out of view, and then a lady walking a dog would wander by and hop into the car. Into the backseat. And the dog would sit in the front seat. Even at my age at the time I knew what was going on. And I guess the woman must have lived in the area with her husband???

Enough reminiscing!  Time for bed!

Sam and Dean

I'm almost done watching Supernatural on Netflix - all 9 available seasons. I calculated it the other days and estimated that it's about 120 hours of TV!  9 seasons x approx 20 episodes/season x 40 mins per episode. Yikes!

I recognized episodes up until mid season 8 when I must have stopped watching. Ironically it was almost at the exact point that the Men of Letters came into play. 

After watching so much Supernatural I can't help thinking of a couple of things:

1. Have I lost my mind?

2. I wonder if I should change the topic of my Masters thesis from romance novels and social media to Supernatural and social media. 

3. How interesting it is to delve into the personalities of Sam and Dean after watching them almost non-stop for 120 hours. 

4. Poor Castiel. That dude never gets a break. 

Castiel:

Wow, that guy has spent his entire time on Supernatural trying to do good and having the absolute worst luck. He always seems to get involved with the wrong people for the right reasons. While he's done some pretty bad things, I don't think he ever did any of them with bad intentions. In a lot of ways the poor guy was misguided by the lack of a father figure (i.e. God). 

I have to admit that Castiel is my favourite character. He's also the most complicated, if you ask me. There's so much about him that we don't know or make assumptions about. And I really don't like how Dean has treated him so far in season 9. 

God:

I remember back in the day there had been rumours that that author dude might be God because he disappeared around the end of season 4 or 5 (the numbers have blended together now). But considering I'm almost at the end of season 9 and he hasn't been mentioned again, I'm thinking that rumour was wrong. 

Someone did say early on that God has been gone from heaven for a long time and was somewhere on Earth. But that topic hasn't been brought up recently either. 

I have no idea if they'll ever get back to this storyline, but it does make you think. First, in many fictional stories, whether they're books, movies, TV shows or something else, things like angels, demons, and the Devil are talked about quite a bit. They're all given faces and names and provide dialogue. But it's very rare to see God (I.e. the God Christians believe in) to be an actual character. Why is that?  Are they (and who are they) afraid of offending someone?  Do they think they'll get the character wrong so why bother?  Or do they think it would end up being too political (I.e. God is Alanis Morrisette)?  Maybe it would require too many other explanations and make it too complicated?

Who the hell knows!  But it is interesting. How might a God character be added to Supernatural?  How would they spin it?  Would it be male or female?  (In side references God has always been referred to as a he in the show.  Is that on purpose?  Is it trying to demonstrate a man's inability to believe God could take a female form?)  How would they explain where he or she has been all this time?

And why have so few angels ever actually seen or spoken to him or her?  Is there another side to that storyline?  Is it possible there actually isn't a God but actually just an extremely powerful angel who has mislead everyone?

Sam:

At the start of the show I liked Sam. Now in season 9 I'm no longer a big fan. He's lost a lot of his compassion and empathy. He's bitter and jaded. He's almost too emotional. And it's not because of the things that have happened to him but rather his building hatred of Dean. He's holding a massive grudge against Dean and can't let it go. (Although I'm not sure he should let it go.)

The thing I don't get about Sam is that he's been hanging out 24/7 with Dean for about 8-9 years now and somehow he's still surprised at Dean's behaviour. Come on!  Dean is a freakin open book!  You can easily predict how he's going to react to any situation involving Sam. And any situation in general. I don't think Dean has actually changed that much in 9 years. He's actually been pretty consistent. So why the hell is Sam so shocked when he finds out that Dean allowed an angel to possess him in order to make Sam better?  What did he think Dean was going to do?  Sit back and let him die?  It's not like he's been able to let Sam go before - why would he be able to do that now?

Dean:

Dean is the quintessential big brother. He will act like a big brother to Sam until the day he dies (permanently) no matter how old they are. Engrained in his brain is the fact that he must - at all costs - protect Sam. 

