O.K. I know it's been awhile. But Hillary's grandstanding in Florida has inspired me to post again: Apparently Hillary has a big lead in both NY and Cali going into the February 5th "National Primary." How can the Democrats be so stupid? The woman is NOT electable. But here's why I think Obama would actually make a good President:

When I support a person for President, I look at several factors. I want someone who shares my political beliefs, as well as the ability to put those beliefs into action. Now, on the basis of the first part, I want there to be a Democratic President. The people who say there's no difference between the parties are on crack. If you support diplomacy in international relations, economic fairness, gay rights, environmental protections, a woman's right to choose, and other liberal stances, you need to vote for a Democrat. Not a Green or other 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning (For the record, I support many of the goals of the Green activists, but I think they would be better off working within the Democratic party) But it isn't enough that the President is Democrat, s/he needs to have a strong commitment to liberal values. Hillary does not. She supported the Iraq War when it was popular, then changed her tune when it was discovered that the "Mission" wasn't "Accomplished" so easily. She is a complete political chameleon. I believe that Obama, who opposed the Iraq War before opposing the Iraq War was cool, is much less so.

Which brings me to my second point: character. I know this is a big Republican talking point, but there are many people with character on both sides of the aisle, and many people without character on both sides. I am now convinced that Hillary completely lacks character. My mother recently received an e-mail stating that Obama, due to some Islamic influence in his background (his stepfather is Indonesian), is like the Manchurian Candidate, who will sell out the US and Israel. It is clear that this was a "Jew letter" that she got. Chances are, there were "Christian letters", "gay letters", etc. (a gay friend of mine thinks Hillary would be so much better for gay rights, why, i don't know). Now, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that this letter is B.S (to her credit, my mother realized this at once) Obama had been elected Senator from Illinois, a state with a very large Jewish population. It is clear that if he had extremist Muslim leanings, it would have come out during that campaign. This is nothing but a smear campaign by the Clintons, who have apparently stooped to the level of the late Lee Atwater. (Remember Willie Horton? This is on that level) I find these attempts at emotional manipulation to be offensive in the extreme. I'll spare you the suspense: The next President, no matter who he (or she) is, will say that Israel deserves our support as an ally, but peace will only come via a two-state solution. It is the view of every mainstream Presidential candidate, my own view, and the view of the majority of the U.S. and Israeli populations (not to mention the view of every recent Israeli prime minister.) Hillary was also surely behind the recent rehashing of Obama's adolescent drug use. This is a complete non-issue, but the Clinton people had to arrange for this to be brought up, anyway. Obama admitted that he had used drugs (mostly pot, a drug that probably isn't even as bad as alcohol) as a kid, but hasn't in a long time, and is thankful that he found a better path. IMO, this shows alot more character than Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" bullshit, or Bush's vague answer. Obama trusts the American people to understand that this ancient history is not an issue.

Thirdly, a President needs to be able to get his plan enacted. It is better for the President to be a "big picture" guy, and leave the details to his appointees (and to be smart enough to appoint competent people, not failed horse judges as FEMA heads, ala Bush), and even to the civil servants below the appointees. It is thought that Jimmy Carter was a less effective President than he could have been becuase he had trouble delegating responsibility. This is why the fact that Obama has not served as governor or mayor is not so relevant (Governors and mayors tend to do less delegating; Carter apparently managed to get away with non-delegation as Governor of Georgia) But a President needs to have the charisma to inspire people to follow his "big picture" path. Obama does have this charisma, as anyone who has heard one of his speeches can attest. Hillary does not, as she inspires disgust in too many people.

So that, in a nutshell, is why I support Obama for President of the United States in 2008. I hope that all of you out there, who support progressive politics, will as well.

NOTE: None of this is intended to be an endorsement of the Republican candidate should Hillary get the Democratic nomination. I realize that I was fairly harsh on her, but I still think she would be better than either McCain, Romney, or (heaven help us) Huckabee.

So, apparently, Hillary has narrowly edged out Obama in today's New Hampshire primary. With a whole batch of primaries coming up, including Super Tuesday, now is a good time to state that after months of indecision, I have decided to support Obama. Here's why:

1. Electability. I want the next President to be a Democrat. Pure and simple. If you are at all liberal-leaning, this election is extremely important, and it is important to support a Democrat. Take the Supreme Court, for instance. Read The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin. The book will open your eyes to the power of the Radical Right when a Republican is in office. Remember Harriet Miers, Bush's original appointment to fill O'Connor's seat? She was rejected, not because she was never a judge, and was one of Bush's cronies, but because Bush's conservative buddies thought she was too liberal (and she is actually very conservative) Gone are the days when a Republican president will accidentally appoint a liberal to the Court (like Eisenhower's selection of Earl Warren or Bush Sr.'s nomination of David Souter). In the future, the prospective judicial candidates will have their records reviewed with a fine tooth comb; Bush Jr. knew what he was doing with Roberts and Alito. And this is of concern because it is likely that the next three justices to retire will be Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter, three of the last four liberals. (Stevens is pushing 90). And it's not just abortion. I actually have fairly moderate views on that topic. But the Supreme Court produces opinions that have effects on every area of American life, from civil rights to gay rights, to the environment, to church-state separation. And the Supreme Court is just one area in which a Republican has the power to inflict lasting damage. Do we want 4 more years of antagonizing foreign countries, of global warming denial, of refusal to do anything about health care in America?

Having said this, I want to argue that, at this point, the Democratic nomination will likely go to either Obama or Hillary. In the last few months, I have met two people who told me they would leave the country if Hillary became President. I have not met anyone who felt the same way about Obama. In addition, I have met many others who can't stand the former First Lady, although emigration would not be in their plans if she got elected. These are not staunch Republicans, many even tend to lean Democrat. I have to assume that these folks represent millions of politically moderate Americans who just have a personal repulsion to Mrs. Clinton. Now, I don't worry that these people will actually leave the country if Hillary got elected, but I can count on them voting for whoever the GOP eventually nominates, even if it's a far right guy like Huckabee. (McCain wouldn't be quite as bad, but I suspect that any GOP nominee will be beholden to the far right, despite any earlier moderation). I don't know why Hillary inspires such visceral hatred, but she does. Let's nominate someone who doesn't inspire this hatred. Furthermore, Obama has the potential to rally a demographic that leans very Democratic, but often produces low turnout. I am referring to younger voters, between 18 and 30 years old. There is so much excitement among the college and recent graduate crowd for Barack's candidacy, that he may just be the candidate to get these kids to put down their X-Box controllers and go down to the polls.

