According to this e-mail newsletter from the ABA Journal, more than half of all Americans in a recent poll sees a "judicial activism crisis."
I quote: "A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that 'judicial activism' has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters' values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed witha congressman who said judges are 'arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable.'"
As far as the voters' values is concerned: 28 percent strongly agreed and 28 percent somewhat agreed with a state governor statement that court opinions should be in line with voters' values, and judges who repeatedly ignore those values should be impeached.
As we all know, the judges are the reason this country has gone to hell. They constantly use international opinion to support their positions, they make up rights, they clearly ignore the written word of the law and the Consitution, and they constantly declare Unconstitutional the laws that Congress passes. We need to get rid of these people who don't rule the way we want them to.
Or, perhaps there's a reason why we have judges. Perhaps the judge's job ISN'T to rule according to the values of the voters, but rather to rule according to the rule of law. Isn't there a reason why we appoint judges as opposed to having public trials? Isn't Congress required to spell out clearly what they intend the laws to mean? When Congress is unclear on something, such as what an "exchange" is for income tax purposes, should the judge stop the trial, wait for Congress to convene and hope that they clarify the situation? Could it possibly be that judges, while imperfect, and while accepting some bad eggs, do a pretty good job at what they do? Is "judicial activism" anything more than a smoke screen designed to throw us off the trail of Congressional accountability?
I commented specifically on the point that judges should rule according to voters' values. Does this mean that as the values of the community change, the rulings must also change, whether the law has or not? Does the judge need to go and poll the public to find out what they are supposed to say? Or do they need to rule according to the Constitution, which supposedly is the foundation of our society, current value system notwithstanding? In that vein, I agree with what Professor Charles G. Geyh says: "[The idea that judges should] somehow follow the voters' views really reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what judges are supposed to do. They should only be criticized when they ignore the law and start infusing their own values into the law regardless of the law."
But then, we are in the era of the coffeehouse genius, the YODA (Young, Opinionated, Directionless Artiste), who knows the problems with everything and how to solve it all, but lacking the actual motivation to actually get up and do anything. And thus they get their opinions by what they hear on the news and in the papers, and on the net. Perhaps the statistics in these polls fall along Disraeli's definition of lies...
Friday, September 30, 2005
More random trivia
I seem to have gotten in the habit of Haiku Wednesdays and Random Trivia Thursdays, which is fine in my book, but today, I have a useless piece of trivia that I've not been able to get out of my head, so I will share the burden with all of you.
If you can trick a chicken into believing there are 28 hours in a day, they will lay larger, stronger eggs. No word on how you trick a chicken, but I can't believe it would be that hard. They don't strike me as the smartest creatures, I mean, you can hypnotize one by drawing a line in the sand...
If you can trick a chicken into believing there are 28 hours in a day, they will lay larger, stronger eggs. No word on how you trick a chicken, but I can't believe it would be that hard. They don't strike me as the smartest creatures, I mean, you can hypnotize one by drawing a line in the sand...
Thursday, September 29, 2005
I think I'm going to plotz
Thanks to the efforts of one Marty Markowitz, when denizens of New York's Brooklyn Borough cross the Williamsburg Bridge into Manhattan, they will see a sign over their head that reads, "Leaving Brooklyn, Oy Vey!" This sign is but one of several that drivers see on the bridge and in other locations around Brooklyn. Some say such things as "Not just a borough, an experience," "You name it... we got it," and "Believe the hype."
I don't know why this was in the news, other than the fact that the proposal was approved this year while it was disapproved in January of 2004. Still, it's neat that a borough would go to the trouble to say "sorry to see you go."
I don't know why this was in the news, other than the fact that the proposal was approved this year while it was disapproved in January of 2004. Still, it's neat that a borough would go to the trouble to say "sorry to see you go."
Random Trivia
Henry Ford once saw a sugar crystal under a microscope and panicked when he saw all the sharp edges on the crystal. He swore off sugar that day and never had it again for fear of tearing apart his stomach.