But Dean is also attached to Sam like a kid attached to their special blanket. Sam is Dean's handle on reality. He last link to family and life. Dean is terrified of being alone. He can't imagine life without Sam. I think if he had another family member to take care of he'd be able to let Sam go, but he has no one else, so Sam gets the full brunt of his fears. Dean believes in family to a fault, and he doesn't understand people who don't understand the concept of family, including Sam. To Dean, family trumps everything. And you always forgive family. 

Stereotypes:

Dean also acts like a typical guy. He drinks too much. He likes cool cars. He doesn't like to read. He likes guns. He likes women. He doesn't get too emotional. He has rules he can apply to almost any situation. He doesn't quite get subtle hints. He's easily distracted. And the list goes on. 

Sam is almost the complete opposite, almost as if the writers were making Sam the pseudo girl in the story!  Ironically the only time Sam acts like a stereotypical guy is when he lost his soul. How's that for hidden meaning!?!

Supernatural has had no strong female roles. There was Ellen and Jo, but they were quite short lived and Sam and Dean always seemed to be rescuing them. There's Charlie, whom I really like, but she's not really a regular character - and now they've sent her off to Oz!  Oz? Really?  Short of story lines were we?  There's Sam and Dean's mom, but she's almost like a curse to them instead of a help. And then there's Ruby - who turned on Sam.  And Meg - whose another demon.  I guess Meg lasted the longest as a strong female character, but the fact that "good" Meg was another actress was weird. 

Ironically Abedon - the knight of hell whose trying to take over from Crowley - might be the most significant female character right now.  

Crowley:

I think the accent makes it hard for me to think of him as truly evil. He's self-centred and full of himself, but he does have some redeeming qualities. And he's funny and sarcastic, which makes me think there's hope for him.  I just wish he'd wear a different suit once in awhile!

It's too late at night to continue thinking about this!

Edmonton Public Library Book Sales

This past Friday I went to my first EPL book sale at Stanley Milner Library downtown. I'd heard about them many times before and never got around to going. Now I'm going to have to go every time!  I think the next one is in November!!

I'm not 100% sure where they get the books they sell. Some are definitely from the stacks, as they have stickers on them. But some appear to be from other sources. I guess it's possible that some were books that were donated but not needed for the stacks. But there were a lot of boxes from Better World Books as well - which makes me wonder if BWB tries to sell their donated books to raise funds. Not sure. 

Regardless I was really impressed with the selection AND the quality. Some of the books were fairly recently released in brand new condition. And for paperbacks it only costs $1 per book and hardcovers are $2 per book. You really can't go wrong there!

They also sell DVDs, music CDs, and audio books. Plus they have a table of special stuff that's specially priced. I don't know about the CDs or audio books, but the DVDs were $2 each and I got 6 of them. All movies I've seen before but didn't own. There were probably more I could have taken but I held back!!

I bought only fiction books this time. They had tables of non fiction as well but I didn't spend too much time there because I saw them last and was already tired!  Plus it was more crowded in that room.  Next time I'll start with the non fiction!!

The sales are always 3 days long - Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Sunday's they sell the books for $10 a box. Considering I filled a box about ½ full and paid $34 - the $10 a box deal is excellent. The only problem is that you're left with whatever remains on Sunday after 2 days of people going through everything. 

I'd go back today (Sunday) but I'm sure what I got Friday is enough for this week!

One of the books I got is for my mom for Christmas. The next sale in November may offer even more Christmas presents!!  It's August and I've already bought about ½ my Christmas presents for this year!  Yay!

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear

Recently a man was found dead in Yellowstone. It was determined that he was killed by a grizzly bear. They found the bear, which turned out to be a female with two cubs. She had apparently killed the man, ate some of him and cached the rest. 

While a mamma bear protecting her young can become violent and kill humans she feels are a threat, it is apparently unusual for her to stick around and feed on the body. 

Because of this unusual behaviour, park authorities decided they had to kill the bear for fear it would attack other humans. They also captured the two cubs and are sending them to a zoo. 

