parens binubus

1. For the Men: Boxers or Briefs? For the Ladies: Thong or Boyshorts? I love thongs. Any other kind of underwear I put on tries to make it into the thong-position anyway, so in my mind, thongs are the solution to a problem. There are some occassions where I will switch to "normal" underwear - exercising, for example. i prefer more coverage in that instance. Also skirts without tights. Otherwise, I'd feel naked.
   
2. What is the weirdest place you've ever had sex? Um. I don't think I've ever had sex in a weird place. I can't think of anywhere. Oh, I'm so boring. The craziest I can think of is a hot tub, and that wasn't really that fun.
   
3. What is your policy on telling your significant other your "number" Okay, the boring trend continues. Including my current partner, my number is 3. Therefore, my policy is - tell the truth. I am truly and really a prude.
   

Your overall performance in the class was, for the most part, excellent. You did an excellent job on much of the exam. Your analysis was regularly sophisticated and highly persuasive, reflecting an excellent knowledge of the governing law. Your lgal writing is excellent. This was impressive, lawyer-like work. Your consistent class participation was always thoughtful, and often quite sophisticated. Congratulations on a terrific performance!**

I spent my day at the Massachusetts State House of Representatives yesterday. They were debating whether or not to have a “primary seatbelt law,” which would mean a police officer could pull you over solely for not wearing a seatbelt. Right now, MA has a “secondary seatbelt law – so you can only get a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt if you get pulled over for some other reason. 22 states have primary seatbelt laws.

I was there for 6 hours, so I really ended up with an understanding of the arguments on both sides. And I didn’t like either.

The side that wanted the bill railed on and on about it being a “public safety measure” and that it would “save lives.” The side against seemed to being saying, mostly, “you can’t tell me what to do.” They spoke of Big Brother, and of personal responsibility.

I disagreed with the public safety/saves lives side b/c I felt that those little catch phrases could be used to pass ANY piece of legislation. No matter what infringement it puts on people’s daily lives. As one Rep said, we should outlaw, along these lines, smoking and fast food, as well. I have a problem with “public safety” being a phrase that can be thrown out to quell all debate or argument over an issue. The saving lives question – I again felt like it was a catch phrase used to win people over, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s true. One of the Reps putting this argument forth said, “everybody knows that they’re not going to speed right past a state police cruiser with his radar gun on. When you see a cruiser, you slow down. Well, that’s what we want to do with this bill.” What? Make everyone put on their seatbelts as soon as they see a police cruiser? They also had a lot of stories of gory deaths and unfortunate events. They had some parents in the peanut gallery (with me) who got to stand and look sad while a picture of their daughter who died in an accident at age 18 was held up for all to see. It was said that if this law were in force back then, this girl would be alive today. Huh? I didn’t hear anything in the story of her car accident where there was a police officer ready to stop the girl and issue her a ticket – or even scare her into putting the belt on while passing by his car.

Another story was …. Odd. The Representative telling the story had been a claims adjuster prior to convincing people to vote for her. She told a story of a woman who was “an up and coming professional” who had her 2 year old daughter in a car seat – securely fastened – in the backseat, but no seatbelt for herself. While driving her daughter to daycare before going to work herself, she went across an intersection and was “t-boned” by a man who ran a stop sign. Because of the lack of a seatbelt, she was somehow pushed OUT of the driver’s door, and was hit and killed by an oncoming car. The Insurance Adjuster said, “of course it was the man who hit her’s fault” (the one who “t-boned” her – that was the Claim’s Adjuster’s word) but the story of tragedy was not the death – not the 2 year old in the back seat who was there for this – who knows what she saw, and what she went through with no caregiver present –

The tragedy was that the man who t-boned her was sued, and because this woman was sthe primary bread-winner in her family, and because of all the promotions she would have had, and all the money she would have earned, HE was forced to sell his business, to mortgage his home, and was even forced into bankruptcy!!! Horror of horrors!!!

There were more, but they were gross. Stories told by Cops-Gone-Representatives, and Funeral-Directors-Gone-Representatives (the goriest by far).

But the other side was no more convincing. I wanted to get up. I felt like raising my hand. But alas, I stayed in my seat up in the peanut gallery (good thing, I was being paid to observe, and getting thrown out of the peanut gallery would probably have made it onto my evaluation).

The opposition to the bill kept talking about the fact that they have the right to do whatever they want in their own car. And that if these other people want to protect their own families, then fine – but I’ll protect my family!!!

The problem I have with this (as is obvious to me) is that there is already a law stating you must wear your seatbelt.

One representative came close – he gave an awesome speech, and the best part was (oh wait, there’s more than one) 1) clearly at least someone knew what this guy was capable of, and they called for a quorum right before he spoke, so the House was full. 2) for the first time all day – once everyone was there -- no one spoke during his speech. During all other presentations, the other representatives on the floor were obnoxious. They were having raucous conversations, loud laughter, little cliques of people rambling on and on about clearly unrelated topics. But while Mr. Engaging was at the podium – the entire House was silent. Except when they were laughing at his jokes.

He was the closest to my own opinion. I bet you’re just *dying* to know my own opinion.