The Netherlands set to expand Euthenasia Guidelines
One day after President Bush requests that the Court look at Oregon's Death With Dignity Law, we learn that the Dutch have plans set out to expand their Euthenasia guidelines. These expansions would allow for the euthenization of terminally ill newborns with their parents' permission. Proponents point to the added bonus of helping figure out how the country would deal with those who are unable to speak for themselves, such as the mentally ill and those in comas.
I can't comment on this topic, so I leave it to you to read the article and weigh in on your reaction to it.
I can't comment on this topic, so I leave it to you to read the article and weigh in on your reaction to it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Court to hear Oregon Suicide Law case
In 1997, Oregon passed a Death with Dignity law that allowed terminally ill patients to take medication that would end their lives. Last year, 208 Oregonians took advantage of that ability, roughly .1% of the total number of deaths in Oregon.
Now President Bush's administration is challenging Oregon's law under the premise that it is an improper use of medication and thus violates federal food and drug laws.
The article lists arguments from supporters and opponents of the law. Proponents point to the fact that the few people who do use it are highly educated, intelligent strong people who know what they are doing. They point out that the law allows people to elect to do so in a terminally ill position while not requiring it of anyone.
Opponents point out that undermines the traditional doctor's role as a healer, as the medicine kills you. They assert that it teaches elderly and sick people that their lives aren't worth protecting and that suicide isn't worth preventing.
I haven't done the research into the FDA regulations, nor am I likely to. I have too much on my plate with school and family to do so. My guess is that there's going to be some line in the FDA regs that says something to the effect of "medication must be used for some healing or treating purpose," and that the argument is that killing a person isn't treating them. Although, if you turn your brain around right, you could suggest that killing a terminally ill patient relieves them of their pain, which is what morphine drips and various other medications for terminally ill patients do. But I digress.
I sort of hope this turns on a 10th Amendment issue. This item is one that is not enumerated in the Constitution, and there are no federal laws pursuant to its prohibition. As such, it stands to reason that it should be relegated to the states. Isn't that the RvW argument?
Now President Bush's administration is challenging Oregon's law under the premise that it is an improper use of medication and thus violates federal food and drug laws.
The article lists arguments from supporters and opponents of the law. Proponents point to the fact that the few people who do use it are highly educated, intelligent strong people who know what they are doing. They point out that the law allows people to elect to do so in a terminally ill position while not requiring it of anyone.
Opponents point out that undermines the traditional doctor's role as a healer, as the medicine kills you. They assert that it teaches elderly and sick people that their lives aren't worth protecting and that suicide isn't worth preventing.
I haven't done the research into the FDA regulations, nor am I likely to. I have too much on my plate with school and family to do so. My guess is that there's going to be some line in the FDA regs that says something to the effect of "medication must be used for some healing or treating purpose," and that the argument is that killing a person isn't treating them. Although, if you turn your brain around right, you could suggest that killing a terminally ill patient relieves them of their pain, which is what morphine drips and various other medications for terminally ill patients do. But I digress.
I sort of hope this turns on a 10th Amendment issue. This item is one that is not enumerated in the Constitution, and there are no federal laws pursuant to its prohibition. As such, it stands to reason that it should be relegated to the states. Isn't that the RvW argument?
Study Break
Right now I have my Evidence book on the table. The current chapter deals with exceptions to hearsay that require unavailability of the witness. The Federal Rule that covers this is 804.
The exciting part comes from Williamson v. United States here on Page 204:
To decide whether Harris' congession is made admissible by Rule 804(b)(3), we must first determine what the Rule means by "statement," which Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(1) defines as "an oral or written assertion."
Scintillating, isn't it? It's still better than the Tax Code that defines "Income" as any income from any source. i.e. Income means income.
On a completely unrelated note, I think I'll head to Jack in the Box for dinner tonight.
The exciting part comes from Williamson v. United States here on Page 204:
To decide whether Harris' congession is made admissible by Rule 804(b)(3), we must first determine what the Rule means by "statement," which Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(1) defines as "an oral or written assertion."
Scintillating, isn't it? It's still better than the Tax Code that defines "Income" as any income from any source. i.e. Income means income.
On a completely unrelated note, I think I'll head to Jack in the Box for dinner tonight.