The Yellowstone NP Facebook page has been very open and transparent about the whole situation and has been accepting of the negative feedback from folks who don't agree with their actions. 

I think, from a public relations perspective, they've handled the situation rather well. They've been good about not glossing over any of the facts and have outlined the facts that allowed them to make their decision. 

Obviously not everyone has agreed with their decision. Some folks have commented that the man who died made the decision to hike in off trail areas, alone and without bear spray or other protection. And that because of these decisions he made he put himself at risk and therefore the bear shouldn't be killed because of his actions. 

Other folks are upset that so many people are on the side of the bear and not the man. And that people should feel sorry for the man and not the bear. 

Some people are on the side that the bear means nothing compared to humans and shouldn't be given a second thought. Others feel that the bear meant something but should still have been put down. 

My personal opinion is that I don't like the killing of wild animals in wild places that were just being wild animals. And even though she did more than a defensive mamma normally would, she didn't do more than a bear would. She might have started by defending her cubs but when the threat was gone she may have realized she had sustenance for her cubs. 

Regardless, I don't think the man should be blamed for what happened. He paid for what happened with his life and that is extremely sad. We have no idea what he did or didn't do while he was out hiking, or how exactly the situation unfolded. Whatever it was he did or didn't do, I'm pretty sure he didn't purposely go after the bear or cubs. He was technically no threat to them, even if mamma thought he was. As such he certainly didn't deserve to die. 

But I also don't think the bear deserved to die. She deserved a second chance. Ironically humans get more forgiveness for more vile acts than wild animals do. I think, at the very least, they could track her and watch her behaviour. If she proved to be dangerous they could have reevaluated. But if she went on being a non-rogue bear then they could have just left her alone and the park would have three majestic bears instead of none of them. 

I've said before, and I'll say it again, that if I'm ever killed or mauled by a bear that I wouldn't want the bear killed if it wasn't doing anything unbearlike. As a human I understand the risks I take being in a bear's very limited territory. I have a lot more safe space than it does, if I didn't want to take the risk, I'd stay home. 

I'm sad that there are people who feel the bear is better off dead because it means nothing and wild animals aren't important. Those folks, unfortunately, don't understand the concepts of conservation and preservation. 

I can respect both sides of the argument as far as the two sides who believe the bear had worth. I can't respect those who feel the bear was expendable and that nature is useless. 

Theatre Trial - Final Verdict

I don't know why, but I didn't post right away after the verdict on Friday. I let it simmer in my head first. 

I also read some comments that were posted on The Denver Channel's website where they had live video. 

Overall, I am surprised. I honestly thought they were headed towards the death penalty. After all, the Boston bomber got the death penalty and he only killed 3 people. 

I don't think they were swayed by emotion but I do think they may have been swayed by the fact that Holmes is mentally ill. Interestingly, I had read that Brachler worked to keep the death penalty just for Holmes. If a jury won't sentence Holmes to death in Colorado, I seriously doubt they'd sentence anyone else to death. This might actually spell the beginning of the end of the death penalty in Colorado. 

While I'm surprised by the jury's decision,  I have to admit if I had been in their shoes I'm not sure I could vote to sentence someone like Holmes to death either. Holmes isn't a clear cut case where you can sentence him to death and not feel any guilt or remorse. Someone like Paul Bernardo, however, is. I don't blame the jury for not giving him the death penalty, it would probably have weighed on them, unfairly, for years. Maybe the rest of their lives. And it's not like the other option was that he went free, so they can feel good knowing he won't be able to do this again and he's being punished. 

I think the media was surprised by the outcome. And I'm sure some of the victim's families are feeling justice wasn't obtained. I know that there were quite a few people posting comments online that were quite angry at the verdict. But others that were understanding. In the court of public opinion, no unanimous verdict has been reached either. 

After the verdict was read the judge dismissed the jury with his thanks and scheduled the next sentencing hearing for the remaining counts (attempted murder and the explosives count). In these cases the judge gets to decide sentencing. And while he'll be fair, it really doesn't matter what he decides as it won't change Holmes' situation in any way. Kind of seems like a waste of time actually. 