Well, that's all for now. Next time i will discuss why i think Obama is not just more electable, but actually might make a decent President.

Current Mood: excited

Well, not a big surprise two people were killed in a DWI accident on New Years Eve. DWI is a big problem in New Mexico, as it is nationally, especially on New Year's Eve. The state has, from what I can tell, a fairly high rate of alcoholism, and fairly poor public transit (although, in Albuquerque, things are getting better, thanks to a few visionaries on the city council). My days as a public defender taught me that the DWI laws can be very oppressive (people have been arrested and convicted for sleeping it off in their cars!), but DWI is something that must be dealt with, both by the criminal justice system, and by those with the power to encourage alternatives.

Which is why I was irritated this past New Year's. I made a conscious decision not to drive. I do like to indulge on the holiday, as do most of us. And, I did find myself, at around 2 am on Jan. 1, while not puking or disoriented, but in a state in which I wouldn't be doing anyone any favors by driving. Good thing I had decided that evening to visit some friends who lived a couple of blocks away. So, I just walked home. And who did I meet on the way back, but our friends, the Albuquerque police force. A cop car pulled up behind me, and the cop got out and asked me where I was going, and where I was coming from. I told him that I was headed home, just a couple of blocks away. He continues to question me about where I was coming from. Finally, another cop pulled up behind him, and (I'm guessing) convinced him to let me go, and I continued on my way.

Now, what is going on in America? Are we turning into a police state? Since when does walking down the street constitute "reasonable suspicion," which the US Constitution requires of police officers if they are to stop someone? And this was a stop. A reasonable person in my position would not have felt free to keep going. Now this was just a momentary annoyance, but I suspect that if I were Mexican or Navajo it would have been much worse. I may have been arrested. this causeless arrest would have been completely illegal, and anything they found on me (I was clean, anyway) would have been thrown out by all but the most brain-dead judges. But, i probably would have sat in jail until I could bond out, or until the courts got around to my case. The only way that this stop would even be remotely proper would be if the cops had gotten a call that a person with my description had just been involved with a crime. But I suspect that this wasn't the case, the questions asked were too general.

I don't mean to pick on Albuquerque. It happened to me here, but the same thing happens to people all over the country, and if you are a minority in a predominantly white neighborhood after 5 p.m., it is very likely. When I was a grad student in St. Louis, I lived with two south asian students in an apartment near Washington University, at the edge of St. Louis proper. One night, they went to a movie. For some reason I didn't go with them. The movie theatre was just over the line in Clayton, one of the fancier suburbs, and they walked back. When they came back, they told me that while they were walking back a cop pulled up next to them, then sped up, and stopped an African American who was ahead of them. They started harassing him with all sorts of questions. My friends didn't know how the situation ended, but I can just imagine the cops saying "It's O.K., they're not black, they're Indian, there's a black man up ahead, let's stop him." Maybe I should be happy that the ABQ cops stop white boys as well. Equal opportunity police harassment. Still, don't the cops have more important things to worry about?

Which brings me to the point I was making at the beginning of my post. The DWI fatality occurred at around the same time as my stop, and not very far away. I have to imagine that these cops were stopping many pedestrians that night. Perhaps if the cops weren't so concerned with some guy who just wanted to get home and get some sleep, they might have noticed a car being driven so erratically (which was what the eyewitnesses to the DWI fatality have said) that the driver was obviously drunk. Perhaps two people would be alive today. In any case, is it really in society's best interest for the cops to worry about someone walking home on the biggest DWI night of the year? Is this the way to encourage people to stay out of their cars if they plan to drink?

Current Mood: irritated

There was a very interesting article in that bastion of conservatism, the Wall Street Journal, of all places. Growing up Jewish, I always felt left out at Christmastime. This is not due to typical American materialism; we did get Hannukah presents. It has more to do with the fact that Christmas was a time of great joy, while the Jewish holidays tend to be very somber, from my perspective, anyway. (Hanukah, while joyous, is a very minor holiday. You light a couple of candles, and give presents to the kids, and that's it.) Our major holidays all tended to involve some sort of self-sacrifice for its own sake, something I do not believe in. Sacrifice for one's country, sacrifice for our fellow man, yes, very good. Sacrifice, just because, not so much. Jewish organizations waste money on think tanks trying to figure out why American Jewish youth are alienated from Judaism. i can save the UJA millions. It can be summed up in 7 words: "They get Christmas, we get Yom Kippur." It's not only the fact that Jewish holidays are so somber, it's that they happen at the wrong time. There are two main Jewish "holiday seasons." The first is the Jewish New Year/Yom Kippur, a time of intense prayer and fasting in the fall. The next is Passover, a holiday requiring intense preparation (you're practically supposed to put a blowtorch to your kitchen; I'm exaggerating, but only a little) in the Spring. In most of the continental US, the Spring and Fall are the most pleasant times of year, weather wise. If I have any free time at that time of the year, I'd rather go mountain biking or watch the balloons, than deal with those holidays. If I believed that the Good Lord would get unhappy if I didn't observe the holidays, that would be one thing, but I don't believe that. Winter, when its freezing outside, even here, and it gets dark at 4:30 pm, that's when you need a major holiday. The Summer, also, with its stifling heat, calls for a holiday, but fortunately my country had the foresight to declare its independence in summer.
What irritated me the most was that I found that Jews seem to define themselves, in part, by not celebrating Christmas. I used to work with many South Asians, some Hindus, some Muslims, and they all seemed to celebrate Christmas in some secular fashion. What would the harm be for Jews to do the same? That is where the WSJ article comes in: It is human nature to want to feast, get drunk, sing songs, and generally enjoy each other's company during the darkest time of year. It makes sense. i know many people say, "Jesus is the reason for the season," and for devout Christians, that may be true. however, the idea of a festival in winter predates Jesus, and has probably existed as long as there have been human beings living outside of the tropics. It's that whole axial tilt thing.
As for myself, I am trying to enjoy myself this time of year. I probably wouldn't go visit my family in NY, even if they celebrated christmas, having just been back for thanksgiving, but I'll go over to a co-worker's house tomorrow. i even baked a cake for the occasion. I'll visit people who are nominally Catholic, the way I'm nominally Jewish, but I suspect that it will just be your ordinary get-together, without much religion. it would be really cool if the Jewish community would embrace a secular Christmas. Don't call it Christmas, if the term Christ Mass offends you, but call it Saturnalia (not really idolatry, cause no one actually worships Saturn anymore), call it Festivus , call it an exaggerated, belated Hannukah for all I care, but this is the season to celebrate. And, don't get too pissed off when your children aren't too excited about the major Jewish holidays. There is much in Judaism that agrees with human nature. The nature and timing of the major holidays does not. Perhaps the Reform movement could consider celebrating Passover in December...