Humorous Anecdote
You know it's humorous, because I said so in the Title Box. That's the great thing about the title box.
At any rate, my mother in law was in town for the hurricane, which was good, because it gave us another person with whom the kids could share their attention while cooped up, and I genuinely like my mother in law. She left yesterday, and has been fighting a little bit of a cold the last couple of days. She needed to blow her nose yesterday morning, and took a piece of Alabama Kleenex with which to do so. The Boy saw her take it from the bathroom and said in a very Grown-Up manner, "Grandma, we don't save toilet paper in this house."
He's now ready to face the world.
At any rate, my mother in law was in town for the hurricane, which was good, because it gave us another person with whom the kids could share their attention while cooped up, and I genuinely like my mother in law. She left yesterday, and has been fighting a little bit of a cold the last couple of days. She needed to blow her nose yesterday morning, and took a piece of Alabama Kleenex with which to do so. The Boy saw her take it from the bathroom and said in a very Grown-Up manner, "Grandma, we don't save toilet paper in this house."
He's now ready to face the world.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Pure excitement
Whether a gain or loss is subject to special treatment, as "capital" as opposed to "ordinary," usually is dependent upon (1) whether it arises in a transaction involving a "capital asset," (2) whether the capital asset has been the subject of a "sale or exchange," and (3) how long the taxpayer has "held" the asset. Failure of a transaction to involve a capital asset or a sale or exchange results in ordinary income or an ordinary deduction. However, one should be aler for statutory provisions that may artificially accord capital gain or loss treatment to some transactions which do not actually involve the sale or exchange of a capital asset.1.
1. Fundamentals of Federal Income Taxation, Chapter 21A. Capital Gains and Losses. Freeland, Lathrope, Lind, and Stephens. Page 676
1. Fundamentals of Federal Income Taxation, Chapter 21A. Capital Gains and Losses. Freeland, Lathrope, Lind, and Stephens. Page 676
Pfc England is guilty
Guilty. Make no mistake about that. That anyone would debate that strikes me as absurd. What she did was wrong, and she deserves whatever sentence she receives.
Pfc England was convicted by a jury of military officers, as is authorized by the UCMJ. At her request and upon approval by the court, she can have a mixed jury of officers and Senior enlisted members. We often hear of a right to a jury by our peers (it doesn't mention peers in the seventh amendment), yet she was convicted by a jury of superior officers. Superior and peer don't seem to go together well. How could she receive an unbiased trial by a jury of her peers when she is subject to all of them and required under penalty of the UCMJ to obey all lawful orders they give?
Lawful orders, that seems to be a bit of a problem in the case, as well. She was convicted because she tortured the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The story goes that she was following orders, though the prosecution claimed she "humiliated prisoners because she enjoyed it and had a sick sense of humor." Now, I've been out of the Air Force for a couple years now, but from what I remember, lower enlisted members didn't participate in unilateral action. Everything they did was pursuant to some order. In other words, it's unlikely that she would have taken to torturing and humiliating the prisoners out of sheer perverse pleasure, though that's what the military would have us believe. She was acting under orders from her NCO, who received instruction from his Company officer who received his or her orders from a field grade officer, etc. It's possible, and probably likely that the field grade officer (often a rather educated individual) would be vague enough in his or her instructions as to absolve him or herself of any culpability ("When I said prepare them, I didn't mean take pictures of you pointing at their genitalia.") That doesn't make it right. And an uneducated lower enlisted person such as Pfc England, who is trained from the day she gets off the truck at boot camp to not question any orders from anyone of a superior rank, is unequipped to question whether what she's doing is right or wrong, and is in a position where she's unable to refuse to follow the orders.