I wonder what prison he'll be sent to. I imagine he won't stay in the county jail for life, but who knows. And I wonder if they'll put him in the general population. I doubt it, they didn't do that at the county jail. But at the county jail he hadn't been convicted yet. Hmmmmm. I also wonder what type of psychiatric treatment he'll get in prison. He had good treatment up until now, but he was still waiting for his trial and everyone under the sun ended up assessing him. It is possible his treatment will go downhill from here on out. I'm not sure the U.S. prison system is known for its good mental health programs. 

The next sentencing hearing isn't till the end of August. And that won't be overly exciting. I'm going to have to find something else to watch! 

Theater Trial - Sentencing Hearing - Phase 3 - Waiting

August 7th, 2015

At around 11am today court was back in session for a very short time because the jury had sent out a request to view a specific video.  The video in question, prosecution exhibit 1000, is a video of the crime scene.  You can only imagine why the jury would want to view a video of the crime scene when trying to determine if the defendant should be sentenced to death!

The prosecution, obviously, had no problems with this.  The defence originally didn't either, but then changed their minds and didn't want to jury to see the video.  The judge disagreed because the video was already in evidence and he'd already instructed the jury they were allowed to see any of the evidence.

However, this is where things get weird, and I don't understand how court proceedings work.  When the jury is deliberating, all the evidence is placed into the jury room with them.  They can look at any item they want (guns, photos, printouts, journals, reports, etc.) anytime they want, and for as long as they want.  But things that are electronic - videos, emails, audio recordings - are only sent back in their disc format and the jury has to request equipment to watch/view/hear the item.  In this case, the judge will allow them to do that, but he'll only agree to send the equipment back for a limited time AND only allow them to watch the item once.  Why?  They can sit and stare at a gun for hours if they want - but they can't watch and rewind a video?  That doesn't make sense to me.  If the video was printed out in photos, they could look at them as much as they wanted, but because it's in electronic format, they can't.  Is the court prejudice against electronic forms of evidence?  Considering the world we live in, that's pretty stupid.

Court is back in recess and the jury is probably viewing the video by now.

And so ... we continue to wait ...

p.s. Considering Holmes sat through months of this trial barely moving or making any sort of facial expression or expressing any sort of emotion, I'm wondering what he's doing right now.  He's obviously aware of what's going on, but either can't or won't react to it.  So is he sitting in his cell right now just waiting, but not contemplating what all this means?  Or is he aware of what this means and does he have thoughts and emotions about it?  Is he capable of emotions?  Can he feel scared?  Regardless of whether he knew what he did was wrong, he must have some feelings about what happens to him.  Is just not able to express those emotions, but he feels them.  Or can he not feel them either?  Has the combination of disease and drugs essentially eliminated his emotions?  Or only removed his ability to show them?  I don't know why I find this interesting, but I do.

Theater Trial - Sentencing Hearing - Phase 3 - Closing Arguments

August 6th, 2015

There’s a 9-1-1 call that someone in the theater made where you can hear the never-ending gun shots happening in the background.  I don’t know what gunshots sound like live, but the ones in the recording sound like they’re coming from a big gun.  Holmes brought both an assault rifle and a shotgun into the theater, so it’s probably one of those.  The sound of the gunshots plus the sounds of screams is something you’ll never forget, and Brachler ended his closing argument with that recording while the photos of the 12 murder victims slowly disappeared from the screen.  If that’s not impactful, I don’t know what is.

Ms. Brady is doing her closing argument now.  All the defense attorneys are really good.  And you can tell they do care about what they’re doing.  Holmes, I don’t know if he realizes it, should be incredibly grateful for such an awesome legal team at no charge to him, even if he’s sentenced to death.  I really believe they did everything possible to try to prevent a death sentence, but he literally gave them nothing to work with.

