Going Strong! Quiz. Torts. It was good. Made me think. Made me read closely. (Excuse me, apparently, I'm having a Hemingway-esque writing style moment. Can Sidra confine herself to no more than three words per sentence for an entire post? Let's observe.)
Made me go home and look it up.
(Ah, that would be 'no'. Hemingway, it seems, has left the building. No doubt to go whale-watching.)
The really fun bit was the conversation I had with a fellow student about transferred intent before the quiz that nearly made us late. Also, looked that up, and, of course, when the heat's not on, I find precisely the quote I wanted at the time, that when a defendant "intends any one of the five*, his intent will be 'transferred' to make him liable for any of the five, provided the harm is direct and immediate." What my fellow student had been focusing on was that many of our 'hypothetical' cases considered in class involved something like meaning to hurt (or, say, frighten) one person and actually hurting another by mistake, and I hadn't been looking so much at the transferring between people as just the concept of 'transferring' intent in general so that you can find someone liable for the result of their action, whether it's a result they intended to create or not.
So we had a kind of disconnect in our language when we tried to talk about intent.
Which was fun. To me, at least.
Anyway. Week Five. Good so far.
[*] Assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels. These are all very old 'torts', or wrongdoings, for which a person may sue in a civil court for damages.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Winning the Oil Endgame
U.S. Can Eliminate Oil Use in a Few Decades
Read the article. It's sensible.
Can we maybe do this, instead of invading countries based on what natural resources we'll then have control over? Could we?
Read the article. It's sensible.
Can we maybe do this, instead of invading countries based on what natural resources we'll then have control over? Could we?
"For the first time, our report adds up the new ways to provide all the services now obtained from oil, but without using oil -- which will save us $70 billion a year," concluded Lovins. "Forging the tools to get our nation off oil forever is the key to revitalizing industry and farming."
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Picture of a Smug Kitchen Witch
Wanna know why? Of course you do! Because of the following: I own the China Moon Cookbook (run, do not walk, to buy this cookbook).
Had it for years, after some friends visited the restaurant back in the early/mid-90's and got it for me.
(And this connects to the present in what way, aside from the general and inevitable progression of time? I'm so glad you asked! Why, I'll tell you.)
I've been out of a couple things for most of this year.
So, I made curry powder yesterday morning. A double batch. And Chinese 10-Spice (mandatory if you want strange-flavor eggplant, which I think I just might). And Szechuan Peppercorn Salt.
While I was at it, I should've made garam masala, but I didn't think about until I'd already used the grinder for coffee again, because that's in another cookbook (my encylopedia of Asian cooking -- no, I'm sure it's called something else, but that's what it *is*).
What I *do* want, desperately, is a separate grinder for spices and for coffee. Of course, I only want such desperately when I'm mixing spices in large enough batches to not want to use my mortar and pestle, and have been drinking (decaf) coffee recently. This is not all that common of an occurance.
Yes, my coffee today has some interesting undertones to the flavor...why do you ask?
I need to get a new candy thermometer before mixing up new batches of hot oils, and I started a brand-new sourdough starter.
So, this weekend marks my first month here in Boston. (Looks at spices. Looks window at blue, blue sunny sky.) Not too bad. Not too bad at all.
Had it for years, after some friends visited the restaurant back in the early/mid-90's and got it for me.
(And this connects to the present in what way, aside from the general and inevitable progression of time? I'm so glad you asked! Why, I'll tell you.)
I've been out of a couple things for most of this year.
So, I made curry powder yesterday morning. A double batch. And Chinese 10-Spice (mandatory if you want strange-flavor eggplant, which I think I just might). And Szechuan Peppercorn Salt.
While I was at it, I should've made garam masala, but I didn't think about until I'd already used the grinder for coffee again, because that's in another cookbook (my encylopedia of Asian cooking -- no, I'm sure it's called something else, but that's what it *is*).
What I *do* want, desperately, is a separate grinder for spices and for coffee. Of course, I only want such desperately when I'm mixing spices in large enough batches to not want to use my mortar and pestle, and have been drinking (decaf) coffee recently. This is not all that common of an occurance.
Yes, my coffee today has some interesting undertones to the flavor...why do you ask?
I need to get a new candy thermometer before mixing up new batches of hot oils, and I started a brand-new sourdough starter.
So, this weekend marks my first month here in Boston. (Looks at spices. Looks window at blue, blue sunny sky.) Not too bad. Not too bad at all.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Copied straight from The Boston Globe:
CYA Memo
What's "Grp"?
CYA Memo
18 August 1973
Memo to file
Subject: CYA
1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. Austin is not happy either.
2. Harris took the call from Grp today. I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees.
What's "Grp"?
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Abortion and "Reproductive Rights"
Someone somewhere else mentioned their discomfort with the term "reproductive rights", and I realized that we've actually studied something recently in Torts class that I find relevant to an explanation of the term.
When studying the tort of 'battery' (Law school! Now in week three!), we learned that its elements are
intent to touch and intent to cause harm or offense with that touching*;
and
actual touch, and harm or offense resulting from that touch.
[*] Different jurisdictions may rely just on the intent to touch. This is a 'strict liability' approach. You broke it, you buy it, regardless of what you meant to do.
In the case Cohen v. Smith (648 N.E.2d 329) we learned that bodily harm doesn't have to be caused by this touching. Offense to a reasonable sense of personal dignity works too.
That case also told us that the right to accept or refuse medical care, to determine what shall be done with one's own body, is sacrosanct. (In Cohen, a woman's religious beliefs imposed certain requirements - that the hospital agreed to - on her medical care. The hospital then ignored those requirements.)