My opinion is as follows:

It may very well be that we already have 345 traffic laws that allow you to be pulled over by a police officer. But very few – if ANY – require the police officer to be peering into your car. One of the many laws that were brought up as so very insignificant was the “license plate light” or “expired registration” – but those are things that are on the OUTSIDE of your car.

We have a lot of laws that govern what you do inside your home. For example – smoking marijuana, giving your kids alcohol, neglecting to have a smoke detector in your home, and of course tons more things. But that doesn’t mean that the police can go peering into windows to be sure that these laws aren’t being broken.

Some Representatives put forth amendments to the bill that shifted the effort from punishment to education – billboard campaigns, television ads, etc. I’m all for that. Education is great. But I really have a problem with what *I* see as a (albeit slow and small) infringement on privacy for the sake of this ill-defined, and often mis-cited “saving lives” or “public safety.”

Perhaps part of what makes it sit poorly with me is that I had a professor this past quarter for Advanced Crim who taught about the shift from criminal procedure to “regulation” and how “public safety” claims are what Congress uses to take things out of the court, and put into Congress as regulatory instead of judicial. And the instances where this infringes upon due process rights in criminal proceedings. Preventative Detentions being the thing that first comes to mind. It’s not about punishment, it’s about PUBLIC SAFETY.

So I was upset when the bill was passed, 77-74. My organization had worked with one progressive representative to get an amendment that required data collection pertaining to racial profiling, but that got gutted in some fashion up at the podium during the chaos that is the consideration of amendments to bills. It passed, but it was gutted. And I still don’t know what the substance of the amendment ended up being.

Last night, beloved and I managed to watch both the second installment of 24’s season premiere AND Al Gore’s speech on C-Span.com.

24 was only okay. I'm kind of irritated at the ridiculous repetition of themes. i was reminded that there are only so many forms that a national crises that require CTU's magic touch can take. But I am sick of first ladies. I am sick of Jack destroying people's lives. I am sick of his connections to people mucking up the works. Like his annoying daughter. Ugh.

Doesn't matter. I'll keep watching. And I'll enjoy it. Probably once it's an HOUR a week, and not 4 hours out of 48.

I then spent some time looking for a link to the Al Gore speech which I'd heard about I think only on a blog here and a blog there - I had heard enough to tell beloved about it, and he had heard nothing about it, went onto his computer, and said he saw nothing reported about it. I had to retrace my footsteps and finally found the link over at Scoplaw's blog. We then nestled in to watch him on my laptop, with RealPlay real big-like, making Al look a little more bloated and fuzzy than I suspect he looks in real life. we kept giggling at the little sound effects my computer was making as my sister was Googletalking me, some buddies were entering and exiting from AIM, and my Yahoo Mail Alert was making weird missile sounds, all through the speech.

While watching Al Gore, I was very pleased to see him bring up:

1. television and its numbing effect upon society, and the administration’s manipulation of that numbing effect -- also how the nature of television has removed any meaningful debate from our public fora.
2. the fear factor and the administration’s creation and manipulation of that fear factor (which pisses me the fuck off, and makes me practically not believe in terrorism – which I am sure is purely irrational, but Bush’s talk of restricting travel in honor of the bird flu also makes me not believe in the bird flu. So, as I've been told by others, even those that I live with - I am irrational.);
3. global warming;
4. Media conglomerates;
5. The responsibility of the people to be informed and to speak up;
6. The fact that there have been times in the past where the nation faced great dangers – the cold war, for example. I had never heard anyone mention before that this is not new! For us to be facing risks, dangers, and threats is not a unique situation, and by acting like it IS a unique situation – that we are in the MOST DANGEROUS TIME EVER right now, so very dangerous as to warrant this erosion of our government’s organizational safeguards – is to spit on the plight of the generations past [that is so my paraphrasing].
   

I was upset about some things, too. Beloved chastised me for my cynicism. But upset I remained:

1. that there were tons of empty seats in the auditorium. Beloved said he doesn’t think that people knew that Gore would be giving such a talk, and that perhaps if they did, it would have been fuller. Pfft. I think I was upset because I the empty auditorium also squelched any hopes that I’m harboring that impeachment may really happen.
2. that of the millions and millions of people who did not hear the speech when given, only those who are already inclined to agree are going to take the time out of their “busy lifestyle” to listen to a one hour and 6 minute speech.
3. that the appeals to “the people” to act, to make themselves heard, is not going to reach or affect those who don’t agree with his message (which is many) or those who don’t care enough to listen long enough in order to find out if they agree – or care.
4. that there are people in this country who are so tapped into the fear factor that they are unconcerned with the things that are going on. I have very close family members who say that anyone who is against torturing terrorists should be tortured alongside the terrorists. What is the answer to the question of “how do you KNOW they’re a terrorist? If there’s no trial, no fact finding, no process to be adhered to – how do you know that you’re not just torturing someone b/c they have black hair?” -- “better safe than sorry.” The same family member says he does not care if his emails are read, and no one SHOULD care unless they are terrorists. But like Mr. Ex-Vice-President said last night - *this president* is concerned about terrorists. What if the next president is concerned about pornography? And decides to listen in on everyone who may be calling those phone-sex lines (what are they called?), or monitors everyone who may be visiting XXX websites? Or perhaps – gun control? What if this very close family member ends up on a “target list” b/c it is discovered that he is the owner of SEVERAL fire arms – of many varieties – those used for hunting, and those not? And therefore, he is watched and listened to – clearly by a president he would not agree with.