And you can tell that they all take this extremely seriously, and this is quite emotional to them as well.  Ms. Higgs seemed on the verge of tears at the end of phase 2.  Ms Brady is very emotional now doing her closing arguments.  While it could be an act, I seriously doubt it is.  I don’t think someone could be a public defender if they were uncaring or not empathetic.  

Brady is saying that death is not a punishment for mental illness and that death is not justice for someone with a mental illness.  That may be, but the alternative is life in prison without parole.  Is life in prison better for someone with a mental illness?  Isn’t being locked in a prison for the rest of his life - which could be over 50 years - going to make him worse?  The fact that his delusions aren’t gone, won’t life in prison make those delusions worse?  Isn’t there a possibility that locking him away in prison might end up making him become violent again?  He’ll definitely be medicated the rest of his life, but that medication hasn’t changed his mind about his delusions, it’s only somewhat calmed him in a way as to prevent him from acting out.  Is he going to get the proper treatment in prison?  

From a logical perspective, regardless of what the verdict is, his case is going to be appealed for decades.  He’s going to be locked up for years before any final decision is made, unless he tells his attorneys not to appeal.  

As I’m watching this it occurs to me that I’m not sure if the death penalty is something a jury should be made to decide.  Brady is really laying the guilt on thick.  I’m sure many of the jurors are strong people, but I’m not sure this is a decision they should have to live with the rest of their lives.  They did nothing wrong, that seems like a lot of stress for someone who is technically not involved in the legal system.  I can’t help but think that the death penalty should be decided by the judge, or a group of judges.  Maybe the death penalty should be decided by a group of judges in the area where the crime happened.  

3:12pm - closing arguments complete - jury released to deliberate.

End of Phase 2 Sentencing Hearing

I started the day by watching/listening to the rest of yesterday’s testimony that I missed, though I skipped the parts where they simply played video recordings of previous testimony, as I saw those things when they were live.

Holmes’ mom was on the stand yesterday, but I only managed to get a short way into her testimony before the feed went live today.  What I did hear so far was sad.  His mom is way more emotional than his dad, but I guess that’s fairly normal.  One thing I did hear was his mom talking about the psychiatrist in Colorado calling them to talk about Holmes.  Apparently the psychiatrist was technically not allowed to do that, but she decided to reach out anyway.  However, she limited what she said to his parents and did not tell them that he said he was thinking of killing people.  His mom broke down and said over and over how she would have been on a plane immediately if the psychiatrist had told her Holmes was thinking of killing people.  From the way she said this, I think she blames Dr. Fenton, the psychiatrist in question, for everything that happened.

On the one hand I can understand why Dr. Fenton was limited in what she could say, but I can’t help but think that she could have simply said “I think you need to come see him.”  Maybe that would have implied heavily enough to his parents that they needed to do something.  I can also understand the guilt his poor mom must feel.  She probably feels that this is somewhat her fault for not noticing anything was wrong.  And I’m sure she feels guilty for not trying to do anything, even though there was really no way for her to know what was going on.

Based on the testimony I’ve heard so far from both Holmes’ parents, it appears that they both noticed things not going well in the spring of 2012, but they never took that to assume he’d go so far as to kill a dozen people.  But then again - who would!?  This guy was pretty normal up until then … even if he was suffering from a mental illness.  And while there is mental illness in his family, none of his family members ever became violent as part of their illnesses, so I wouldn’t think it would be a conclusion anyone would draw about him based solely on family medical history.

I personally don’t think his parents are to blame at all.  To me, while they could have probably been a little more open with their kids in terms of talking about uncomfortable topics, they were trying to weigh interference with independence.  I’m not a parent, but I’m pretty sure I can safely assume that all parents have a rough time with their kids when they’re transitioning from being a kid to an adult.  You want to let them do their own thing, but you also want to continue to protect them.  Based on his age and his circumstances I’m pretty sure his parents were simply trying not to get too much into his business because they probably felt he had to live his own life.