So let's look at the argument that she was convicted by a jury of her peers. I submitted above that she was incapable of declining any orders she may have received based on her education and training. The military regularly refers to NCOs and officers as superior ranks. Let's add one more piece to the puzzle and say that if she was convicted by a jury of her peers, and one of the charges for which she was convicted was conspiracy, which by definition requires more than one person to commit, then why are there no highly publicized trials of any company or field grade officers? Why aren't any of them up for sentencing? Is it because they are more equal than Pfc England? Are two legs better (borrowing from Animal Farm by way of RedHotMamma)? Do we really believe that it's an equal punishment for an officer to "have his (her) career ruined?" If it's not, then one must concede that she was unfairly convicted and would need a new trial, OR the good ol boy network of the military needs to overhaul and find a few more fish to fry. Since I firmly believe that what she did was wrong and she does have ultimate control over her actions regardless of pressure from other forces (including article 15 punishment for refusing to follow orders), I would hope that the latter would happer vice the former.
And if you don't think this is an episode of scapegoating, ask yourself what would have happened to Pfc England had these pictures not made it onto the evening news.
Pfc England was convicted by a jury of military officers, as is authorized by the UCMJ. At her request and upon approval by the court, she can have a mixed jury of officers and Senior enlisted members. We often hear of a right to a jury by our peers (it doesn't mention peers in the seventh amendment), yet she was convicted by a jury of superior officers. Superior and peer don't seem to go together well. How could she receive an unbiased trial by a jury of her peers when she is subject to all of them and required under penalty of the UCMJ to obey all lawful orders they give?
Lawful orders, that seems to be a bit of a problem in the case, as well. She was convicted because she tortured the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The story goes that she was following orders, though the prosecution claimed she "humiliated prisoners because she enjoyed it and had a sick sense of humor." Now, I've been out of the Air Force for a couple years now, but from what I remember, lower enlisted members didn't participate in unilateral action. Everything they did was pursuant to some order. In other words, it's unlikely that she would have taken to torturing and humiliating the prisoners out of sheer perverse pleasure, though that's what the military would have us believe. She was acting under orders from her NCO, who received instruction from his Company officer who received his or her orders from a field grade officer, etc. It's possible, and probably likely that the field grade officer (often a rather educated individual) would be vague enough in his or her instructions as to absolve him or herself of any culpability ("When I said prepare them, I didn't mean take pictures of you pointing at their genitalia.") That doesn't make it right. And an uneducated lower enlisted person such as Pfc England, who is trained from the day she gets off the truck at boot camp to not question any orders from anyone of a superior rank, is unequipped to question whether what she's doing is right or wrong, and is in a position where she's unable to refuse to follow the orders.
So let's look at the argument that she was convicted by a jury of her peers. I submitted above that she was incapable of declining any orders she may have received based on her education and training. The military regularly refers to NCOs and officers as superior ranks. Let's add one more piece to the puzzle and say that if she was convicted by a jury of her peers, and one of the charges for which she was convicted was conspiracy, which by definition requires more than one person to commit, then why are there no highly publicized trials of any company or field grade officers? Why aren't any of them up for sentencing? Is it because they are more equal than Pfc England? Are two legs better (borrowing from Animal Farm by way of RedHotMamma)? Do we really believe that it's an equal punishment for an officer to "have his (her) career ruined?" If it's not, then one must concede that she was unfairly convicted and would need a new trial, OR the good ol boy network of the military needs to overhaul and find a few more fish to fry. Since I firmly believe that what she did was wrong and she does have ultimate control over her actions regardless of pressure from other forces (including article 15 punishment for refusing to follow orders), I would hope that the latter would happer vice the former.
And if you don't think this is an episode of scapegoating, ask yourself what would have happened to Pfc England had these pictures not made it onto the evening news.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Now for the Essay Portion of the Exam
Today's essay question is easy. Please read the instructions quietly while I read them aloud: Congress has convened, and under direction of President Schwarzenegger, they are required to repeal one of the Bill of Rights. Your Congressman has sent out a letter to his or her voters with a request to provide him insight as to which of the first ten Amendments should be repealed. You are to assume that one will be repealed whether you want it or not, and you need to present a brief explanation as to why that one over any of the others.
Have a Coke and a Smile
One thing you may or may not know about me is that I'm a bit of a Coca-cola fan. I drink it zealously, well, maybe not like a zealot; I don't think they had Coke back then.
