court room comparisons

I entered a busy Superior Court house with unfriendly information desk staff. Choosing a room at random, we were redirected by an amicable team of lawyers to the “big case on the 6^th floor.” Where we were issued visitors passes. A surprisingly small court room welcomed us with a warm, lived in feel. I swiped a tissue from one of 3 visible boxes, choosing the one from the prosecution's table. Cameramen fiddled with equipment, and people chattered and moved in and out of the room. E told me that the case before us was high profile case about a MD who hired a hitman to kill his wife or colleague. I asked her if it was ok if I take my sweater off and wear just a tank top, thinking court was kind of like church and it was best to cover your shoulders, quickly realizing how silly that sounded. As I took off my sweater, the man who I suspected as the defendant put a tie on, or rather; his defending staff put a tie on him. The Judge entered suddenly, and I was pleased to recognize her from yesterday’s news. She clearly wanted to get moving with things, but the defense attorney got so wrapped up in his own discussion as to why it was ok with him to continue, that he seemed not to notice that she had already declared that the trial would proceed regardless. I became irritated by his sleazy nature. What was he doing acting as if his approval was the important one!

We waited for half an hour, before we realized that it was just witness questioning today. The women I was with wanted to leave, so we didn't stay to see any of the high profile case. We gave up and walked to Federal Court to test our luck finding an oral argument there.

We maneuvered through cops and the Mexican looking kids out of school, protesting immigration policy and waving Mexican flags. I heard that they were organized by a Mexican student association that wants Mexico to take back the South West. I wonder If that’s true, or if anyone here today actually thinks that or if they are just here because everyone they know is here. How many family members are at risk of deportation? Maybe these students are expressing a love and support of their heritage. Humans acting in flocks- Love makes us lemmings. No bond is stronger than blood.

A teen, waving a blue shirt over his head like a medieval weapon made eye contact with me. He had the power of the pack in his eye as he looked at me, directing his Spanish chant at me. Otherwise unscathed and possibly unaffected, tree white women emerged from the demonstration and proceeded on into the airy District Court.

Certainly the AC in this place would keep my sweater on me, imposing modesty. We walked through expansive corridors and empty halls, pausing at closed doors, uncertain of what was within. Would it be the treasured oral argument? Or would we cause an unpardonable disturbance, our very presence in the door way causing a mistrial. We scurried to the next courtroom, and holding my breath, I opened one door, and then the interior door. Everyone turned to look, but we had already committed ourselves, and I quickly took my place in the back row, followed by my friends. The room was twice as tall as that from Superior Court and the space was primarily used for sound conduction.

Our mistake in scheduling was readily apparent. Three women with low sugar levels watched the sentencing of three Mexican teenagers in orange prison jumpers. A commanding robed presence, sat higher up and further back than the Judge in trial court He explained the consequences of pleading guilty, deportation and/or yada yadda, I couldn't follow the explanation of the American sentencing system that important enough to be rehashed for each defendant. I hoped that the Spanish translator was adding content to the monologue, because the orange suits voiced agreement with great frequency. From what I did comprehend, it sounded serious, deportation, years in jail, all explained in gobbeldy gook. All this was in English, though I suspected that everyone relevant to the hearing spoke Spanish. The only people more bored by the proceedings were the two defense attorneys. One yawned continuously, including when he was referred to as a good attorney by the robed deity. I sat, irritated that this wouldn't count as my oral argument, and wishing I had seen more of the sleazy defense of the murdering MD, then I’d be able to follow the case in the news. I had already seen a sentencing hearing for possession with intent to distribute; they were pretty much the same.

Odd comparisons these two cases make. There are so many explanations, reasons why, at the first trial, the defendant was wearing a white collar, and provided a years supply of tissues, and yet across the street, selling drugs provided you with sleepy attorneys, who don’t question the powerful omnipresence of process. As an aspiring attorney, I realize that these cases are different for important reasons, and that there is a time and a place for active advocacy. But, does this attitude give us the ability to impose judgments with the detached hand?

