UVAS NO!

thanks caeser chavez for a great day off.

Buffy ain't got nothin' on vampire slaying...

Romanian villagers decry police investigation into vampire slaying

wow, vampires are real!

interesting things I never knew:
1. they only attack family members
2. you can stop someone from becoming a vampire by putting a long sewing needle in their belly buttons before burial
3. you can tell a vampire by digging them up: although they were buried on their backs with hands folded, they will be found on their sides or on their bellies usually with their hands to their sides -- and often, they have blood on their mouths, and their bodies don't decompose.
4. the "stake through the heart" thing came about because you have to keep the heart from jumping around when you are trying to burn it after pulling it out of the (un)dead body.

and here, I thought all you needed to do was be a good looking, svelt, butt-kicking girl to slay vampires.

take that Buffy!

welcome SCRAMJET!

woo hoo. a plane that is too fast to shoot down!
Air-breathing engine rams world speed record

what a great idea: only carry hydrogen fuel and suck up the oxygen you need to burn during flight!

now, if we could only figure out how to adapt this technology to automobiles, I might be able to get to school on time.

Hedgehogs Hibernate!

well, the time has come for the hedgehog to go underground.

this blog has become incomprehensibly complex, with so many different threads from different perspectives, it has finally come time to move some threads to new blogs.

all my right-wing-leaning Israel comments will now appear in a new separate blog under construction.

all my libertarian-leaning law comments, supreme court watch, gay marriage, et al, will likewise appear in their own blog.

this blog will remain for my occasional left-wing-leaning commentary on mundane matters of personal interest -- earthquakes, space exploration, the environment, culture, and life in general.

I'm sure this blog will become so uninteresting that no one will read it [not that anyone does anyway].

Hamas reenacts Yassin assassination...

A new play on the streets of gaza to fuel more suicide bombings.

a fine example of palestinian "culture"

art imitates life?

12 year old was paid $20 to be a suicide bomber

The IDF nabbed a 12 year old near nablus who was sent to be a suicide bomber.

more disgusting than the fact this kid was only 12 (can we say "child abuse"?), the kid was only paid $20 to do it.

are children only worth $20 in palestine?

if life is that cheap, then isn't it better for Israel to just kill everyone and pay $20 per head? Lets to the math: $20 x 1.5M people = $30M. Seems like a cheaper resolution than ongoing war.

this is of course a rhetorical hyperbole, but the point is that anyone's life is more than $20.

UPDATE: the kid may have been 14 and the 100 shekels is probably worth $22. but two years and 2 bucks doesn't make the situation any more tolerable.

UPDATE: his family claims he was 16 with a 12 year old mentality (some say he was retarded).

but the most disturbing thing is how this kid's brother seemed more concerned that the kid would reveal who sent him than concern for his own brother's life.

Representative Barney Frank speaks out...

Gay Senator Denounces Gay Marriage Ban

He has a good point, how is it that anyone is "harmed" by gay-marriage.

certainly, some people might feel some religious/moral objection or offense, but that doesn't rise to the level of "harm" that threatens their personal lives.

However, a constitutional ban on gay marriage does threaten the personal lives of homosexuals. It de-legitimizes (or worse, re-criminalizes) their relationships and prohibits them from equal protection under the constitution.

Interestingly, Senator Cornyn opined,

"If the national culture teaches that marriage is just about adult love and not about the raising of children, then we should be troubled but not surprised by the results,"

My question: how is it that a gay-marriage ban promotes the idea of marriage as an institution for raising children?

First of all, I personally know plenty of gay couples that are raising children. This is a stupid distinction to make.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the parents of these children to have parents who are "married" and who can take responsibility and make judgments about their children's welfare as heterosexual married couples are allowed to?

As it stands right now, if a lesbian couple goes to the "bank" and makes a withdrawal, nine months later the child has two mommies. Nothing is going to change that.

What is ridiculous is the legal hoops-o-fire that the non-biological mother has to jump through to have the right to admit the child to the hospital, to include the child on her health care policy, to pick the kid up from school, or any of the other parental functions that she is de facto assuming.

Allowing gay marriage would permit recognition of relationships in which two people of the same sex are trying to raise a family.

No one is going to stop gay couples from enjoying their lives together, and gay couples naturally going to raise families just like everyone else.

A constitutional ban will not stop that.