I don't just drink with Coca-cola; I cook with it. Some of my favorite recipes are barbecued pork, Coq au Coke, crab bisque with Sprite, and Bulgoki with Coke. It's quite a good mixer. Some day I hope to try salted peanuts mixed in with Coke.
I have the Coca-cola Cookbook (Classic Cooking with Coca-cola), and on page 187 it lists a miscellaneous use for Coke. Apparently, you can use Coca-cola to clean up your windshield. If you are driving in the rain and have a bunch of road film build-up, you can splash some Coke on the windshield and let the wipers spread it around. This is slightly different than using it to clean your engine, which I've never tried, though I did use it once to clean battery acid off the battery. It didn't work as well as I'd hoped. It was also a waste of a good Coca-cola. Another experiment was putting a nail in a Coke. I left a nail in a coke for 3 days and it didn't dissolve. Nope. It just became sticky, and wasted another perfectly good Coke. Stupid people, trying to badmouth Coca-cola. For shame.
I don't just drink with Coca-cola; I cook with it. Some of my favorite recipes are barbecued pork, Coq au Coke, crab bisque with Sprite, and Bulgoki with Coke. It's quite a good mixer. Some day I hope to try salted peanuts mixed in with Coke.
I have the Coca-cola Cookbook (Classic Cooking with Coca-cola), and on page 187 it lists a miscellaneous use for Coke. Apparently, you can use Coca-cola to clean up your windshield. If you are driving in the rain and have a bunch of road film build-up, you can splash some Coke on the windshield and let the wipers spread it around. This is slightly different than using it to clean your engine, which I've never tried, though I did use it once to clean battery acid off the battery. It didn't work as well as I'd hoped. It was also a waste of a good Coca-cola. Another experiment was putting a nail in a Coke. I left a nail in a coke for 3 days and it didn't dissolve. Nope. It just became sticky, and wasted another perfectly good Coke. Stupid people, trying to badmouth Coca-cola. For shame.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Sunday Morning
I don't have a whole lot to say this morning. The hurricane passed by us and we survived almost entirely unscathed. A tree branch put a door ding size dent in the door of my Escort, and I honestly wouldn't have known about that had we not seen the branch on it. Our neighborhood did quite well, and things are slowly returning to normalcy.
There's still a 1970's line for gas at the few stations that have fuel, and WalMart is still closed, but we do have a couple grocery stores open for business, so we can get the essentials, as we need.
In other news, one of the stations out here finally quit doing 24 hour hurricane coverage yesterday evening, and we got a chance to notice that life exists outside the Houston area.
I'm going to gripe for a minute here. Why is it necessary to air hurricane coverage continuously? Are periodic updates any less effective? How mcuh does it help anyone to have a field reporter standing on the beach in Galveston to report every 30 minutes that yes, there is water here, and yes, there is wind? And then the folks behind the desk make some really unnecessary comments: "It's a good thing we're up here," "I hope that bridge doesn't go out and leave you stranded on the island," etc. I understand the severity of the hurricane, and I appreciate the importance of getting the information out, but I don't think continuous coverage of people trying to fill time with hurricane-related information is the best approach. Perhaps it'd be better to keep it to periodic updates, or even do a 30 minutes on, 30 minutes off type thing. I have a hunch that one network did it so that they could capitalize on the comprehensiveness of their coverage, and then the other networks followed suit so they wouldn't be the ones left out. Those poor reporters, having to be chipper all day while freaking inside at the thought of their being stuck in a downtown building during what could have been much worse than we actually got.
I don't remember what it was like when Mt. St. Helens erupted, but I can imagine it was somewhat similar.
There's still a 1970's line for gas at the few stations that have fuel, and WalMart is still closed, but we do have a couple grocery stores open for business, so we can get the essentials, as we need.
In other news, one of the stations out here finally quit doing 24 hour hurricane coverage yesterday evening, and we got a chance to notice that life exists outside the Houston area.
