Daffnee

Thanksgiving!

Thoughts on land use from the Code of Hammurabi:

"If a builder constructs a house for a man but does not make his work sound, and the house that he constructs collapses and causes the death of the householder, that builder shall be killed."

Furthermore,

"If it should cause the death of a son of the householder, they shall kill a son of that builder..."

Just updated Dan's link (top left), which now points to his art gallery.

This year is the first I've lived in my twenty-two years without a microwave. There were small logistical reasons for it -- as in, we have no kitchen space and an oversized dish rack -- but by and large, neither me nor the lovely roommate thought that we needed one. I thought I was doing the "good" thing by no longer nuking my oatmeal and looked forward to a microwave-free life.

But now my stove refuses to light. This isn't a travesty compared to, say, Darfur, but it feels like my attempt to reverse my pro-technology trend isn't being supported. I generally like technology a lot. I majored in physics. I watch a lot of Star Trek and don't laugh at the technobabble. I think the miniturization of electronics will save the world. I even defend genetically-modified foods, if only because I hope that their increased yields will convince governments to stop their agricultiral subsidies and allow free trade so we can finally feed the world. (I also think they taste the same.)

So I think it's very sad that my semi-high-tech gas stove doesn't like me, or my oatmeal, or my breakfast routine that stars hot water.

Just thought I'd share some mid-morning drama with y'all.

PS: Props x 2 to Marisa for finally starting to post again, and with a new pink-and-orange colour scheme too. Negative props to all those NYC bloggers I've just discovered that are taking over my life alongside the Wall Street Journal.

The Dean is holding court on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, so I thought I'd zone out momentarily.

So I screwed up royally yesterday -- got the boyfriend tickets to the Producers weeks ago, forgot about it when I scheduled for my clerking shift for moot court, and got an anxious phone call from concerned roomie (thanks, roomie) half an hour before the show informing me that the moot court Powers that Be were going to have my hide.

I'm normally a sensitive soul. I get very hurt when people yell at me, and am pathologically conflict-averse. Being on call in class makes me anxious for hours before and afterwards. Yet being bad with time has become such a "me" trait that the consequences don't even bother me any more -- I'm always several minutes late for class, screw up with scheduling all the time, and never seem to have time to do everything I mean to do in the mornings. It's not that I'm deficient or schizoid -- I know that it's a pain to tell lawyers that they're clerk-less for 2 rounds or that everybody hates "that person" who sits in the middle of a row and never gets there on time. I'm just so used to BEING "that person" that it's something of a rut.

So, people...get mad at me more when I screw up. I'll do my best to change on this end too, and hopefully before I get sued for malpractice.


That said...totally worth it. "Springtime for Hitler" is darned catchy. They have a Queer Eye being very, very gay. And any show that features a woman dressed up in Bavarian smokies deserves 12 Tonys.

I'm experiencing a revival of my anti-political tendencies. For the moment, foreign affairs punditing is to me what the solar system is to Sherlock Holmes:

"What the deuce is it (the solar system) to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or my work."

I blame the Genevan experience. I mean, those people were PAID to think about such things, and still didn't manage to do too much.

"Superfund toxicity standards are set by presuming that kids eat a spoonful of dirt every day for 70 years."

Why Moot Court, Though Time Consuming, Is Still Better Than Being On A Journal

(A) Once upon a time, Congress passed the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
(B) At about the same time -- that is, 2000 -- the Supreme Court got together (they didn't have confirmation buzz to distract them back then) and decided that:
  (1) You can't have narcotics checkpoints without warrants for all the drivers that come through, especially if you're from Indianapolis.
  (2) You can't test mothers to see if they're cokeheads and then tell the police if they are (especially if you're in Charleston).
  (3) It's ok to search a probationer's house with a warrant if he's dumb enough to
    (a) Not pay his power bill
    (b) Get his power cut off
    (c) Cause $1.5 million dollars in damage to a local power plant by way of revenge.

Now, what's funny is that when a bunch of prisoners get upset because of the law in (A), the courts run to (1), (2), and (3) to figure out if they have a right to be angry or they're just a bunch of dudes that got bored with lifting weights in the prison gym.

The reason these convicted felons are upset is that they don't want to give blood samples for their state's DNA database. That's understandable, especially if you plan on getting out and committing more felonies, or if you managed to not get nailed for some felonies you did do before you got into prison. By and large, everyone who's called a judge and sits behind a bench aren't very sympathetic -- I think there's 2 judges somewhere in the nation that say that the DNA Act is unconstitutional, and everyone else thinks it's just dandy.

Unfortunately (but fortunately for me), they don't think it's dandy for the same reasons. Half of the country thinks it's great because it's a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so it's not really a big deal that the police didn't do the honourable thing and get a warrant. The other ones think it's great because even though it is an illegal search and seizure of a felon's bodily fluids, it satisfies a "special need" beyond ordinary law enforcement and it's "special" enough to make it OK.

I personally think this basically amounts to the same thing. Something is apparently OK because it's OK. I'm not sure why half the country calls it a "special need" and the other thinks it's just "reasonable". I have a theory that the only reason there isn't a national consensus on the issue is because a few clerks had a little too much fun on their $40k a year (plus future clerking bonuses at XYZ LLP) and forgot to tell the judges that the "special needs" doctrine was an exception, and not a rule.

That said, I'm grateful for the very intelligent dissent among the circuit courts because it means that I get to write about it for my moot court problem next year. I have spent a wonderful Sunday reading about felons with strong attachments to their bodily fluids, talking to Mark for the first time in ages and reminiscing about Belarus in the Nagano Olympic hockey semifinal. I have consumed pork chops and many slices of chocolate cake. There is a boy in my room reading a novel dressed in a t-shirt and boxers. I called my Mum while my family is passed out comatose in my sister's dorm room after a ridiculous Sunday seafood buffet in Vancouver.

Fun fun.

I've rediscovered my television and Law and Order, which is actually horrible because L&O has spawned in my absence. There's an L&O marathon on TBS almost every night, serving to remind me exactly how exciting my life will be once I move to DC and acquire a large collection of textured black suits.

I've also discovered Battlestar Galactica, leading me to the conclusion that law school really is reducing me to a twelve-year-old.

I really need to study more -- but in my defense, that IS a Wall Street Journal the chocolate is dripping on to.

Weekend studying, New York style.

I don't usually pick up much wisdom in environmental law, but there was an exception today:

"What is an act of God? An act of God is an act that no reasonable god would do."

I'm reading about a dude with the unlikely name of Learned Hand. He's from Albany, was very smart, and did great things like "apply economic reasoning to tort law." It's fun.

I'm such a law nerd. I do, however, wish that I was also a law superstar.

And on the subject of stars, here are some samples from Hallowe'en weekend -- please notice the enthusiastic channeling of Audrey Hepburn.