Current Mood: hopeful

One might womder what those two terms are doing in the same title. After all, to carpe diem is to "seize the day" in Latin, that is, to live life to the fullest, and don't waste time, etc. On the other hand, Facebook is America's (or, at least, young, educated, America's) current favorite way of wasting time.

I had a carpe diem moment last week. I searched my undergraduate class and the class behind me on Facebook, and i noticed that some more people had joined, including a friend from my freshman entry, or dorm. Now, we didn't have the most close knit entry, the fact that four kids (out of 20!) from the entry transferred to other schools for sophomore year should tell you something, but I did remember this particular guy, N.F., fairly well, because we were in some classes together, and shared an interest in environmental science.

So, I "friended" N.F., or asked him to list me as a friend on facebook, which he did. I was then able to see his page (he either wasn't on the Williams alumni network or he had a "friends only" privacy policy) I noticed that he was in a group dedicated to the memory of someone else I had remembered from school. That was the "carpe diem" moment. the group was dedicated to the memory of N.G., one of the first people I met at school who wasn't in my entry. For a short period of time, I was on the ultimate frisbee team, called WUFO (Williams Ultimate Frisbee Organization) and N.G. was very much involved with that. N.G. was also involved with the Environmental Studies department, so I knew him from there, as well (for some reason, there was always a large cross-over between "crunchy granola" types and ultimate frisbee.)

N.G. was a guy, from the little I remember, who was always full of life. The news of his death (in a motorcycle accident in Indonesia, where he was doing field work for his Ph. D. dissertation.) came as a total shock. I guess i would have been more shocked had it been due to natural causes, as has happened to at least one of my classmates, even at this early date, but it just tells you something. The news of the accident affected me more than I had expected. I hadn't spoken to N.G. for over 10 years, so I didn't feel a strong personal loss. I felt bad for his family and friends, of course, and I remembered random things about him, like the time I made fun of him for wearing a "skirt" (in retrospect, it was probably really a pair of shorts that had seen better days) to ultimate practice, and he made some sort of humorous remark that he was getting in touch with his feminine side.

I also thought about what he was doing at the time of his death. he was following his dream of scholarship combined with adventure, two things that I value very highly, as well. Some, of a more cautious bent, would say that this just goes to show you, you have to be careful, and you should just play it safe. Perhaps, N.G. could have prevented his death, but we have little knowledge of the details, so we'll never know, for instance, if he had been wearing a helmet. Some, like some of my relatives and close family friends, would probably say he had been taking too much of a risk by going to a remote part of Indonesia in the first place. However, I would have to point out, that from the pictures i saw on a memorial flixter site, I'd say that this guy managed to cram more life into 33 (?) years than most of us could, even if we had 330, and his spirit of adventure was a big part of that. The thing to remember is that his death was tragic, but his life most certainly was not, despite its short length. In 50-60 years, barring some major medical breakthrough, the alumni review class profiles of his class and mine will be filled with stories of death and decrepitude. (Just as the profiles for the classes of 1937-1947 are today) How many of us, at our 50th reunions or later, will be able to say that we lived to the fullest. Take precautions, kids, wear a helmet if you ride a motorbike, wear a condom if you have sex before marriage, wear waterproof clothing if you go hiking, but don't wrap yourself in cellophane.

I guess my other point is that Facebook is more than just a procrastination tool. I would have completely lost track of both N.F. and N.G. if I hadn't stumbled on N.F.'s page. Technology has been known to separate people, to break up communities. It's good to know that technology can help preserve communities, as well.

Current Mood: contemplative

In the decision of Lawrence v. Texas , the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law. Predictably, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. As part of his dissent, he provided a laundry list of other sexual practices, including pedophilia, that were in danger of being legalized as a result of the majority decision (ah, the old slippery slope argument). Well, you want to know something, Justice Scalia? If you can't tell the difference between consensual adult homosexual sex and pedophilia, I wouldn't want you near my kids, if I had any.


Why do I bring up this 2003 decision now? Because I think our society is forgetting something about childhood. Pedophilia is not wrong because of some fundie "morality" that frowns on everything other than married heterosexual missionary position sex (which is how the fundies justify homophobia). Pedophilia is wrong because of the importance of letting kids be kids, until their physical, emotional, and intellectual growth allows them to become adults. We are forgetting this, which is a pity, because there are so many ways, other than sex, in which America is corrupting kids.


A few years ago, my mother, in an attempt to promote Orthodox Judaism to me (she isn't Orthodox, just an avid admirer of them except, of course, in their attitudes to her own demographic) compared two of my teenaged cousins. One came from the Orthodox part of the family, and went to a religious day school. Because the school covered both religious and secular subjects, the school day was much longer than it is in public school, and therefore, this cousin was up until 2 am on a regular basis, studying for the next day. My mother thought this religious teen's life was so superior to that of this other cousin, from a secular home, who got body piercings, etc. My feeling is, that these are two sides of the same coin, children being pressured by parents and teachers, on one hand, or by a peer group on the other, to grow up too fast. I would venture to say that the Orthodox cousin lost her innocence as surely as the secular one. yes, it kept the Orthodox girl "out of trouble" as it were, to study until 2 every morning. It also may have kept her "out of normal development" in the non-intellectual areas of her life. if she had been a boy, and she does have two little brothers, it might have kept him "out of adult sized clothing", as well. (I have no idea if lack of sleep stunts your growth; it may be an old wives' tale; but it can't be healthy for a kid). Why don't we repeal those child labor laws while we're at it, I'm sure child labor kept kids out of trouble.