It does more damage to our society's fabric to deny some children the right to have two legally recognized parents just because those children's parents happen to be gay.

imagine, a kid gets hit by a car and the only parent around is the non-biological parent (because, for instance, the biological parent is out of town). when he takes the kid to the hospital, without the benefit of a legally recognized marriage, he has absolutely no rights in which to make the life or death decisions that parents must sometimes make in those situations.

there are so many more examples, I could go on for ages.

if we look at the gay marriage issue from the perspective of what is best for the children (recognizing that gays have kids just like everyone else), the answer is abundantly clear: gay marriage is better than no gay marriage.

so the religious folks should stick to preaching their homophobia at church and leave it out of the constitution.

kindergartener pot-head?

In Miami, a 5-year-old sprinkled marijuana on his friend's lasagna at school.

he might have said it was "oregano," but when a school monitor intervened, he allegedly tried to hide the baggie (maybe he knew it wasn't oregano?).

okay, I am libertarian enough to support one's right to smoke pot (of course for medicinal reasons) BUT if you are a parent, please don't be such an idiot.

first of all, I don't know why a 5 year old should have any clue what marijuana is, that people often claim it is "oregano," or how to make rasta-pasta.

this is clearly a parental problem.

unless, of course, the kid has some bad-boy older friends (but how many older kids hang out with kindergartners???)

My one criticism of this report is that they jump into another report about a 4 year old boy bringing crack to school [a way worse situation and perhaps should have been the lead story], and they don't make it clear that the police officer's statement that "this could have killed these kids" was referring to the crack incident, not the pot incident.

I'm going to sound like an old fart by asking, "what is with the kids these days?"

Supreme Court revisits Terry

Supreme Court Hears Case of Man Who Withheld ID

check this out...

Facts the media has omitted from its coverage on Yassin...

See this list compiled by CAMERA

notably, hamas has threatened the US before this, and will continue to do so...that is why they are considered a terrorist organization.

even more importantly, yassin ordered the murders at the Dolphinarium, the Passover massacre, and (most painfully for me) the 19 people on board the jerusalem bus on June 18, 2002.

Is the EU living on another planet???

EU Condemns Assassination of Hamas Leader

give me a break. this guy was 1000x worse than bin ladin...

would they be condemning the US if we killed bin ladin?
would killing bin ladin "do nothing" to advance the war on terror?

it unnerves me the way that europe refuses to acknowledge that Israel has been fighting the war on terror for years.

one would think the madrid bombing would have made them realize how evil the terrorists are, and hamas is a terrorist organization as much, if not more, as any other.

the whole "cycle of violence" rhetoric is b.s. because there is no end to the cycle of violence with hamas around...especially with their "spiritual" leader operating the "gates of hell."

the EU needs to wake up and smell the charred bodies and realize that these people absolutely need to be stopped.

L'Chaim!

*tossing back tasty shot of Amaretto*

G-d bless the IDF!

*munching on yummy chocolate yeast cake*

tomorrow you'll all eat PIZZA!

*doing the woo-hoo dance*

It's Purim again!

*not feeling one bit ashamed for celebrating the death of a murderer*

Israel finally eradicates the worst of terrorists...

Sheik Yassin is dead!

no longer will his poisoned mouth spew venom forth.

It makes me want to dance in the street and pass out candies to small children.

Al Qaeda Has Nukes

Zwahiri says they have briefcase nukes that they bought from disgruntled soviet scientists in central asia.

scary thought...I hope they are just bluffing, but gut instinct tells me that they probably aren't.

Scalia redefines the term "blind justice"

Scalia: Refuse to Recuse!

Scalia, in ruling on his own recusal (how is this impartial justice?), has decided that because he did not sit in the same "blind" as Cheney on his little duck-hunting trip, he doesn't need to recuse himself.

Scalia is the classic narrow constructionist...he claims that recusal would only be requird if it were Cheney's personal conduct in question, not his official conduct.

seriously, this is a fine hair to split. the underlying issue is whether Cheney was rewarding his personal personal friends in deciding the white house's energy policy.

now it doesn't even begin to look appropriate when AFTER the supreme court takes the case, Scalia decides to go duck hunting with Cheney at an oil entrepreneur's ranch in Louisiana. It would be even more inappropriate if it turns out our oil-baron host received some direct (or indirect) benefit of Cheney's energy policy.

Scalia claims there were 13 guys...we know of Carlile, Scalia and his two sons, Cheney...and who were the others? For Cheney to need an entire plane, it would seem that they were part of his camp...perhaps the rest of the energy-policy team?

if that were the case, then Scalia would definitely have to recuse.