The problem is, with abortion, until we have external reproductive systems, a pregnancy always carries with it the possibility of someone having to make an either/or decision:
what's best for the mother?
or
what's best for the fetus?
And how, really, can I get away with being that someone, telling you what choice to make?
A person's right to choose the nature of or course of their medical care does not go away just because they have a potential person growing inside them. This is why we call them reproductive "rights".
It is your right to make decisions about your medical care.
"Reproductive rights" are not about the right to end a potential person. They're about the right to control what other people do to your body. The right to give or withhold consent as your personal dignity, religious beliefs, morality, etc., may require.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness and cannot accept blood transfusions, that's your decision to make, about your medical care.
If you are a pregnant woman with a heart condition, and your doctor tells you it could kill you to try to carry a fetus to term, it could kill you to give birth, it could kill you even with a C-section, you are trapped with the most hideous decision in the world.
But it is still yours to make.
Because I don't have the right to tell you what medical treatment to accept or deny.
If I take away from you the right to determine what happens to your body when you're pregnant, then what comes next?
What about...if you might become pregnant? Isn't that a terribly important time, too? Your health affects the health of any fetus you might carry. So, to be safe, why doesn't the state just dictate to all menstruating women as well as all pregnant women? All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to smoke. Because, it's damaging to a fetus, you know. All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to drink. Or eat fatty foods. Or have too much salt. Or work in high-pressure jobs - got to watch that blood pressure! Or watch scary movies - mustn't overstrain your nerves!
Or work at all?
Bam. We've just gone back to the Victorian era.
That was one hell of a slippery slope, wasn't it? Let's not slide down it.
"Reproductive rights" are a part and parcel of your right to control the course of your medical care, pregnant or not.
When studying the tort of 'battery' (Law school! Now in week three!), we learned that its elements are
intent to touch and intent to cause harm or offense with that touching*;
and
actual touch, and harm or offense resulting from that touch.
[*] Different jurisdictions may rely just on the intent to touch. This is a 'strict liability' approach. You broke it, you buy it, regardless of what you meant to do.
In the case Cohen v. Smith (648 N.E.2d 329) we learned that bodily harm doesn't have to be caused by this touching. Offense to a reasonable sense of personal dignity works too.
That case also told us that the right to accept or refuse medical care, to determine what shall be done with one's own body, is sacrosanct. (In Cohen, a woman's religious beliefs imposed certain requirements - that the hospital agreed to - on her medical care. The hospital then ignored those requirements.)
The problem is, with abortion, until we have external reproductive systems, a pregnancy always carries with it the possibility of someone having to make an either/or decision:
what's best for the mother?
or
what's best for the fetus?
And how, really, can I get away with being that someone, telling you what choice to make?
A person's right to choose the nature of or course of their medical care does not go away just because they have a potential person growing inside them. This is why we call them reproductive "rights".
It is your right to make decisions about your medical care.
"Reproductive rights" are not about the right to end a potential person. They're about the right to control what other people do to your body. The right to give or withhold consent as your personal dignity, religious beliefs, morality, etc., may require.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness and cannot accept blood transfusions, that's your decision to make, about your medical care.
If you are a pregnant woman with a heart condition, and your doctor tells you it could kill you to try to carry a fetus to term, it could kill you to give birth, it could kill you even with a C-section, you are trapped with the most hideous decision in the world.
But it is still yours to make.
Because I don't have the right to tell you what medical treatment to accept or deny.
If I take away from you the right to determine what happens to your body when you're pregnant, then what comes next?
What about...if you might become pregnant? Isn't that a terribly important time, too? Your health affects the health of any fetus you might carry. So, to be safe, why doesn't the state just dictate to all menstruating women as well as all pregnant women? All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to smoke. Because, it's damaging to a fetus, you know. All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to drink. Or eat fatty foods. Or have too much salt. Or work in high-pressure jobs - got to watch that blood pressure! Or watch scary movies - mustn't overstrain your nerves!
Or work at all?
Bam. We've just gone back to the Victorian era.
That was one hell of a slippery slope, wasn't it? Let's not slide down it.
"Reproductive rights" are a part and parcel of your right to control the course of your medical care, pregnant or not.
How Sure Are You...Dick?
Cheney Threatens US With Another Terrorist Attack Unless Vote Bush
That's what the headline should say, anyway.
That's what the headline should say, anyway.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
cute baby-yarn beret
I did a beret based on the patterns in Anna Zilboorg's 45 Fine and Fanciful Hats To Knit, in baby yarn, in that pale yellow and pale green you basically only find in baby yarn, you know? Same green yarn as the little raglan sweater I've been avoiding:
The beret was knit on 4.0 mm circular needles and double pointed needles.
Very cheerful looking.
The baby blue cotton tank (apparently, I have a Thing of some sort about baby yarn, or baby yarn colors) is still progressing slowly but surely.
The bright yellow socks - ripped apart. Completely unsatisfactory. Though I may do some colorwork with that yellow yarn in socks for the future, I just don't think it's workable as the main yarn for a sock.
The beret was knit on 4.0 mm circular needles and double pointed needles.
Very cheerful looking.
The baby blue cotton tank (apparently, I have a Thing of some sort about baby yarn, or baby yarn colors) is still progressing slowly but surely.
The bright yellow socks - ripped apart. Completely unsatisfactory. Though I may do some colorwork with that yellow yarn in socks for the future, I just don't think it's workable as the main yarn for a sock.
Hey, cool!
I own an 1888 Seated Liberty dime!
How neat!
Isn't it fun, the things you find when you unpack?
How neat!
Isn't it fun, the things you find when you unpack?
Friday, September 03, 2004
Power Corrupts
Don't Like the Poverty Stats? Redefine Poverty!
Not the first time, either.
Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.[1] But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.
Not the first time, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)