I'm not trying to knock the Orthodox Jews, because I see this pattern growing in the Christian (and Muslim, and Buddhist, and Hindu, etc) and secular parts of America, as well, as kids are pressured to "get ahead." At least the Orthodox have the Sabbath as a brake on this insanity. It seems like gone are the days when a kid could play baseball or soccer, or just run around in the woods because it's fun. No, he's got to be the next Derek Jeter, or David Beckham, or Steve Prefontaine. And if, like most of us, he doesn't have that kind of talent? well, he should just sit down and study. Maybe he'll be the next Einstein, or at least the next [insert name of some "whiz kid" who was a millionaire at 25] No wonder both childhood obesity and childhood sports injuries (from overdoing it) are on the rise. Two sides of the same coin, indeed.


This pattern exists in the areas in which we try to protect our children's minds. I remember, a couple years back, I was watching the Discovery Channel, and a show came on about the threat of an asteroid impact on earth. I find this to be depressing, so i switched to Comedy Central and watched South Park, instead. I couldn't help but notice that the asteroid program was rated TV/G, and South Park: you guessed it, TV/MA. So, some stupid jokes are only for a "mature audience," but the threat of the extinction of humanity, let's have all the 5 year olds watch it (not that adults should stick their heads in the sand about asteroids, our government should be doing more to track them; instead, for the past 4 years, we've been focusing on something that was much less of a threat, but I digress).


If we, as a society, try to remember the importance of maintaining innocence for a little while, we will always be able to distinguish pedophilia from homosexuality, and we will never have to worry about the former being legalized just because the latter was. If we remember this, the Supreme Court will surely be quick to remember that the state's interest in keeping children innocent outweighs the pedophiles right to privacy, and thereby distinguish Lawrence v. Texas . Note: I am not a psychologist, and neither do I play one on TV (and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, either), but I feel I am qualified to write about this because I was a precocious and mostly friendless (and therefore bookish) child and, therefore, I felt that in some ways I lost my innocence at too young an age, ways that had nothing to do with sex. (a book can be a dangerous thing, sometimes, more dangerous than a bicycle, whose dangers I was continuously warned about) I guess that's why, at the age of 32, I like to indulge myself in a little immaturity now and again.

Current Mood: rejuvenated

Well, today I found out that I passed the New Mexico bar. I can be sworn in and be a real lawyer in less than a month!

Current Mood: happy

Something is bugging me, and I think I'm the person to comment on it, because I am a fan of both of these artists, perhaps the only person in the world who's a fan of both. My most recent song "addictions" (when I repeatedly press the "back" button on iTunes to hear the same song over and over again) have been "Not Ready to Make Nice," by the Dixie Chicks, and "Where You Going Now?" by Damn Yankees, a group fronted by Ted Nugent.


"Not Ready to Make Nice" was a song written by the Dixie Chicks in response to the bullshit that they have had to put up with since 2003, when Natalie Maines, their lead singer, told a London audience that she was ashamed to be from Texas, because George Bush is from there (For the record, he actually isn't, he was born in connecticut with a silver spoon in his mouth, don't fall for that Texas "man of the people" crap). There was a massive uproar. Their record sales slumped, radio stations boycotted them, worse yet, they had to deal with death threats. All this for a comment that merely shows that they have brains in their heads. I would be ashamed if I were a Texan. There are New Yorkers I am ashamed of, just none of the (4?) who have been elected President. (Millard Fillmore comes close, just kidding, chill out, all you angry Whigs) But it's not like Maines threatened anyone, let alone sitting public officials.


Which brings me to Ted Nugent, the Motor City Madman. Recently, Nugent has been doing his part to earn the third word of his nickname. Recently, the man threatened several sitting U.S. Senators including two who are running for President. This is MUCH more serious than what the Dixie Chicks did, yet I had to find out about it in the "what do you think" section of the Onion (I then verified it with a little research.)


Listen, Ted. I like your music. And, unlike many of my brethren in the liberal movement, I find nothing wrong with your attitude about hunting. Because I am not a vegetarian, and knowing what I know about the treatment of animals on factory farms, I would be an absolute hypocrite if I condemned hunting. I also think you have done some good work with inner-city kids, teaching them about the outdoors. I think you're a little nuts with your homophobia and hawkishness (especially when you, yourself, didn't serve in the military), but this is America, and you have freedom of speech, just don't expect me to vote for you for any office.


But this time you have gone too far. I don't have my Westlaw password with me right now (and I don't think my boss would appreciate my using the firm's account for this purpose, anyway), but I'm pretty sure that threatening the lives of federal officials is a federal offense. There are some exceptions to the First Amendment, or maybe you would like it if someone shouted "fire!" during one of your concerts. At the very least, what you did should earn you a visit from the FBI and the Secret Service. If you did not receive such a visit, I would like to know why. Count yourself lucky, Ted. Take the advice that one of one of your conservative brethren gave to Natalie Maines, and "shut up and sing."

NOTE: I am aware that "suck on my machine gun," may be little more than a creative way of saying "suck my dick!" However, it could certainly also be seen as a threat, and should be investigated as such.

Current Mood: annoyed

For the 3 "US Americans" who have computers, but haven't seen this yet. Not sure if she's a total idiot or just a nervous public speaker. That's always a question when you see something like this.

Current Mood: amused

Wow.

Notice the date on this video. Notice that Dick Cheney was explaining why Bush I didn't go all the way to Baghdad in Gulf War I. Notice, also, that he used the word "quagmire." Wow. And they said Clinton was a flip-flopper.


Via Jewish Atheist

Current Mood: confused

Back when I was in middle school, we used to sing a little song (to the tune of F'reres Jacques):

Marijuana, marijuana,
LSD, LSD
Betty Crocker makes it,
Ronald Reagan takes it,
Why can't we, why can't we.