But...he is the final, unappealable word on whether he is required to recuse.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "blind justice."

assassination attempt in taiwan

Taiwan's President, Vice President Wounded in Shooting

when I first heard this at 5:30 today on NPR, I immediately thought of Kennedy. Witnesses said that Chen and Lu slumped forward, or looked down, and then the car drove off to the hospital.

thank god the bullet only grazed Chen's stomach and Lu was only shot in the leg. at least the assassin wasn't a sharp shooter.

there is no claim of responsibility, and I'm not as familiar with Taiwan's political issues, except that it is the eve of an election and some people don't want cooperation with china.

I commend the presidential opponent for suspending campaign activities, at least it seems that he is not involved.

Courtney Hole just won't stop...

as if her crying episode in court the other day wasn't bad enough, Courtney Hole flashes her breasts on Letterman and then gets arrested for assaulting a spectater with her mic.

no wonder Kurt Cobain killed himself...who can blame him for not wanting to live with a psycho wife like that?

either she is still on drugs or attention starved, but either way she is totally out of control and needs some serious psychological help.

I hope the judge in CA keeps an eye on the news, because she needs more than a scolding.

What spain shouldn't forget...

Is the socialist party's victory in spain appeasing the terrorists?

at first glance, it looks to be the case.

but Zapatero ran on a platform of pulling spanish troops out of the iraq "fiasco" and has some legitimate criticisms of bush's "shock and awe" modus operandi. most notably, he believes the iraq war is a detour from the real fight against terrorism.

I'm inclined to agree on the detour theory at first. what started the ball rolling was some crazy idiots who flew planes into buildings...this took us to afghanistan (with congress' blessing). but then we had some cooked-up threats of chemical warfare attack which led us to iraq (because "saddam tried to kill my daddy").

so yes, there is somewhat of a detour from fighting al qaida to take care of bush's personal vendetta. however, we're not really out of the ballpark. saddam was the #1 supporter of palestinian terrorism and he absolutely had to go. at least we can thank bush for ridding the world of the $25K carrot dangling before the suicide bomber's nose.

and, for what it is worth, the "flypaper" tactic seems to have worked...a bunch of suicide bombers left the palestinian territories (and lebanon and presumably afghanistan) and headed for iraq.

but I have to agree it seems a reckless tactic. bush's "bring it on" battle cry has left us with daily bloodsplash in the morning papers. it certainly doesn't help our global image of the war and makes it even more difficult for us to get the new iraqi government off the ground successfully.

but...WHAT SPAIN SHOULDN'T FORGET is that nothing they will do will take them off the hit list. even if they had never set a single toe in iraq, they would still be on al qaida's hit list.

Why? because al-qaida's goal is to take back all the lands that once belonged to the muslim empire...and they want Andalusia back! the spanish government could bow to bin laden and he would simply chop off their heads. there is nothing spain can do to appease them, so they might as well stand and fight.

I think Zapatero has a point that you can't fight terrorism with tomohawks but rather with the rule of law, but as a practical matter, that is a protectionist view. sure, you have to have state law on your side, you have to be prepared to detect and fend off potential attacks from the hydra's tentacles...but you can keep chopping off tentacles and there will be more, it is an endless cycle that is sure to lose in the end because you will never catch all the tentacles coming at you and more people will die as a result.

you simply can't win this war on a purely protectionist stance.

chopping off the hydra's heads is not much better, but at least you are getting somewhere by trying. sure, if you chop off one head another will take its place, but heads take more time to grow than arms. presumably, if you can chop off enough heads simultaneously, the hydra will collapse.

but this is the most dangerous time, when the tentacles lash out wildly without direction...and this is when you need good protectionist tactics.

the only way to defeat the hydra is to fight at both ends...send the troops to chop off the heads, and strengthen your homefront to chop off the tentacles as they reach out.

but also what spain (and the rest of europe) should not forget is that they cannot escape the fight. I'm going to be cheezy and draw a LOTR analogy here...

Was the kingdom of Rohan saved by the king giving in to saruman's control? No. their families were slaughtered and their villages burned. Once freed from that control (woo hoo gandalf!), did the king's protectionist tactic of moving everyone to helm's deep save them? No. the armies of darkness came and nearly defeated them. even with the help of the elves, their fortress was still breached with bombs. They were only saved in the darkest hour by the surprise assistance of the army of gondor, their neighbor whom they didn't trust. they only won by fighting the fight.

but as gandalf said, "the battle for helm's deep is over, the battle for middle earth begins..." analogous meaning: they fought off many tentacles, but the heads still remained...the powers of darkness can only be defeated by chopping off the heads.

madrid bombing: al qaida or the basques?

al qaida sent out another tape today claiming responsibility and threatening more bloodshed.

okay, it was probably not the basques...they just wouldn't do something so "al qaida" and on the 11th to boot.

the interesting thing about this new tape is that it is not a bin laden tape...why, one wonders?

is there any credibility to the report that the US already captured him and Bush doesn't want the word leaked until closer to election time (pulling the old ronald reagan trick that made sure carter lost)?

his capture would certainly make an attack on spain more sensible and likely.

and...has everyone already forgotten that france averted a similar disaster last month when it discovered a lot of explosives set in its subway system?

hmmm...definitely not the basques.