I'm going to gripe for a minute here. Why is it necessary to air hurricane coverage continuously? Are periodic updates any less effective? How mcuh does it help anyone to have a field reporter standing on the beach in Galveston to report every 30 minutes that yes, there is water here, and yes, there is wind? And then the folks behind the desk make some really unnecessary comments: "It's a good thing we're up here," "I hope that bridge doesn't go out and leave you stranded on the island," etc. I understand the severity of the hurricane, and I appreciate the importance of getting the information out, but I don't think continuous coverage of people trying to fill time with hurricane-related information is the best approach. Perhaps it'd be better to keep it to periodic updates, or even do a 30 minutes on, 30 minutes off type thing. I have a hunch that one network did it so that they could capitalize on the comprehensiveness of their coverage, and then the other networks followed suit so they wouldn't be the ones left out. Those poor reporters, having to be chipper all day while freaking inside at the thought of their being stuck in a downtown building during what could have been much worse than we actually got.
I don't remember what it was like when Mt. St. Helens erupted, but I can imagine it was somewhat similar.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Interesting Read
And for all you people who aren't calculus types, don't worry. This isn't real math; someone did the work for you. I encourage y'all to read the link here, though.
Friday Afternoon
Most everyone in the English speaking world knows about limericks, and many people know about haiku, but another entertaining poem, though much less well known, is the clerihew.
According to the above link, the rules for writing a clerihew are:
1. They are four lines long.
2. The first and second lines rhyme with each other, and the third and fourth lines rhyme with each other.
3. The first line names a person, and the second line ends with something that rhymes with the name of the person.
4. A clerihew should be funny.
It lists a couple examples, one of which I'll supply here:
N'Sync
Stink
Their music hurts my ears
I much prefer Britney Spears.
Let it be known that I personally don't like Britney Spears, either, but I suppose she is slightly superior to N'Sync, maybe...
Anyway, let me try my hand at one of these things on the eve of Rita's visit
Rafael Palmeiro,
useless as a Fiero
Took steroids for his hemorrhoids
They grew into asteroids.
(I'm under hurricane stress, you come up with a better one)
According to the above link, the rules for writing a clerihew are:
1. They are four lines long.
2. The first and second lines rhyme with each other, and the third and fourth lines rhyme with each other.
3. The first line names a person, and the second line ends with something that rhymes with the name of the person.
4. A clerihew should be funny.
It lists a couple examples, one of which I'll supply here:
N'Sync
Stink
Their music hurts my ears
I much prefer Britney Spears.
Let it be known that I personally don't like Britney Spears, either, but I suppose she is slightly superior to N'Sync, maybe...
Anyway, let me try my hand at one of these things on the eve of Rita's visit
Rafael Palmeiro,
useless as a Fiero
Took steroids for his hemorrhoids
They grew into asteroids.
(I'm under hurricane stress, you come up with a better one)
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Hurricane Rita
I've received more than a few inquiries and well wishes in the past few days with the hurricane a-coming, so I figured I'd give a general state of the union update.
First. There is a hurricane coming. Her name is Rita, and she's an angry nymph.
Second. We are not leaving Houston, for reasons I'll illustrate directly.
The wife had been out of town for training, and was unable to get back immediately. Her boss insisted she get back, however, so that she could be with her family. This meant that we had to wait for her to get back last night before we made any attempt to leave. We couldn't exactly fly up there, what with the debt we've incurred from law school and the fact that the cheapest rates we could find were to Minneapolis at 660/person. So, by the time she arrived, the traffic was backed up far enough that people had been in line for hours without moving too far. I heard a caller on the radio this morning who had been on the road since 2:30 yesterday afternoon and had travelled 48 miles by 8:30 this morning. Every highway and back road out of town is backed up farther than we can imagine.
So, we looked at our options. The storm's trajectory has moved, and they now expect the hurricane to land to our Northeast, which would mean that the worst winds and rains and swells would be on the opposite side of us - apparently the strongest part of the storm is the Northeast side. We're in a part of Houston that is relatively high. We're not on a flood plain, and when Alicia and Allison came through, our neighborhood did all right. The weather folks anticipate winds in our area to be between 75-85 mph, so we're still in a bind, but it's not anywhere near as daunting as it looked last night. We've taped up the windows, there are no trees in our complex, so debris will be minimized. We've moved the irreplaceable belongings up to the second floor or the landing so that if we do flood, they won't be lost. We have enough provisions (dry food, water, Coca-cola, diapers, wipes, bathroom necessities, flashlites, candles, etc) to keep us covered long enough to get through, and will be fine.