Yes, it was a very juvenile song, and I would never advocate the use of LSD. So, why am I using such a juvenile song to make a serious point? Because, let's face it, if marijuana had been found to slow the progression of Alzheimer's, (actually, some recent studies have indicated this), Former President Reagan would probably have been able to get it, if he (or Nancy) chose to obtain it. no one would have stopped him. Anyone objecting would probably be branded a traitor. Too bad that MJ has been shown, in reality, to help with some other diseases, but the Federal government wants us to treat it like it's heroin.


I am not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but I think there is one area where the Libertarians have the right idea, and, at the national level, anyway, neither the Democrats or the Republicans will touch it with a 10' pole. I am even less of a supporter of "state's rights" than I am a Libertarian, but again, this is where the State's rights people have it right. It is the issue of legalization of marijuana, especially for medicinal purposes.


While I support legaization of marijuana, with a combination of the restrictions that currently apply to alcohol and cigarettes (no stoned driving, no smoking in indoor public places, no sales to children, etc.) I realize that this is a pipe dream. However, a number of states have legalized pot for medical use, most recently, my current home state of New Mexico. The trouble is, possession and sale of marijuana is still a federal offense, for all purposes. The Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzalez v. Raich has declared the law to be constitutional. I must say, I have to agree that the law is constitutional, but i would like to see Congress grow a collective pair of balls and repeal the law.


But isn't the stuff harmful, and potentially abused, I hear you cry? Of course there is some risk, but is marijuana the only drug for which this is true? Many of the people who would benefit from MJ are cancer patients on chemotherapy. Let's face it, chemotherapy is poison, pure and simple. people take it in the hopes that it is slightly more toxic to cancer cells than to normal ones. Slightly is usually the best they can hope for. It is unbelieveable that people taking this poison aren't allowed to use marijuana, a much less toxic drug, to mitigate the effects, and maybe be able to keep a little food down, and maintain some of their strength. Chemotherapy is an extreme example, but all drugs have some potential for negative reactions. many of these drugs are prescribed at the drop of a hat. When I was in college, I cut my hand pretty badly, and needed stitches. I was prescribed tylenol with codeine. I never filled the prescription, because I needed to study, and I was worried that the codeine would knock me out, but I was surprised at how readily certain opiates, which probably have a higher addictive potential than pot, are prescribed. Even OTC pain meds have the potential for a negative reaction.


The unfortunate part is, no one on the Federal level (other than Ron Paul, who I can't support for other reasons) is willing to address this issue. Too me, this is a surprise, because there seems to be popular support for medical MJ. I really think that the big pharma companies do have these politicians in their back pockets, and don't want some of their lucrative drugs to be replaced by something that is unpatentable, and can be produced by anyone with a backyard and a moderate climate. I would hope that if Gov. Richardson became President he would try to do for the nation what he did for his state. i'm not holding my breath.

Often, someone who accused of being prejudiced will respond with "but some of my best friends are (insert name of ethnic/religious/sexual orientation group). When the person himself uses this expression, it may be a sign that he truly is a bigot, for making a big deal out of the fact that some of his friends are of such a background. However, if the phrase is turned around, made by someone who knows the guy, and is phrased "some of his (or her) best friends are __________" it shows that the person is not prejudiced. In fact, these interpersonal relationships are probably the best way to tell that someone is open-minded regarding people of different backgrounds.


For instance, take this person I knew in law school (please). He was Mr. Conservative in Con Law class, one of the few voices speaking out against the whole right-to-privacy line of cases that overturned bans on birth control, abortions, and sodomy. As someone who is usually on the other side, I must say he had some interesting arguments. Furthermore, he came from a conservative Christian background, and liked to make fun of the separation of church and state ("Hey, a state school marching band can't play "Ode to Joy" at a football game, that's religious music," was something he said, and you could tell it was sarcastic) Yet, he was very much into independent rock, and he hung out with a clique of people who were also fans of the music. The "membership" of this clique, for whatever reason, was disproportionately homosexual. As a consequence, "some of his best friends were gay." I had always wanted to discuss that with him, about how he could reconcile religious teachings, which one might assume he believed in, saying that homosexuals were eternally damned. How can you love (or even believe in) a God who would do that to your friends? I never brought up the subject, because it seemed too personal. I have no idea what this guy believes, but I can't believe he thinks gays really are immoral. I don't hang out with people I think are no good, and I suspect he doesn't either.




Which brings me to my second example. I am sick and tired of people who say that anyone who doesn't believe that not only Israel, but every act of the Israeli government, is the greatest thing since sliced bread (as an aside, is sliced bread all that great? It goes stale faster, and it's not hard to slice your own bread) is an anti-semite. I criticize the American government all the time, especially this government, does that make me a self-hating American? But with Israel, people get very sensitive. Another friend from law school made a number of comments to me indicating that he felt Israel (and its American supporters) was going down the wrong track. I spent alot of time with him last year, during the period of the Lebanon Crisis. We took a backpacking trip across Isle Royale (an island in the middle of Lake Superior), and he commented to me "Just think, we're backpacking for fun, but right now people in Lebanon are putting on backpacks to escape into Syria to protect their lives." We discussed the issue of how Israel's killing of civilians wasn't intentional, but it was still "up there" on the mens rea scale, either knowing or reckless. He would never claim that Israel had no right to exist, or anything extreme like that, but you could tell he wasn't the most pro-Israel guy around.


And yet, "some of his best friends are Jewish." I can say that objectively, because one of those Jewish friends is yours truly. I mentioned the trip across Isle Royale, a week in the woods, during which time we had little human company except each other, and most nights (when there were no lean-tos) we stayed in my cramped "two person" tent. Furthermore, we had to look out for each other in an unfamiliar environment. In short, the situation was probably about the closest that two straight guys would get to each other in civilian life. I would trust him before I trusted many members of my own family. Another friend of his is a Jewish guy who became (some would say he was henpecked into becoming) fervently Orthodox. So, my friend is NOT, by ANY stretch of the imagination, an anti-semite, and it truly bothers me that there are those who would say he is.