I also don’t think they’re to blame from a nurture perspective.  He wasn’t raised in a household with an alcoholic parent who beat him or abused him.  He was raised in a good family with lots of love and support.  So his behaviour - to me - is more nature.  Unfortunately something in his brain made him think this was an appropriate thing to do - and no amount of education or talking would have prevented him from thinking this way.  I think the only thing that would have stopped him would have been hospitalization or supervision.  Which raises another point.  The defense and prosecution were arguing today about the jury instructions for phase 2.  They disagreed over whether Dr. Fenton had the legal ability to commit Holmes to a mental institution for 72 hours without his consent.  I think the prosecution thinks she had the ability and didn’t do it, while the defense thinks she didn’t have the ability and didn’t do it.

Unfortunately both sides seem to think that the whole event would not have happened had it not been for Holmes’ mental illness - and I do agree with that.  But that creates a slippery slope.  What’s the alternative?  Lock someone up because they MIGHT do something?  This isn’t Minority Report!  And even if his mental illness was the sole reason why he did what he did, I don’t think anyone, including the doctors he say before the event, would have thought he’d do something so quickly.  Where they should have intervened, in my opinion, is when he dropped out of school and said he wasn’t going to see them anymore.  To me this should have been a trigger to get them moving on some kind of intervention.  Hindsight is 20/20 though and I’m pretty sure those doctors feel absolutely terrible for what happened.  I don’t even know if they’re still practicing or if they’ve stopped.

So far the mitigating factors that the defense has presented all have to do with Holmes as a kid and the fact that he was genetically disposed to having a mental illness.  I’ve sort of already talked about the 2nd point - that it’s hard to do anything to someone if you think they might do something in the future.  It’s not like some types of cancer where you can have pre-emptive surgery.  But it’s actually the 1st point that bothers me the most.  I really don’t care what he was like as a kid, or even a teenager.  He didn’t commit this crime when he was a kid or a teenager.  And lots of kids and teenagers grow up and develop different personalities and behaviours.  Actually I’d say most do.  I’m nothing like I was when I was in grade 5 - and I wouldn’t want to be judged NOW on what I was like in grade 5.  I don’t think being a good kid means you’ll be a good adult, and vice versa.  Therefore I have a hard time considering all that stuff as mitigating factors in this hearing.  But I’m not on the jury.

And the jury has already agreed that Holmes wasn’t legally insane at the time of the crimes, even if he was mentally ill.  I don’t think mental illness excuses people from punishment for their behaviour - especially if they were not legally insane.  As such, I have yet to hear a single piece of evidence or testimony that would make me think there is a reasonable mitigating factor to consider for Holmes that would preclude him from the death penalty.  We simply cannot ignore the magnitude of what he did.  He didn’t just kill someone he was mad at, or one random individual.  He planned months in advance to shoot at hundreds of people in a dark movie theater while making sure they were unable to escape or flee.  He purchased, practiced with, and used 4 guns.  He wore clothing and equipment to prevent himself from being identified, hurt, or emotionally damaged by what he was doing.  He created a death trap in his apartment to divert the attention of the police.  These are all proven facts.  It’s not like he ‘started small’ … he went BIG time right away!  I think maybe the worst part is that he STILL thinks this way and believes in his theory of human capital.  He may or may not be sorry for killing 12 people and injuring 70 others.  The only death he’s expressed regret about is the little girl’s.  

**********

I’m confused.  I just watched the rest of Mrs. Holmes’ testimony.  When asked why she had only visited her son 3 times since he was arrested, her comments were that it was partly because the requirements for visiting Holmes are so strict that they’re difficult to do implement regularly.  I’m surprised by this.  In 3 years I’m sure the authorities would have made the proper arrangements more than 3 times if they were asked.  I’m pretty sure that the lawyers of the jailed person in question could argue that not being allowed visitors on a regular basis - just as any other inmate is allowed - is cruel and unusual punishment.  But I didn’t hear the end of Mrs. Holmes’ statement, so I’m not sure what else she said, but I think she must have mentioned something about Holmes not wanting visitors, but I’m not 100% sure she said that.