In Federal Court today I heard the specialized language of the sentencing process recited over and over, to each defendant. The recitation was incomprehensible to me in English, and I’m sure the Spanish translation was just as confusing. Defendants relied upon the wisdom of attorneys and translators, who looked to Judges, Justices, and Legislatures, relying on the Constitution, case law and the underlying process. We believe it on faith. We have faith in the system, and the imperfect people who explain it. We lack personal, tangible proof. We must participate actively in questioning the legal system. It is not good within itself, but must be evaluated on results. THE MEANS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ENDS.

Blind implementation, Humans acting in flocks- Hate makes us lemmings. No bond is stronger than blood.

What are we? What do we know? What do we do? Do we care?

The “choice” to avoid thought

How much do we value our ability to think (introspectively)? Today, people spend free time being entertained by movies and TV. Often intentionally avoiding thinking too deeply.

The argument is that their work requires so much mental strain, that they need a break from it. But what great job do they have that they are constantly addressing the big questions?

Are we doing a disservice to the very trait that makes us human?

Fortunes are made in marketing & entertainment; our desires are catered to as if we were needy children, pacified by a toy or TV show. Our short term desires are easily manipulated. We are informed without dialogue or debate. Spoon fed.

Our own lives spent, watching other's live. Stuck in a society similar to that from the movie The Matrix, we believe we have free choice. But what kid wants to be the only one who missed the premier of the new hit show?

---------

Deceiving the public, at 11

I'm so sick of unnecessary polarization of issues.
There is something to be learned from synthesis, or exploration of the possible truths behind contentious ideas.

It's the media's fault. But they are just relying on their marketing staff, and everyone is evaluating the ratings. Do we benefit that much from watching conflict? Or are we just driven to it like a bloody car wreck on the side of the road?

I think moderators should do a little more to moderate the debate. I'm not saying that we shouldn't raise the big issues, or reveal the shocking statistics, just that it's nearly impossible to listen to a debate and come away learning anything new from it. Politicians appear to present directly contradictory statistics. I can't learn about the real issues or the policy arguments behind them. All I am left to do is make uninformed decisions, hold dogmatic positions, and side with the most attractive presenter.

True, the American judicial system is based on adversarial debate, with fact finding taking a secondary role, and some say it finds justice or equity.

BUT, media has a much different role than a trial lawyer does. I still hold the outdated belief that the media should inform, not just entertain. The media today is certainly doing a lot of subtle information trading . . . but most of it informs me of products that I wouldn't have known I needed.

Can we blame this all on human nature? Are just really like the neat boxes of pro and con? I don't think so. Go find your own examples, I’m already convinced. I would point to other cultures and religions, but I don't want to be accused of romanticizing. Music and literature seem to thrive in subtleties. Beauty is in the subtle more than the shocking and human learning is a slow accumulation, a building of concepts.

Regardless, what would we gain by throwing up our hands and calling polarization an inevitable human trait? Why should we place our faith in our weaknesses? It's not like putting faith in religion where you benefit from the belief.

I hope to learn in Torts II about the legal ramifications for dumbing down the nation in order to increase profits, then taking advantage of the public by coercing the purchasing of unnecessary things, which was ultimately made overseas by citizens do something productive.
Which brings me to my next question.

----------

Production

How do we survive if we don't produce anything? What is a service economy based on?

We have been moving in this direction for such a long time though, and the production of computers and things primarily marketed to the US... such services weren't necessary for the economy many years ago. Maybe the job shift will give rise to new American ingenuity to expand into a new basis for our economy. Anyway, we don't actually need to produce anything.

Maybe we just need to cycle money around. After all, what we produce now is so indirectly related to our basic human needs. They are really all comfort items at this point. And it’s not like the US is raking in money in the export/import business. We have managed to create technology that so efficiently addresses our real needs, that the American (consumer) economy is based on socially created desires! Wow!

Clearly, I have no facts or authority to verify any of this thought exploration. But now you'll have to ask yourself if you are really being "productive" at your desk, or if you are just cycling money.

---------

Property law insight

interesting thinking about how I might be discriminating under the law by not wanting to sublet my apartment to anyone but a fellow female grad student. I would feel more comfortable with a woman sleeping on my bed, than I would with a man or a couple. Plus I think women are more likely to treat my stuff respectfully. So I'm only returning phone calls of interested women. Odd that I'm defending discrimination.