A friend of mine at work and I were discussing the Alito nomination. I had seen a segment on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago where a discussion between Tim and a couple of opposite-side senators about the nomination focused on the Roe v. Wade issue.** I was frustrated. I wanted to hear more about Alito and presidential power. To me, that is more dangerous. At least give the 2 issues equal billing!! My friend disagreed. She said that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would have much farther reaching effects, and that the presidential power issue only relates to this president, in this term. I disagreed for 2 reasons. 1) The “war on terror” has no end date. It will never end. You will never find a period in the future where there are not people who hate the United States. There was never a time in the past (if someone knows of such a time, please fill me in); and 2) because this changes the role of the president. It sets a precedent, and it WILL apply in the future.

** I also take issue with the abortion issue constantly being called the “Roe v. Wade” issue -- by everyone. Those less likely to condone abortion love to talk about the fact that Roe v. Wade was badly decided, it’s a bad decision, “even the liberals concede.” Will someone better versed in Con Law please explain to me where I’m wrong – did not Casey create a new legal structure under which abortion is to be considered? So that the "badly reasoned" Roe decision kind of doesn't matter? Did not the weird trimester test get completely replaced by the undue burden test? Isn’t Casey a better “code word” to sum up the state of the law pertaining to abortion? I understand that Roe first created the idea of a woman having the “right” to an abortion, but the framework, rationale, and even the test applied to abortion-related legislation has MOVED ON. No?

Anyway. Here’s the link to the C-Span file. It's down under "video/audio" about 1/2 way down the page. he really did an awesome job. The speech was passionate, and historical, and risky. I applaud him. And the entire hour was interesting. Sorry, Hour and Six Minutes.

If you want to skip to the summation/5 point outline, go to about minute 58. but you’ll miss a lot of good stuff!!

• Newspaper delivery, when i was 13. it was horrid - i had to run through a retirement complex with the newspapers at 4:30 a.m. Once, a very very old old man was waiting in his doorway for the paper --- he was naked. and very very droopy. his skin was so droopy, it took me some time of recreating the scene in my head to be certain he wasn't wearing some kind of flesh colored one-piece long underwear.
  
• Dispatcher for my dad's company. started soon after the newspaper delivery, and didn't fully stop until i was 21. worked summers and weekends. it was hard, b/c it required a knowledge of the layout of the state in order to send workmen to the right places in the right order, but i excelled at the organizational aspects of the job, and there are still places there where my handwriting remains.
• Copyeditor for an internet newsletter company. it was part time, and eventually included some writing. not a good atmosphere, not a good place - but i liked the actual work, and it would be one of the directions i could have gone in life.
• Lead Bookseller at a Barnes & Noble in California. I made crap for money, but I loved this job. I loved the people, I loved the customers, I loved the books. The hours sucked, too. But I met Beloved there. So perhaps that was my favorite job.
  

• Labrynth (and I have)
• Grease (much to beloved's dismay)
• So I Married an Axe Murderer
• [agggh! i can't think of a 4th!!!] Neverending Story, I suppose.
  
• Paragraph time! When I was young, I could watch movies over and over - and my sister and I often did together. All of the above, except Axe Murderer, were watched in my childhood, with my sister, dozens of times. Axe Murderer was a college thing, and I saw it in the dollar theater over and over. But now I don't like watching movies over and over anymore. I've bought some movies, thinking I would watch them over and over: The Dancer Upstairs, and Wings of Desire. I think they both still have their wrapping on them.

• Small Town, Connecticut
• Lynchburg, Virginia
• Birmingham, Alabama
• Berkeley, California

• Meet the Press
• Lost
• 24
• Party of Five [no, it's not on the air anymore, and I really *miss* my brothers and sisters!! I don't watch any other t.v. currently, and often forego Lost for family or school obligations. Beloved and I watch 24 together]

• New Orleans, Louisiana (with beloved in 2003? 2004?)
  
• London and York, England (the year 2000, b/c ex-schlurg was living there)
  
• The Bahamas (high school graduation)
• Burgos, Spain (when I was 15)
  

• lawschool.westlaw.com
  
• yahoo mail
• my school's electronic bulletin board
• the washington post

• Cheese
• steak, very pink in the middle
• milk chocolate
• mashed potatoes

• The cabin in Vermont that I've had a very nice time at with both my family of origin and the family i've originated
  
• some mythical cottage on the beach - cold weather is fine.
• Exploring cities in Europe
• in a house that i actually own, with a good bit of space.

• Sinaed O'Connor -- I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got
• Aimee Mann -- Bachelor No. 2
• ColdPlay -- Parachutes
• and right now, perfect as background music to aid in concentration: Henry and June, the soundtrack.