The rest of Mrs. Holmes’ testimony was what I anticipated.  Nothing unexpected was talked about.  And while she broke down again, it wasn’t as severe as earlier in her testimony.  She did admit that her family is not very talkative and isn’t good at talking about their emotions.  She also talked about how it was possible that she didn’t know her sister-in-law was so sick and claims to have asked her mother-in-law about it and was lied to.  

Ms. Pearson did ask her some follow-up questions, but not very many, and she wasn’t very forceful.

**********

I then went back to watch the rest of today’s testimony that I missed - and wow did I miss something!  Apparently while Mr. Brachler was doing his closing arguments for phase 2 there was a woman in the audience who started yelling in the courtroom.  They arrested her and finished the closing arguments.  Then they had a contempt hearing for this woman - Debra (or Deborah) Cave.  The judge found her guilty of contempt and sentenced her to 3 weeks in the county jail!  But the most interesting part was her continuation of her rant directly to the judge.  She claims she tried to do things the proper way, but was denied.  I have no idea what she meant by that.  But apparently she’s sent Holmes letters and cards and photos while he’s been in jail since 2012.  And she was pissed that authorities at the courthouse asked her questions and made her show them her identification.  She’s also very upset that Colorado has a death penalty and claims that the only thing to come out of this trial is that the court will create 12 new murderers.

The judge, obviously, was not pleased.  But interestingly this is the first time something like this has happened at the trial, so in some ways that’s pretty impressive.  You’d think for a case this big, and one broadcasted live, that you’d see more outbursts, but we didn’t.

**********

I’m now watching Ms. Brady’s closing arguments for phase 2.  She was really good.  And she made a lot of good points.  She played to the jury’s emotions and morality.  The key point she made was that the severeness of the mental illness (i.e. mitigating factor) outweighs the aggrevators they’ve already heard about.  

Ms. Brady very strongly implied that the medication that he was prescribed before the incident caused his delusions to become more real and remove any thoughts he had of doubt.  She basically claimed that it was the medication’s fault.  There’s no actual evidence of that - but I wonder if the drug company will end up being sued by someone?

Now Brachler’s closing arguments for phase 2.  Obviously Brachler’s main argument is that there are no mitigating factors that outweigh any of the aggrevating factors.  That the crime was so awful and terrible that none of Holmes’ personal history or mental illness can make up for what he did.

Brachler made an excellent point.  He mentioned the fact that it is absolutely right for the jury to feel sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Holmes.  But that sympathy for someone other than the defendant isn’t allowed by law as a mitigating factor.  You can’t spare him from the death penalty because you feel sorry for his mom.

Brachler is also talking about Holmes’ childhood and rightly pointed out that kids change as they grow up.  (Brachler is still referring him to as “this guy.”)  

Brachler is asking the jury whether it would make a difference if Holmes only murdered 3 people or 4 people.  And he’s going through each of the murder victims.  Obviously he’s making the point that the murder victim list goes on forever, and it should not make a difference what the number was because what he did was so awful.

Brachler is now poking fun at Ms. Brady’s closing argument and the mitigating factors provided by the defense via the phase 2 jury instructions.  It’s at this point that he gets interrupted by the woman who started yelling.  Interestingly, everyone turned around to see what was happening - except Holmes.  He continued to stare straight ahead.

He’s now making a point that the expert witnesses have said the mental illness isn’t the mitigating factor, but rather if that mental illness affected his ability to function.  

“Malingering” is apparently the word they use to say whether or not someone is faking a mental illness.  The doctors who have all spoken with him have said he is not malingering (i.e. not faking).  

Brachler made another good point - that even though doctors have said that the event on July 20th would not have happened if he wasn’t mentally ill.  But one of those doctor’s also pointed out that the event wouldn't have happened had he not moved to Colorado.  So Brachler is trying to make the point that where do you draw the line?  It’s a good point - do you blame the school for accepting him into the program and then not helping him do a good enough job?  do you blame his girlfriend for breaking up with him?  do you blame the stores where he bought his equipment for shipping the items to him?  do you blame the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for approving his gun license application?

The jury is now in deliberations, but I'm not sure if they're working Friday or have the day off.