Though of course, my continuing interest in my stuff and my apartment would mean that most courts would say this was permissible. But it's still discrimination... just on a permissible scale.

Note on Information Gathering

Insight into my priorities: Adam and I made a jestful agreement to continue to get news from different sources. This allows us to sample more information, and makes our own conversations fresh and interesting.

Philosophical Thoughts Bred of Ignorance and Character

Philosophy and Science have shifted focus since Plato.

Philosophy deconstructs, and at most, synthesizes. Fresh ideas are not taught or debated in classrooms.

I romanticize Philosophy of having a much more productive past. Maybe the difficulty communicating ideas (in the time before the telephone, technology of internet and printing press) led people to think on their own, philosophizing without the limiting aid of prior works. Maybe then, philosophers with naïve minds, were closer to the truth of childhood, and able think free of culturally constructed framework of the debate. To some extent.

And science, appears to be about how to achieve a technological end. Society’s demands have already asked the questions, and payment for scientific exploration is already limited by the questions. If you accidentally learn something along the way to achieving a social/technical end, you may get a prize and some international recognition, but the school children won’t necessarily care and most intellectuals, including Philosophers, won’t care because they most likely will have no idea why your narrow little question was even asked in the first place.

My romanticized vision of science was of a more holistic world understanding. Investigation for knowledge. Understanding as an ends in itself. Simplicity was a fundamental part of the scientific method itself. With epicycles eventually replaced by the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Although school children learn the KISS principle of Keep It Simple Simon, the reality is that our definitions of the question are so exacting that any one person, is no closer to understanding any of the larger questions about how the world works.

True, as a species we may have more information, but have we really narrowed down the unknowable to a discrete and conquerable size?

True also, these ‘scientific’ or better yet, these technological advancements have helped with many of the problems facing humanity. And if there is some inherent value to having more people living longer while doing less manual labor, than I guess that’s good.

But maybe there is value inherent value in our evolving as a species, but through our technological advancements we have empowered humans to travel all around the world, destroying isolated pocket communities, and our agricultural advancements and medical advancements allow humans to survive and reproduce, regardless of the climate, or their physical disadvantages.

To the people who think I am some kind of racist, or have impure motives of denying medical attention from the sick, in order to foster an evolution that benefits from human death: I don’t think there is inherent value in evolution, or any better end achieved by it. But if you agree with me, you are conceding that humans are not the natural conclusion of evolution. Humans are more valuable than frogs, only to humans. To frogs, the amphibian life should be valued above human life. We cannot assume actual superiority, though we may act and think that we are more valuable in a world judged by men. Maybe there is even value in this perspective.

-----------------------------------------------

Statement: Character dictates philosophy

By this I mean that a philosopher’s experiences and formed character shape his philosophical ideas.

Character influences whether one is a skeptic or man of faith. What arguments does one find persuasive? Authority, Logic, Statistics, Analogies, Appeals to emotion, or maybe the turn of phrase in a clear an simple argument.

Maybe these are all questions about what one has faith in. Is there any difference in faith in a process verses faith in God?

The many different characters have many different perceptions. These differences lead to beliefs in different philosophies and a focus towards certain areas of interest to the philosopher.

But! Philosophy is a search for truth, or purpose, and usually assumes one universal truth or purpose, or at least an understanding about the world that can be applied to all humans. A more individualized approach to living one’s own life in a certain way is categorized as religion.

So if all the philosophers, and thinking people, are searching for universal truth (including the universally applicable idea that there are no universals,) then all these different characters, are striving to be connected to the world, and to each other. We want to think in our own way, and arrive at the conclusion that we are guided by the same truths and questions.

The human fear of being alone, misunderstood, and the want for love and connection, driving us to hope, that we are all the same… deep down, or guided by the same fundamental rules.

