Uncle John’s Unsinkable Bathroom Reader

by Bathroom Readers' Institute

  JUICE BOX

  In 2004 Mattel introduced the Juice Box, a personal, handheld, candy-colored video player for kids. But the Juice Box didn’t play DVDs—kids (or their parents) had to buy the special $10 discs especially made for the device (titles included episodes of Scooby-Doo and SpongeBob SquarePants). To keep the device affordable (it retailed for $70), Mattel had to scrimp on technology: While regular video runs at 30 frames per second, Juice Box videos ran at 10 frames per second, producing a choppy image on a screen less than three inches wide, and in black and white. Industry experts say that despite its limitations, what ultimately forced the Juice Box off the market within a year of its introduction was the increasing popularity of built-in DVD players in cars and minivans.

  A “Mayday” call is for imminent death or disaster; a “Pan Pan” call is used for most other boating emergencies.

  VIRTUAL BOY

  In the early 1990s, the next big thing in electronics was supposed to be virtual reality. Wearing a special helmet, a person would be able to inhabit lifelike imaginary, computerized worlds. But the only virtual-reality product ever released was a dud: Nintendo’s Virtual Boy video game system. The $180 machine looked like a pair of binoculars perched on a tabletop tripod. There were two problems with the setup. First, it wasn’t adjustable, resulting in lots of neck cramps; second, it was impossible to play with eyeglasses on. On top of that, the games weren’t in color—that would have pushed the price to more than $500, so they were rendered in a fuzzy black, red, and blue display which created a 3-D effect. The image was so difficult to see that headaches due to eye strain were common (the Virtual Boy had a built-in feature that made it turn off every 15 minutes to give players a chance to rest their eyes). Only 14 games were made for the system, including Virtual Bowling and Virtual Fishing. Only about 700,000 were sold, making it the biggest flop in Nintendo history.

  CAPTAIN POWER

  Televideo Interactive debuted in 1987 with Captain Power, the first of what was supposed to be a line of toys that interacted with TV shows. The toys were spaceships and military command centers that kids put in front of the TV during action sequences of Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future broadcasts. The toys fired at the screen, and the screen fired back, causing the spaceship to light up, shake, and make noise. If an “enemy” from TV scored a “hit,” it would eject the pilot figure from the spaceship. The show itself was a live-action, high-budget production with lots of special effects…but it was a failure. Why? Because the show was no fun to watch without the toys (which cost upwards of $50), and the toys were no fun without the show, which featured a cast of no-name actors and aired in most markets in a seldom-watched 6:00 a.m. Sunday time slot.

  4 FAMOUS MEN WITH WOMEN’S MIDDLE NAMES

  1. Drew Allison Carey

  2. Richard Tiffany Gere

  3. Jeffrey Lyn Goldblum

  4. Quincy Delight Jones

  THE CSI EFFECT

  How real are the TV shows that focus on police and lawyers? A few go all out for accuracy, while others get laughed at by the professions they portray. But they’ve all had an impact on society…both positive and negative.

  FAMILIAR FORMULA

  If there were no cops, prosecutors, or defense attorneys, the television airwaves would probably be far less crowded. Over the past 60 years, these professions have dominated primetime schedules. Why? Both offer formulas ready-made for drama: A brand-new conflict is presented to the protagonists each week, promising to be full of mystery, intrigue, and…predictability. Viewers can rely on the fact that near the end of the viewing hour, one crucial piece of evidence will appear and lead to the capture of the elusive killer, or to the acquittal of the wrongly accused defendant. Then comes the philosophical musing that wraps everything up neatly, providing a clean slate for next week’s episode.

  Real life is rarely so cut-and-dried. And while some may argue that cop and lawyer shows are merely entertainment, actual cops and lawyers claim these shows can make their already-difficult jobs even harder.