Current Mood: nostalgic

I haven't posted in awhile. I know I'm always making excuses, but this time I think I will post more. I recently finished taking the New Mexico bar exam. It was, of course, annoying. I had taken the bar in Pennsylvania, and passed it with flying colors, and was being considered for a job in Pittsburgh, last year around this time. But while the Pittsburgh company was dragging its heels, I got offered the job at the NM Public Defender's office. Having wanted to live in the west, but essentially given up on that dream, I jumped at the chance. So i moved to Aztec, and started working. Because it was a government job, I could practice on an out of state license for a year, which is what I did.
Now that I am working in private practice, I'm basically a clerk, a very valuable one, I'd like to think, but still a clerk, until I actually get word that I passed the bar. I'm pretty sure I passed. I was nervous when i walked out of the exam the second day, but I had been nervous after PA, as well. I don't think that anyone in the history of bar exams ever walked out of the test, saying, "damn I nailed that exam." So, I think i passed. the annoying part was having to re-take the multi-state portion of the exam, after having nailed it in Penn. But, as they say, "them's the rules." [cue remarks about how, since i'm a lawyer, I should use correct grammar.] :)
So, after the exam, I went up to seattle to see a friend from college, who i hadn't seen since graduation, 10 years before. [cue the song by Vitamin C: "graduation, friends forever"]. I had been sort of involved with her towards the end of school, and, until last week, I entertained thoughts that she and I would hit it off again. When I saw the movie "Walk the Line" (one of my favorite movies, btw), I thought about how Johnny Cash and June Carter waited over ten years to get married, waited out each other's other marriages, waited out Cash's drug problem, but in the end, they turned out to be the loves of each other's lives, staying together for the next 35 years (in the entertainment industry, that's like the length of the Paleozoic era), for the rest of their lives. Most people would think that I'm not a romantic type, and maybe they're right, but some things get to me, and I had thought that maybe my college friend and i were like June Carter and Johnny Cash.
But it was not the case, I found that I still liked her, but as a friend. Perhaps more importantly, I sensed that she felt the same way. It's not that she became unattractive, like many people do, over the course of time. on the contrary, she looks like she did on graduation day (minus the cap and gown, of course :) And I think time's been O.K. to me, as well (that sounded very arrogant, sorry) It's a complicated thing, it seemed that she had gotten so mature, and I still felt like a little kid (a common theme in my life). That's not to say we didn't have a good time together, but it was the sort of "good time" i would have with one of my guy friends, going to a Mariners' game, going to happy hours, etc. It's good to know I still have some good friends from college, and she is certainly one of them. I just need to find a serious girlfriend.

Current Mood: confused

I haven't been posting for awhile, things have been a little hectic. I'm in a new town with a new job. After coming to the conclusion that criminal defense work, at least at the trial level, wasn't for me, I got a job with a small Albuquerque civil firm.
I had been frustrated with two things about my old job. First of all, while I had a desire to help people out, people would be coming in with arrests for DWI with BrACs (Breath Alcohol Content) exceeding 0.1 or even 0.2 or 0.3 grams EtOH (ethyl, or drinkable, alcohol) per 210 liters of breath. (It's interesting how we use the metric system for some things, but not others, in the US) The legal limit is 0.08, and that corresponds to about 3 or 4 beers over the course of a hour, depending on your weight, muscle-fat ratio, gender, and other factors. (someone at 0.3 gms ETOH/210 ls is trashed. Furthermore, many clients had two previous DWIs. In other words, there was very little I felt that I could do, and while I tried my best, I often wondered if I would get run over by a former client in the near future. Now, this did not bother me as much as it seems; I understand that in the law you will sometimes represent people you don't agree with. But the PD's office is stressful and low-paying, you really need to have a "calling" to work there, and while it wasn't a terrible job, I discovered that it wasn't my calling. Maybe at the appellate level, where I would be defending constitutional rights, I would find it more rewarding, which brings me to my second point.
For someone who, in law school, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of the law, working at the public defender's office appearing on almost a daily basis in front of magistrate judges who didn't graduate from high school, let alone college or law school, was frustrating. (Both of the judges I routinely appeared before had Good Enough Diplomas, as Chris Rock put it). I can come up with innovative legal arguments, but those would go over the head of a typical New Mexico magistragte judge, so I generally had to resort to generalized pleas for mercy. There are other people who can do that more effectively, so let them do it. I feel a little bad that I am not doing public interest work anymore, but smaller firms generally (not always) generally represent individuals and small businesses, and therefore fill a gap let by the Skaddens, Paul Hastings, and Shearmans (three examples of huge law firms). In any case, once I'm a little more established, I might consider volunteering a few hours a week for a local environmental or civil rights organization. (which i couldn't do if I worked at a larger firm, I would probably be working 7 days a week, and most evenings)
being in Albuquerque also will probably allow me to have a better social life. the Four Corners is probably a great place to raise a family, but for a single guy it leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway, I hope this was a good move.

So, California has decided to move up its primary next year to February 5. It is part of a growing trend for states to move their primaries earlier and earlier. I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, why should New Hampshire and Iowa be the states that make or break the candidates each election cycle. Why should the candidates be more responsive to their concerns. NH and Iowa are great states, but there are 48 other states that should have an equal voice. So, in that regard, the trend to earlier primaries in the rest of the country is a good one.
On the other hand, it appears that we are moving towards a national primary . This may have the effect of preventing dark-horse or poorly funded candidates from making headway towards the nomination. In the past, a less well-known, less well-funded candidate could make a strong showing (finish a strong third, for instance) in an early primary, and this would get his name out, give him more success with fundraising, and eventually this can snowball into winning primaries, and eventually gaining the nomination. With one national primary, the nominee will very likely be the candidate with the best name recognition at the outset, which will usually be an "insider" candidate, and slant the presidential race even more towards the silver spoon crowd.
So, here's a solution: If the states agree to continue to have a "primary season" that lasts several months, the parties can, every four years, pick state names out of a hat to come up with the order of the primaries. This way, we still have a long primary season, but each time, it will be different states that have the glory of the early primaries.