Philosophy should merge with religion, and allow each person’s perceptions to be a personal choice. Fundamentally altering philosophy classes that instill a sense of the best argument for a belief, through papers, which, even at Ivy League schools, apply and modify historical arguments to fit modern questions. What’s persuasive about philosophy is as personal as the philosophy itself. A thought, that is more appreciated as it applies to choices about religion. A belief in a process is not a second class belief.

Captain Q

My brother just got a call back from his application for a job sailing educational/oceanography/scuba diving ships around the Caribbean. They are interested in him for a potential captain position.

Scott, a college senior, embodies the qualities of a captain, to an extent that surprised me when I gave it thought. Responsibility. I perceive my brother as having unswerving dedication. My brother is the best scuba guide out there, always checking to make sure you are ok. He will hang out upside down and point out all of the fishes for you. He is a detail oriented student, and I think he would know exactly what to do in any situation. Scott commands your respect and attention. He is calm and upbeat in the face of natural adversity. A silent warrior, he has always had an element of secrecy. As if he already holds the secrets of the sea, and a love for something lost, incomprehensible and tremendous. I do not ‘get’ my brother. He is an enigma impenetrable to my constant babble.

The perfect captain. Could there be a quality more manly? A life more alive?

Sure my brother is not perfect. We fought, we fight. But I have always felt connected to his passions. His loves are so rooted in my own loves, Joan Armatrading, Tracy Chapman, St. John, and the St. Lawrence, my parent’s quirks. Our shared experiences have connected us.

I am a proud sister.

Lemon Piccata

mmmm....
this was my dinner today

Water, Books, Oscars and Birds

Why is it that the water in the showers at the U of A rec center smells like fish? It's not like we get our water from real reservoirs where fish live? We steal our water from the Colorado River I think. It's disturbing that AZ's bargaining power has negotiated some sort of deal where we can waste water unhindered by high costs (costs for water are mostly for transport rather than for amount used) or government regulations, yet we live in a desert. Is this a sign that I worry too much, or that I'm a visionary of some new system of property rights? Well I guess I would need to develop that theory first.

By the way, I think my readers would find this interesting:
YOU'RE WEARING THAT: UNDERSTANDING MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS IN CONVERSATION
By Deborah Tannen

1 week until spring break!

Odd that Law school finally got me down. I think it was largely related to others expectations of the experience; had I lived in a box I wouldn't be ad affected by it. Everyone said it was so bad, but fist semester wasn't that bad. Then grades, the relative lack of social life, constant anxiety, and realization that I had 2.5 more years hit me. Plus, working for a big name firm sounds like such a bad deal, where you sell your soul and loose your life, but if you don't get that, then it's because you aren't good enough....
What happened to my original goals of just passing law school in a sane manor while expanding my mind? Why am I affected by this stress? I never wanted to work in a big firm, or stress myself out to the point of insanity by being the top of the class-- so why am I disappointed in my effort?

I wanted to send a shout out to Roger for his support, and teaching me how to write in an organized fashion- my writing Prof appears, so far, to really like my work! Wow!
Also to A for providing me with complete distraction from this fake stressful life I’ve created and shows me the light at the end of the tunnel.
To H my sister, who understands me, no matter what
--actually on that note, I was thinking of how H shoveled my car out of snow, when I returned from a weekend away from Boston, Allston, even though she had a terrible cold and had to miss work the next day. We laughed as we shoveled and I felt so at home, so with my family, my supportive, loving family, of H and Naima (though we never showed our affection much.) I want to curl up on our black couch talking, drinking wine, and watching movies.
Thanks to everyone for their contribution to this award winning movie. I couldn't have done it without everyone's help.

By the way, there is this bird in Tucson, that sounds vaguely like a bird from home, from the North East. It has a low hoot- almost like a loon. If I didn't have to research for my writing paper, I would definitely find out what this bird it. Anyway I love hearing it.

Smells in Tucson, other than the fishy water, are hard to come by. I think it has something to do with the lack of humidity (which may transmit smell). Some flowers are blooming... I don't know why they are blooming in the middle of the dry season. When I smelled these tiny yellow flowers, I was shocked. Not so much for their smell, but for the realization that I had this other sense that is completely under stimulated in Tucson.

I hope it works out for all of us, soon enough,