A Jew's View on The Passion

okay. I broke down to see Mel Gibson's movie. I didn't really want to, but I felt that I didn't have any right to say a word about it unless I had seen it.

My reaction: there isn't anything good about this film.

First: the aramaic was atrocious! first of all, mel, people never spoke that slowly. It was painful to listen to. seriously, the aramaic was spoken so slowly I actually understood nearly every word. Listening to the dialogue reminded me of watching bad overacting by bad actors trying to do shakespeare.

second: pronunciation of the aramaic was inconsistent and (according to my dear spouse) annoying to listen to. okay, mel, I commend the effort, but next time hire an expert to train your actors how to speak properly.

for what it is worth, the latin was at least listenable and sounded natural.

third: the blood was gratuitous. too much blood. sure, the crucifixion was bloody and gross, but at least 10x the amount of blood in one person's body was splashed across the screen. it was totally unrealistic and didn't make the movie any better.

fourth: not enough effort was made to show the political tension between the corrupt priests in the temple at that time and the good priests and other jews that didn't want this to happen. There was only one priest that spoke in Jesus' defense, and his 2 second argument was sandwiched between beatings, and unfortunately the most important message was lost: only the high priest wanted this, not everyone else.

fifth: pilot was not a compassionate guy. this is my primary complaint. in every scene, it is as if you see pilot as this nice guy being forced into doing something he doesn't want to do -- mel makes this point plain by showing the pain on his face.

Reality check: pilot crucified jews daily during his time. not just murderers like barabas. he liked doing it, and thousands of jews died that way. It is a serious shame that people forget this.

A note on anti-semitism: it is subtle, but it is there. firstly, if you were anti-semitic going into this movie, you will be more so coming out. however, if you weren't anti-semitic going in, it is doubtful you would come out hating the jews (because you probably have a brain and can think for yourself).

BUT -- (this is the scary part) if you don't know anything about jews or the jewish faith, you might get the impression 1) jews are all hook nosed; 2) jews all have pointy yellow teeth; 3) jews look an awful lot like satan (only a lot hairier); 4) jews don't think for themselves and only mimic what their priests say; 5) all the jews were against jesus; and 6) (and least importantly) jews eat fluffy pita bread during passover.

lastly, I thought that Mel agreed to cut out the part where the priest says that Jesus' blood is on the jews for eternity -- BUT HE DIDN'T!!! It is still there in Aramaic, only he cut out the subtitle.

Conclusion: About the lamest attempt at telling a bible story ever.

Former DC lawyer killed in Iraq

man, this is a serious bummer.

She is a beacon of bravery for going into Iraq to help ensure that women gain rights under the new constitution -- similar to what I would like to do with my legal career for other 'nations' as they move from terrorist-tyrranies to responsible members of an international community that supports human rights and dignity for all.

it takes a lot of courage to give up your cushy DC job and move into uncharted territory in an unstable region. You really have to give up thinking about yourself and put other people's needs before your own. I'm even more impressed that she was younger than me.

in some ways, her death makes me more resolute in wanting to pursue similar endeavors in the future. I can only hope to be half as brave and selfless in my endeavors.

CA Supreme Court issues stay on gay marriage

bending to pressure, the court has issued a stay on san francisco's performance of gay marriages. the court will review the issue again in a few months.

interestingly, the court left open the opportunity for challenge in lower courts on the (un)constitutionality of the state law declaring marriage as only between a man and a woman.

so the battle will rage on.

The Iraqi Constitution and Federalism

Just a few thoughts after our discussion in Con Law:

The new Iraqi constitution has embraced federalism in that it is requiring 2/3 of the people in each of the [18?] provinces to ratify, there is horizontal and vertical separation of powers.

I'm fuzzy on the details of exactly what the text contains, but I concur that this marks an important moment in Iraq's history, similar to our nation's founding.