  JURORS’ PRUDENCE

  The “CSI effect” occurs primarily inside the courtroom. Its first incarnation was referred to as the Perry Mason effect, based on the popular fictional defense attorney’s trademark ability to clear his client by coercing the guilty party into confessing on the witness stand. During Mason’s TV heyday, from the 1950s to the ’80s, many prosecutors complained that juries were hesitant to convict defendants without that “Perry Mason moment” of a confession on the stand—which in real life is very, very rare.

  After Perry Mason went off the air, a new kind of law enforcement program appeared: the scientific police procedural (which started with Quincy, M.E., a drama about a crime-solving medical examiner that aired from 1976 to ’83). But few cop shows have matched the success of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, which debuted in 2000 and has spawned two successful spin-offs. A 2006 TV ratings study in 20 countries named CSI “the most watched show in the world.”

  An olive tree can live to be 1,500 years old.

  MYTH-CONCEPTIONS

  Along with similar shows such as NCIS, Diagnosis: Murder, and Bones, CSI focuses on forensic evidence and lab work as the primary means of catching killers. These dramas may be “ripped from the headlines,” but when it comes to telling an entertaining story, certain liberties must be taken by the writers:

  • On television shows, detectives work one case at a time; in the real world, they juggle a deep backlog of cases.

  • Experts who perform scientific analyses are rarely the same people who do the detective work and make arrests, unlike TV where one team tackles every aspect of the investigation. (And few real forensic scientists ever drive a Hummer to a crime scene.)

  • The almost instant turnaround of DNA tests is what TV writers refer to as a “time cheat,” a trick necessary to get the story wrapped up. In reality, due to the screening, extraction, and replication processes (not to mention the backlog), DNA tests can take months. And the results are rarely, if ever, 100% conclusive.

  • Just about every murder investigation on TV leads to an arrest and conviction. In the real world, less than half of these cases are solved.

  “If you really portrayed what crime scene investigators do,” said Jay Siegel, a professor of forensic science at Michigan State University, “the show would die after three episodes because it would be so boring.”

  SHOW ME THE SCIENCE

  The main problem caused by the CSI effect: Juries now expect conclusive forensic evidence. According to Staff Sergeant Peter Abi-Rashed, a homicide detective from Hamilton, Ontario, “Juries are asking, ‘Can we convict without DNA evidence?’ Of course they can. It’s called good, old-fashioned police work and overwhelming circumstantial evidence.” In the worst-case scenarios, guilty people may be set free because a jury wasn’t impressed with evidence that—as recently as the 1990s—would have led to a conviction. In fact, many forensic experts find themselves on the stand explaining to a jury why they don’t have scientific evidence. Some lawyers have even started asking potential jurors if they watch CSI. If so, they may have to be reeducated.

  The Tonle Sap River in Cambodia flows south for eight months and north for the rest of the year.

  Shellie Samuels, the lead prosecutor in the 2005 Robert Blake murder trial, probably wishes that her jury had been asked beforehand if they were CSI fans. Samuels tried to convince them that Blake, a former TV cop himself (on Baretta), shot and killed his wife in 2001. Samuels illustrated Blake’s motive; she presented 70 witnesses who testified against him, including two who stated—under oath—that Blake had asked them to kill his wife. Seems like a lock for a conviction, right? Wrong. “They couldn’t put the gun in his hand,” said jury foreman Thomas Nicholson, who along with his peers acquitted Blake. “There was no blood spatter. They had nothing.” The verdict sent a clear message throughout the legal community: Juries will convict only on solid forensic evidence.

  This new trend affects cops, too
. CSI-watching detectives tend to put unrealistic pressure on crime scene investigators not only to find solid evidence, but also to give them immediate results. Henry Lee, chief emeritus of Connecticut’s state crime lab (and perhaps the world’s most famous forensics scientist), says that, much to the dismay of the police, his investigators can’t provide “miracle proof” just by scattering some “magic dust” on a crime scene. And there is no machine—not even at the best-equipped lab in the country—in which you can place a hair in at one end and pull a picture of a suspect out of the other. “And our type of work always has a backlog,” laments Lee, who’s witnessed the amount of evidence turned in to his lab rise from about five pieces per crime scene in the 1980s to anywhere from 50 to 400 today.