There are times when my job can get frustrating. This week was one of them. I had a jury trial scheduled, only my second one, and I could not get ahold of the client. I tried to call him repeatedly, only to hear a recorded "welcome to cellular one, the person you are trying to reach [cannot be reached, essentially]." No voice mail, no nothing. Just this computer generated ditsy-sounding voice. (I half expected her to say, "welcome to cellular one. Oh. My Ga-awd. I think. I broke. a nail.") Fortunately, the trial ended up getting postponed, because it's hard to defend someone without having some time to discuss strategy, etc. I had no idea of whether he would even show up. if he didn't, he would be subjected to a bench warrant. If he did show up, I had no idea about whether he wanted to plead guilty or actually have the trial. That's a huge decision, and I did not want it made for him. (once a jury is called in, the judge usually won't allow any plea bargains). This actually is a common problem, as my clients are often among America's poorest citizens. Many don't have phones, or only have non-working cell phones, and many have physical residences that are difficult to find. (Many reservation addresses read something like "3.2 miles N of Morgan Lake", and consist of a trailer, perhaps one of several in the area, away from all marked roads). Most will have P.O. boxes, but cannot make it to town to check their mail frequently. It makes the job more of an adventure, and less of a typical "buttoned down" law job, but at the same time, it makes what is usually a simple task much more time consuming. 19th century conditions and a 21st century legal system don't mix well. The system usually lacks sympathy for the difficulties of the clients.

I also received word that one of my clients passed away a couple weeks ago. I was informed of this for a very practical reason, so i could get together with the DA and have the charges dropped. But I was saddened at the news, more so than I would for most of my clients. One, because he was a young man, in his early 20s. Two, because he seemed like a nice guy. I got the impression that he was someone who tried to avoid trouble, but trouble seemed to find him. There are people like that. Whether it's because of inexperience, poor judgment, or family/social situation, it happens. I don't know what killed him, whether it was natural causes, homicide, or an accident, but all three are made more likely by the conditions on the reservation.

The majority of my clients are Navajo, which reflects the demographics of the area, and many live on the reservation. I am not depressed when I see a lack of modern technology, in fact I romanticize a low-tech lifestyle a little more than I should. But the situation of many of the Navajo goes beyond that. The Amish, for instance, live low-tech lives, but they live on some of America's most fertile land. Furthermore, the Amish culture is not for everyone, but it provides a form of mutual support, and hasn't been systematically crushed by this nation for the past 150 years. The Navajo live in the desert and have had their society uprooted by our government. Many people are trying to restore the culture, and this will help with issues such as alcoholism, and perhaps improve the economic conditions, which need improvement. One of my co-workers told me that if I want to be shocked and appalled, I should go talk to the coroner is Shiprock, one of the towns on the Navajo reservation, and ask how many people starved to death in the last year on the reservation. In 21st century America, the only acceptable number is zero. Now, I'm sure starvation is the exception. But even the people who usually can get enough calories, will often eat poorly, as a result of poverty and lack of education. This, combined with an apparent genetic predisposition, leads to rampant Type II diabetes. I suspect that if the UN calculated a Human Development Index on many of the reservations, it would be lower than that of many so-called "third-world" countries. I have 40 yr. old clients who look closer to 70.

There are some casinos in the area, but they don't help enough. In Connecticut, white folks with a few drops of native american blood get rich, as their casinos attract wealthy New Yorkers and Bostonians. However, the Four Corners area is sparsely populated, and Las Vegas, a source of competition, is not that far away. The oil and gas industry helps somewhat, but not enough, and produces a side-effect of pollution. I hope that in the future there will be more investment in solar and wind power around here. If there's anything we've got around here, it's sun and wind. This would be a way to help deal with multiple problems at once (energy crisis, global warming, native poverty).

Anyway, sorry this post turned out to be so depressing. But, as one of my co-workers pointed out, this just meant that our jobs took on greater importance. We couldn't do much, but would I rather "light a candle or curse the darkness?" This post, I hope, is another candle.

I managed to take a couple days off from work last week to travel to Miami for a long weekend to attend a cousin's wedding. it was of course, nice to get away from the cold for a couple days (although, as it turns out, it wasn't much warmer in Miami than it was here that weekend) and it was also nice to see relatives, many of whom I hadn't seen in many years, and many of the others, I hadn't seen since my grandmother's funeral 2 1/2 years ago, so it was nice to finally see everyone at a happy occasion.

The person who got married is a second cousin of mine, who lives in Florida (most of my family lives in Florida.) I used to see her, as well as a bunch of other cousins, alot when I was a kid, as we went down to Florida a great deal when my grandparents were living. It was interesting to see how everyone had changed. The bride's brother, who, of all my second cousins I felt closest to (probably because of all the boys, he was the closest in age to me) has always been tall, but now he literally towers over everyone. I felt like a midget (sorry, vertically challenged) standing next to him. There's a picture of the two of us, when we were kids, standing next to each other, and we were the same height. Of course, I was 14, just had my growth spurt, and was probably close to my current height at the time. He was only 11 1/2. He recently had lived in California for a few years, trying to launch an acting career. The only recurring role he managed to land was on the show Scrubs, where he played a doctor who was so tall you couldn't see his face. I noticed changes in the rest of my cousins as well, they seem so grown up, yet I still feel like a kid. Oh well. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. Maybe I should just welcome myself to the club, maybe other relatives feel the same way. The bride's brother was concerned that he would now be pressured to marry, now that his younger sister is married. My brother and I reminded him that, as a guy, there shouldn't be too much pressure on him. Another cousin is dating someone who used to work for the public defender department in Florida, and it was interesting to talk about how criminal defense varies in different parts of the country. (The guy is now doing Trusts and Estates, so he's probably bored out of his mind, but is at least raking in the big bucks, especially considering that Florida is often referred to as "God's waiting room" because of the large elderly population.)

The wedding itself was lovely. My cousin looked very good, her new husband seems like a very cool guy, and a beautiful ceremony was put together, combining the Jewish and Catholic traditions. I was especially impressed with my uncle, who I hadn't seen in years, but who I had remembered was a vigorous opponent of intermarriage. He was very civil, and shouted "Mazel Tov!" (Yiddish/Hebrew for "Good Luck", used as a way of congratulating people) at the end of the ceremony. Perhaps he was just trying to be civil to his family, but maybe he has finally come to the realization, that with all the hate in the world, perhaps he shouldn't be using his time and energy to oppose expressions of love. Anyway, it was a good trip.

It took some searching, but I found a mainstream (i.e. other than, let's say, a neo-Nazi) politician who I can stand less than Bush. Here's the thing, though, this isn't an American politician. But, from the way he butts into American politics, you would never know it!

