Judge John Hodgman Episode 82: Sort Reform and The Right Not to Bare Arms

Jonathan Coulton

TO OUR FRIENDS AND LISTENERS affected by hurricane Sandy: our thoughts and best wishes go out to you.

Judge Hodgman suggests that if you would like to assist with the relief effort for those affected by the storm, to consider a donation to the Red Cross.


A very special edition of Judge John Hodgman, recorded in front of a live audience in New York City at WNYC's Jerome L. Greene Performance Space on October 21, 2012.

This week:
Sort Reform
David brings the case against his wife Natily. The issue? LAUNDRY. When it's clean, how should it be folded and prepared to put away? David sorts it into two big piles: his and hers. Natily prefers to have her clothing sorted by article. Judge Hodgman puts them both through the wringer!

The Right Not to Bare Arms
Peter and Barbara bring their case involving parenting and medicine to the court. Barbara recently struck a bargain with their daughter at the doctor's office: if she would take her flu shot without crying, Mom and Dad would each get a flu shot, too. Peter wasn't there to weigh in on the deal and refuses to honor it. Did Barbara have the right to make this bargain, and should Peter comply?

Plus: a session of "If It Pleases the Court" with musical performances from special guest Jonathan Coulton. Check out his album Artificial Heart now, and look for his Christmas album with John Roderick this winter.

The team at the Greene Space for their help in making our live shows possible!
Dr. Elizabeth Gifford for medical expertise!
Jonathan Coulton for music based on domestic disputes!
And our live litigants, for bringing their problems before strangers!



William Christopher!

The internet cares that I recognized that immediately, right? And furthermore, that I loved that series and can't wait to share it with my daughter? Holy crap, I lost my mind when I heard this. Thanks Judge!

Information on Thimerosal in Vaccines

If it please the court I'd like to enter the following post-verdict information from the FDA website into the court records:

The following is an excerpt from http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccine...

Furthermore, all new vaccines licensed since 1999 are free of thimerosal as a preservative. Inactivated influenza vaccine was added to the routinely recommended vaccines for children 6 to 23 months of age in 2004. FDA has approved thimerosal–preservative free formulations (containing either no or only trace amounts of thimerosal) for the inactivated influenza vaccines manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur and Chiron. These influenza vaccines continue to be marketed in both the preservative free and thimerosal-preservative containing formulations. In addition, in August 2005, FDA licensed GlaxoSmithKline's inactivated influenza vaccine, which contains 1.25 micrograms mercury per dose. Of the three licensed inactivated influenza vaccines, Sanofi Pasteur's Fluzone is the only one approved for use in children down to 6 months of age. Chiron's Fluvirin is approved for individuals 4 years of age and older, and GSK's Fluarix is approved for individuals 18 years of age and older. The live attenuated influenza vaccine (FluMist, manufactured by MedImmune), which contains no thimerosal, is approved for individuals 5 to 49 years of age. For the 2005-2006 season, Sanofi Pasteur was able to manufacture up to 8 million doses of thimerosal-preservative free influenza vaccine. Based on an estimated annual birth cohort in the United States of 4 million, there are 6 million infants and children between the ages of 6 and 23 months, most of whom would need two doses each. Thus, the amount of thimerosal-preservative-free vaccine that is available based on current manufacturing capacity is well below the number of doses needed to fully vaccinate this age group. FDA is in discussions with manufacturers of influenza vaccine regarding their capacity to further increase the supply of preservative-free formulations.

But what about Audrey 2? Is a

But what about Audrey 2? Is a giant man-eating plant not a monster? And yet, would you still declare said plant-monster to be an animal?

And Trifids

And Trifids

And further, even within the

And further, even within the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual there is the Shrieker which is, explicitly, a fungus.

Other non-animal monsters in

Other non-animal monsters in the various Monster Manual: Green slime, brown mold, all elementals & most golems. I would say that "monster" is a characteristic (like "air-breather") rather than a sub-kingdom.