We've spoken with the Boy to let him know what to expect (the other two are still a bit young to really understand). He knows what he's supposed to do.
Over half the area is not evacuating; we're not alone here. With over 4 million people in the greater Houston area and a mandatory evacuation of 1.3 million, there's a certain sense in staying behind to let those that need to get to safety get there.
I'm not going to pretend we're looking forward to this. Don't plan on hourly hurricane updates from my laptop, or anything like that. As prepared as we've gotten ourselves, bear in mind that there are tens of thousands in Houston and the outlying area who aren't able to prepare as well as we could. Keep them in your thoughts and prayers throughout this ordeal, and put in a kind word for the people of Beaumont, who look to take the brunt of the storm at this time. We'll be fine, and we'll be here to help out those that need it when the storm is over.
First. There is a hurricane coming. Her name is Rita, and she's an angry nymph.
Second. We are not leaving Houston, for reasons I'll illustrate directly.
The wife had been out of town for training, and was unable to get back immediately. Her boss insisted she get back, however, so that she could be with her family. This meant that we had to wait for her to get back last night before we made any attempt to leave. We couldn't exactly fly up there, what with the debt we've incurred from law school and the fact that the cheapest rates we could find were to Minneapolis at 660/person. So, by the time she arrived, the traffic was backed up far enough that people had been in line for hours without moving too far. I heard a caller on the radio this morning who had been on the road since 2:30 yesterday afternoon and had travelled 48 miles by 8:30 this morning. Every highway and back road out of town is backed up farther than we can imagine.
So, we looked at our options. The storm's trajectory has moved, and they now expect the hurricane to land to our Northeast, which would mean that the worst winds and rains and swells would be on the opposite side of us - apparently the strongest part of the storm is the Northeast side. We're in a part of Houston that is relatively high. We're not on a flood plain, and when Alicia and Allison came through, our neighborhood did all right. The weather folks anticipate winds in our area to be between 75-85 mph, so we're still in a bind, but it's not anywhere near as daunting as it looked last night. We've taped up the windows, there are no trees in our complex, so debris will be minimized. We've moved the irreplaceable belongings up to the second floor or the landing so that if we do flood, they won't be lost. We have enough provisions (dry food, water, Coca-cola, diapers, wipes, bathroom necessities, flashlites, candles, etc) to keep us covered long enough to get through, and will be fine.
We've spoken with the Boy to let him know what to expect (the other two are still a bit young to really understand). He knows what he's supposed to do.
Over half the area is not evacuating; we're not alone here. With over 4 million people in the greater Houston area and a mandatory evacuation of 1.3 million, there's a certain sense in staying behind to let those that need to get to safety get there.
I'm not going to pretend we're looking forward to this. Don't plan on hourly hurricane updates from my laptop, or anything like that. As prepared as we've gotten ourselves, bear in mind that there are tens of thousands in Houston and the outlying area who aren't able to prepare as well as we could. Keep them in your thoughts and prayers throughout this ordeal, and put in a kind word for the people of Beaumont, who look to take the brunt of the storm at this time. We'll be fine, and we'll be here to help out those that need it when the storm is over.
Random Trivia
Back in the days before state and federal highways, roads were basically maintained on their own. Private stretches of roads would be closed off to people. They could, however, travel on these private roads, if they paid a certain fee. These days we recognize that fee as a toll. How did the Powers That Be ensure people paid the toll? They would take a large log, called a pike, and place it at a point in the road. The only way to get your carriage past the pike was to pay the toll, at which case the attendent would rotate the pike on its axis (usually a post it was attached to, think of a gate). From this practice of turning the log we get the term turnpike.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Wednesday is Haiku Day
I've never had spats
but I've been spat upon so,
I'll call it a wash
Look forward to your contributions.
but I've been spat upon so,
I'll call it a wash
Look forward to your contributions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)