  MIRANDA WRONGS

  The CSI effect doesn’t stop at science—the entire judicial process is being presented in a misleading fashion. Mary Flood, editor of a Web site called The Legal Pad, asked a dozen prominent criminal lawyers to rate the most popular shows. Her findings: “Generally, they hate it when Law & Order’s Jack McCoy extracts confessions in front of speechless defense lawyers. Not real, they say. They go nuts over the CSI premise of the exceedingly well-funded, glamorous lab techs who do a homicide detective’s job. Even less real, they say. And they get annoyed when The Closer’s heroine ignores a suspect’s requests for a lawyer. Unconstitutional, they say.”

  Look closely: Approximately 50% of Americans are nearsighted.

  DUMB CROOKS

  In the real world, it’s usually neither the crusading prosecutor nor the headstrong cop who solves the case. Most criminals, cops admit, are their own worst enemies. Either they don’t cover their tracks or they brag to friends about what they did, or both. People tend not to think clearly when they commit crimes. But in the past few years there has appeared a new kind of criminal: the kind that watches CSI…and learns.

  In December 2005, Jermaine “Maniac” McKinney, a 25-year-old man from Ohio, broke into a house and killed two people. He used bleach to clean his hands as well as the crime scene, then carefully removed all of the evidence and placed blankets in his car before transferring the bodies to an isolated lakeshore at night, where he burned them along with his clothes and cigarette butts—making sure that none of his DNA could be connected to the victims. One thing remained: the murder weapon, a crowbar. McKinney threw it into the lake…which was frozen. He didn’t want to risk walking out on the ice to get it, so he left it behind. Big mistake: The weapon was later found—still on the ice—and linked to McKinney, which led to his arrest. When asked why he used bleach to clean his hands, McKinney said that he’d learned that bleach destroys DNA. Where’d he learn that? “On CSI.”

  Using bleach to clean a crime scene was almost unheard of until CSI used it as a plot point. Now the practice is occurring more and more often. “Sometimes I believe it may even encourage criminals when they see how simple it is to get away with murder on television,” said Captain Ray Peavy, head of the homicide division at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. It’s difficult enough to investigate a crime scene with the “normal” amount of evidence left behind.

  MAYBE DON’T SHOW THEM THE SCIENCE?

  So should these shows be censored? Should they tone down the science or, as some have argued, use fake science to throw criminals a red herring? “The National District Attorneys Association is deeply concerned about the effect of CSI,” CBS News consultant and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy reported. “When CSI trumps common sense, then you have a systemic problem.”

  World’s deepest mine: South Africa’s East Rand mine, which reaches a depth of 11,762 feet.

  But not everyone agrees. “To argue that CSI and similar shows are actually raising the number of acquittals is a staggering claim,” argues Simon Cole, professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine. “And the remarkable thing is that, speaking forensically, there is not a shred of evidence to back it up.”

  And furthering the debate about whether criminals learn from CSI, Paul Wilson, the chair of criminology at Bond University in Australia, stated, “There is no doubt that criminals copy what they see on television. However, I don’t believe these shows pose a major problem.” Prison, Wilson maintains, is where most of these people learn the tricks of their trade. So while law enforcement officials may agree that cop and lawyer shows do have an effect on modern investigations and trials, the jury is still out on exactly what that effect is.

  THE SILVER LINING

  The shows do have their positive aspects. For one thing, they teach basic science, saving the courts time and money by not having to call in experts to explain such concepts as what DNA evidence actually is. Anthony E. Zuiker, creator of the CSI franchise, is quick to point this out. “Jurors can walk in with some preconceived notions of at least what CSI means. And even if there are false expectations, at least jurors aren’t walking in blind.”