Recently, Australian Prime Minister John Howard responded to Sen. Barack Obama's Presidential announcement. In his announcement, Obama had criticized the war in Iraq and pushed for a withdrawal of U.S. troops. P.M. Howard had to go respond by saying that "you need to keep the troops there, blah, blah, blah," and that the terrorists were hoping for an Obama victory. You can read the whole thing at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/index.html.

Now, this is asinine for several reasons. Barack Obama is a Senator from Illinois, and a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. He is not in the foreign service. P.M. Howard is trying to involve himself in the internal politics of the United States, to try to influence the outcome of an election. Hey Mr. Prime Minister, I think I may want to move to your nation, as apparently all of Australia's problems have been completely solved and you run a glorious utopia, which gives you time to involve yourself in the internal issues of other countries. Yeah right. Furthermore, does anyone want to venture a guess as to how many Australian troops are in Iraq? It's a big 1,400! These troops, along with a couple thousand from Britain, combine with America's massive troop deployment to make up the "Grand Coalition of the Willing." (Actually, I forgot about Poland. Oh well.) If any foreign leader wants to criticize an American politician for wanting to withdraw troops, he should be willing to commit some more troops from his country. But this is, of course, politically diffcult. Gee, I wonder why!

So, now I will borrow a page from P.M. Howard's playbook: This is an open letter to anyone from Australia who stumbles upon my site. You should not vote for John Howard's party. Under any circumstances. Bush may be an idiot, but Howard is a tool of an idiot, which is much worse. He is more interested in interfering with the politics of a nation on the other side of the world than with running your country. So, please, vote for someone else. Crikey!

Current Mood: infuriated

Sorry about not posting for awhile. I've been busy with work, for one thing. One day I'll figure out a way to post about the job without any ethical violations (discuss cases in the abstract, etc.) Also, my social life is picking up a little. I've been dating this girl I saw on match.com. Her name is Marcia, she's a very nice girl, and we've gone out a few times.

Last weekend, I went with her and some of her friends up to Colorado to go snowshoeing. It was alot of fun. I used to snowshoeing all the time, back in college, but I had not gone since then. Once you get used to it again, it is alot of fun. You don't sink as much into the snow, and you can slide around a little. You just have to get used to the fact that it is much harder to walk backwards or turn. Anyway, we went up to this mountain pass about a half-hour north of Durango and started following a trail. Then, someone had the bright idea to go off the trail, along a fairly steep route that involved a bit of "butt sledding," which generally is not my favorite activity. At one point, I looked for a better way to get down the hill. I did find a route, but I suspect it actually was harder than the one that most of the group took, it just looked easier from the top. (Like an idiot, another member of the group decided to follow me) Getting back up the hill was an interesting challenge, as well, but we all made it back safely. I took the picture you see at the top of the page. It is a mountain called Potato Hill, shrouded by trees. We then went for lunch at the Steamworks brew-pub in Durango. All in all, it was a very fun day. I would like to go back up there before the snow melts, which might be soon. Now, if some Pennsylvania groundhog has its way that would be sooner than we thought :)

Today, Punxatauney Phil failed to see his shadow, which, in folklore, means that spring is on its way. While I don't think there is much predictive value in this, and certainly a groundhog in PA can't predict the weather in New Mexico, I have to wonder: was this story made up out of whole cloth, or is there a kernel of truth to it, with emphasis on the word "kernel?" I tend to believe that most folk tales are not made up out of whole cloth, so I try to find the kernel. Before it was known as Groundhog Day, February 2 was called Candlemas, a Christian festival, which may have linkages to a Pagan holiday commemorating the midway point between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. An aside: A Wiccan law school classmate told me that Wicca (which is influenced by European pagan traditions) has 8 major holidays. These are the solstices, the equinoxes, and the four seasonal "mid-points." Those mid-points would correspond to Halloween, May Day, Midsummer Night, and Candlemas, I guess. The tale of the groundhog seems to have come out of sayings to the effect that sunny weather at Candlemas meant that more cold weather was on the way, and cloudy weather meant the opposite. A groundhog, or any other animal, would be more likely to see its shadow when the weather is sunny. Now, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that some sort of weather phenomenon, akin to El Nino, would lead to cloudy skies in mid - winter, AND, at the same time, lead to warmer weather in late winter. Here in New Mexico, it has been cloudy this week (although it was sunny today), and it's supposed to warm up next week. Coincidence? Probably. In New Mexico, unlike in damper climates, February is usually a warmer month than January anyway. But it's fun to think about. If one were to do a statistical analysis, I would think it should be done in Northern Europe, where the Candlemas legend began, and where a correlation, if any, would be most likely. Perhaps we need a hedgehog (in Europe, they have hedgehogs instead of groundhogs) named Hamburg Hans, or Oslo Otto, or London Larry. O.K., now i'm just getting silly.

I have a long history of getting many ding, or rejection, letters. it comes with the territory when you have a weird employment history, are looking for work where you don't have close family ties, and do the law school job search two years in a row, which is what happens when you take a 2L summer job that doesn't make offers to its summer clerks (not that I have any regrets, in fact, the International Trade Commission is a great place to intern if you're an undergrad or a law student, with an interest in international trade policy or patent law, who wants to spend a summer in D.C.). I even had an old blog: dingletters.blogspot.com (don't look for it; it's gone). I figured that my days of ding letters were gone, at least for now. Which is why the piece of mail I got today is all the more amusing:

"This acknowledges receipt of your application for an attorney position, OGC-06-126-REG in our Washington, DC office. We have made a selection for this position. We greatly appreciate the interest you expressed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel, and wish you well in your future employment search."

Well, when said "future employment search" is actually a "past employment search", you can just find these letters amusing, so I got a good laugh about it. However, while the letter did take several weeks to reach me because it had to go through two change of address systems (from school to my parents' place, then to here), it was still dated December 27, 2006. I find it interesting that it took so long. I was offered my current position in early October, which means I had not filed a single application since then. In fact, I think I remember applying for several positions with the USDA, all at once, in the summer. It took them 4-6 months to get around to dinging me. At what point did they actually make someone an offer? How likely is it that this person had already accepted a position, and they had to go down the list? Is the USDA being deprived of the best employees for the position as a result of being slow?

Current Mood: amused