We discussed why federalism is a good thing for Iraq and the parallels with our own founding. My thoughts were that, since Iraq is moving from a state of tyranny, not unlike we were after the revolution, federalism is necessary in order to protect the fledgling democracy from slipping back into tyranny.

Iraq has the benefit [a double edged sword as it turns out] of learning from our mistakes with the Articles of Confederation. For the first 13 years, states were autonomous and the governors held all the power. This was an absolute failure which nearly led to civil war. Therefore, we embraced federalism and delegated some powers to the three branches of the federal government. This more or less calmed the situation until the Civil War.

The problem with Iraq jumping over the "13 year step" that we took is that the provisional government has triple-duty: it must first define the borders of the provinces, establish provincial governments, and then get the provinces to come to a supermajoritarian agreement on the constitution. We at least had the benefit of having already-formed states and governments from which to delegate federal power, and ratification of our constitution didn't come all that easily.

This is no light matter, as the Shiites are making quite obvious. Representing a 60% majority, they are not going to give in to the veto power of the minority [Sunnis and Kurds].

There is another quite interesting twist to the Iraqi government: from what I have read, they are planning on having three "presidents" -- one Shiite, one Sunni and one Kurd. I may be wrong on this, but if that is the case, it just makes everything all that much more complicated.

There is also an emerging issue that perhaps one of the federalism clauses will spark a civil war. This would be an unfortunate and ironic result, since the principles of federalism are, in the Iraqi context, designed to prevent such a thing.

I'm not sure if this is the same clause that caused 8 of the 15 Shiite delegates to walk out of the signing party -- the clause had to do with legislation -- the operative wording being that Islam would be "a" source, and not "the" source [as the Shiites want] of legislation.

Again, we can see a complicating difference with our founding: we have separation of church and state, they do not.

I had one other concern about the parallels and differences between our founding and the Iraqi constitution: ours seems to have been a "bottom-up" delegation of federal power. The people had all the power, gave the power to the states, which in turn enumerated some of that power to a federal government.

The Iraqi situation seems to be a "top-down" formation: the people do not have any power until the federal government gives it to the states, and then the states give it to the people. I may be completely wrong here, but it seems a fundamental problem. The Iraqi constitution does carve out some "inalienable rights" [freedom of speech, freedom of religion (except that Islam is the "official" religion) and something like the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness idea]. But it appears that these rights are being "granted" to the people by the federal government, rather than pre-existing.

Maybe the top-down/bottom-up distinction doesn't make a difference because we are dealing with the formation of a government in a completely different context than the formation of our government. The mechanics of the formation are unique, and what is important is what comes out in the end and whether it provides a stable form of government.

I'm keeping an eye out in the coming days, and I hope to get my hands on at least some relevant portions of the proposed constitution to hang my hat on.

woo hoo for states' rights!

Seattle has joined the uprising...the state will grant employee spousal benefits to gay couples who marry in other states...

this will make it doubly difficult for any federal constitutional amendment to be found constitutional...there will be at least one more group of folks with "standing" to challenge it.

woo hoo!

Martha Steward convicted

whew! what a relief. for a moment, I thought she would get off.

will consumer confidence return? maybe not.
will insider trading stop? no way.
but at least this case will show that even if a maven can't get away with it...so it may slow down, or people will be more careful to cover their tracks.

Woo hoo! I'm FRCP 8(a)!

take this quiz to find out which federal rule of civil procedure you are most like:


My results:
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your
forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a
stickler for details and particularity, you
have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and
easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a
plaintiff provide a short and plain statement
of a claim on which a court can grant relief.
While there is much to be lauded in your
approach, your good nature sometimes gets you
in trouble, and you often have to rely on your
good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.


Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?

Arafat's Aide shot dead

well, it's official: the civil war has begun.

Syria-Iran military pact -- a dangerous new axis

Iran and Syria have signed a military pact which will enable Iran to provide long range missle technology to Damascus.

very dangerous indeed. It is pretty clear now that Assad has no intentions of toeing the line with US demands. Both states unabashedly support terrorist groups, and the sharing of technology between them will spell disaster for the region.

now, even if the US wanted to clean up and exit Iraq, it will not be able to do so because the minute it does, Iraq will be caught in the pincers and invasion on two fronts would be inevitable.

even more dangerous is the transfer of the technology to Hizbollah and other neer-do-wells vis-a-vis Israel. with the collapse of the PA looming, it is only a matter of time (long enough to build another tunnel) before the palestinian terror groups get there hands on long range missles. even if they don't, syria can do the job for them.

even the best fence will do no good against this type of threat.