  Perhaps most significantly, though, ever since CSI became a hit in 2000, student admissions into the forensic field have skyrocketed. So even if Zuiker’s show is confusing jurors, misinforming police, and helping to train criminals, at least it’s proven to be an effective recruiting tool. “The CSI effect is, in my opinion, the most amazing thing that has ever come out of the series,” he said. “For the first time in American history, you’re not allowed to fool the jury anymore.”

  And finally, a message from Zuiker to anyone who walks up and points out his shows’ inherent flaws: “Folks, it’s television.”

  The average American home creates more pollution than the average American car.

  THE YARD SALE

  SHOPPER’S GUIDE

  On page 354, we gave you a step-by-step guide to having the perfect yard sale. So now you’ve got a wad of cash from your big sale. It’s time to go shopping…where else? At a yard sale! Here are some great bargain-hunting tips.

  THE ZEN OF YARD SALING

  Does it seem like every time you go to a yard sale, all the good stuff is already gone? Maybe that’s because all the serious shoppers have already been there. For some people, going to yard sales is a passion—and a science. Here are some tips from the experts (yes, there are experts), starting with how to get started.

  • Chart your course. Check your local paper and online posting sites the night before and map out a route. It ensures getting the most yard saling in for your time and your gas dollars. It also ensures that you won’t miss that “big super sale.”

  • Let fate lead you. Or just head out for a weekend drive and look for signs. It’s not the most efficient method, but it’s always fun.

  ITEMS TO AVOID

  • Anything electrical that you can’t plug in or put batteries in to try it before buying (unless its really cheap and worth the risk).

  • Anything that’s falling apart or on its last legs. (You will become a junk collector and—even worse—you’ll begin to look like one.)

  • Old records, unless you know for sure that they are rare collector’s items (or unless you actually still have a record player).

  • Expired food. Sounds obvious, but you occasionally come across packaged food or supplements at yard sales. It can be tempting because it’s cheap, but be sure to check the expiration date.

  • Furniture from cigarette smokers’ homes (unless you don’t mind the smell).

  ITEMS TO LOOK FOR

  • Things that you use regularly, even if you already have one. Examples: toaster oven, waffle iron, etc. When your old one finally goes kaput, you have a spare and won’t need to spend a lot of money on a new one.

  • Plants. They’re usually a good bargain, but do inspect them to be sure they’re healthy so you don’t spread disease or insects to the house plants you already have.

  • Random goofy or fun things for Halloween or costume dress-up.

  • Kids’/baby clothes, toys, and gear. If you need them, yard saling is the way to go. (They’re barely used.)

  • Cool things for friends and family. Everyone lo
ves surprise presents. You’ll make people happy and it will only cost you pennies.

  Only joint in the human body that can rotate 360°: the shoulder.

  GOOD THINGS TO BRING WITH YOU

  • Water bottle and snacks (and eat before you head out)

  • Small bills and change (it’s easier to bargain if you have the exact amount)

  • An assortment of batteries for checking appliances

  • A list of things you are looking for, including measurements

  • Tape measure

  • Your checkbook (in case you find an unexpected item you didn’t budget for, but suddenly can’t live without)

  • Rope (in case you buy something large and need to tie it to your car)

  PRICES

  • Be prepared to bargain; it’s part of the fun.

  • Rule of thumb: a price that’s ¼ of retail or less is a pretty good bargain.

  • If prices at a yard sale are too high and the people holding the sale won’t bargain, don’t fret—just head off to the next sale.

  RANDOM ADVICE

  • Rummage sales at churches and schools are great. It’s like a bunch of yard sales all in one room, and the prices tend to be low.

  • A useful over-generalization: A nicer neighborhood and house equals nicer stuff.

  • Look inside the box. Make sure that what’s inside is what you think it is. This applies to CDs and videocassettes, too.