I've seriously not had a good night. Got some bad news and I'm working on a horrible assignment, which has me incredibley irritated and upset.
My mom gets in town tomorrow. Thank God. I'm listening to Heroes by David Bowie in the interim. And Bjork's Hyper-Ballad. That helps.
Update: I finished my 45 page assignment. Now that helps.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Jon Simeone Rocks The US Currency
First of all, I want to congratulate Jon on his outstanding interview today! Jon Simeone is a dear friend of mine who is an inexhaustable advocate for disability rights (and pretty much all things worth fighting for). He has been active in an effort to reform US currency in a way that blind or visually impaired people can recognize the difference between the bills. A recent court case in the US District Court for D.C., American Council of the Blind, et al. v. Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, was found in their favor and Jon was brought on Fox News to discuss the issue. If you'd like to read the order, check it out here.
Unfortunately, there's not a direct link to the video, but it's fairly easy to find. Just go to the Fox & Friends homepage and scroll down to the section entitled "Above the Fold." There is a link there with Jon's picture and the headline "Blind Justice" (ooh bad pun), which leads to a short video. He did a superb job and you should all take a moment to check it out. If you want to know more about Jon, you can read his blog here. Or just check out my sidebar.
Again, congratulations Jon!
Unfortunately, there's not a direct link to the video, but it's fairly easy to find. Just go to the Fox & Friends homepage and scroll down to the section entitled "Above the Fold." There is a link there with Jon's picture and the headline "Blind Justice" (ooh bad pun), which leads to a short video. He did a superb job and you should all take a moment to check it out. If you want to know more about Jon, you can read his blog here. Or just check out my sidebar.
Again, congratulations Jon!
A Total Diatribe
So I did my 5 mile run today, which is a lovely run. The last clinging leaves around the reflection pool are still bright yellow, creating a lively fall corridor perfect for running inspiration. The run was going fairly well, but as I was swinging back by the Smithsonian info castle, I absolutely had to stop to use the restroom. I cannot run with a full bladder. But anyway, sorry for the TMI - so I'm walking toward the sink to wash my hands when this sweet little old lady stops me and says "My, I sure wish I could give you my body for a while, I'll bet you could do great things with it!" I was touched by her compliment, and smiled at her and told her that if I looked half as good when I was her age I'd be blessed indeed. It was a cute little moment. But that's when a most obnoxious thing happened: this extremely flabby woman came out of the stall, and as she had overheard, she felt free to comment herself.
She said "Oh, some girls have all the luck. I wish I had your body, but my genes just don't allow it. I've tried every diet, and nothing works." This woman OBVIOUSLY had not broken a sweat doing anything except eating chicken wings in a very very very long time. I felt a little irritated because she basically took all my hard work and dedication and turned it into "lucky genes." I turned to her and kindly said that after my genes made my bones brittle and I broke my neck and had major surgery, I weighed 40 pounds more than I did. But I was so happy to be alive that I started an earnest journey to regaining my health. I told her that I may not have control over accidents that happen to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to die from cholesterol, diabetes, or obesity. I told her I watch what I eat and I run 15-18 miles a week - that it had nothing to do with my damn genes. I told her it was hard and that I didn't always enjoy it, but that it was important that I feel good and look good. She glared at me. The cute little old lady said "my, that's such a nice story." She patted my hand and scuttled out.
You know, it really kills me that people want to downplay your accomplishments to make themselves feel better. If she doesn't want to be healthy - that's perfectly fine by me. But what I don't appreciate is how people "just don't understand" why they have all these problems with their weight/health/whatever but they eat crap and don't exercise. Just be honest. And if you want to change something, fucking do it. We can't be perfect, and no one expects that - so we all have our downfalls. I don't think I'm some high level athlete and I know I eat poorly (convenience) sometimes. But a basic level of health seems to be a pretty necessary part of life. Here's your magic diet: eat less than you did the day before, and exercise more than you did the day before. Repeat until weight is lost.
Tomorrow I'll post on Massachussetts v. EPA, but, as is my tendency, it's too much to immediately post.
She said "Oh, some girls have all the luck. I wish I had your body, but my genes just don't allow it. I've tried every diet, and nothing works." This woman OBVIOUSLY had not broken a sweat doing anything except eating chicken wings in a very very very long time. I felt a little irritated because she basically took all my hard work and dedication and turned it into "lucky genes." I turned to her and kindly said that after my genes made my bones brittle and I broke my neck and had major surgery, I weighed 40 pounds more than I did. But I was so happy to be alive that I started an earnest journey to regaining my health. I told her that I may not have control over accidents that happen to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to die from cholesterol, diabetes, or obesity. I told her I watch what I eat and I run 15-18 miles a week - that it had nothing to do with my damn genes. I told her it was hard and that I didn't always enjoy it, but that it was important that I feel good and look good. She glared at me. The cute little old lady said "my, that's such a nice story." She patted my hand and scuttled out.
You know, it really kills me that people want to downplay your accomplishments to make themselves feel better. If she doesn't want to be healthy - that's perfectly fine by me. But what I don't appreciate is how people "just don't understand" why they have all these problems with their weight/health/whatever but they eat crap and don't exercise. Just be honest. And if you want to change something, fucking do it. We can't be perfect, and no one expects that - so we all have our downfalls. I don't think I'm some high level athlete and I know I eat poorly (convenience) sometimes. But a basic level of health seems to be a pretty necessary part of life. Here's your magic diet: eat less than you did the day before, and exercise more than you did the day before. Repeat until weight is lost.
Tomorrow I'll post on Massachussetts v. EPA, but, as is my tendency, it's too much to immediately post.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
A list of things you never want to overhear in a law school
And by list, I mean this single example, which encompasses all things not wanting to be overheard in a law school. This was overheard being LOUDLY said walking through the quad from one building to another:
I spent the next hour dry heaving into a toilet. That is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. First of all, I didn't think gunners had it in them. But really, please please - think of the sanctity of my ear drums and the future of THE PLANET before you go off announcing that kind of thing.
Guy: Well, since I got the job at [top law firm redacted] I can afford that kind of thing.
Girl 1: I know, but the upgrades are just so expensive - and I just got my signing bonus!
Guy: But the new Rabbits are waterproof.
Girl 2: But wait, mine is already waterproof.
Guy: But the new iVibes are longer.
Girl 1: yeah, I think they are like and inch larger in diameter too.
I spent the next hour dry heaving into a toilet. That is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. First of all, I didn't think gunners had it in them. But really, please please - think of the sanctity of my ear drums and the future of THE PLANET before you go off announcing that kind of thing.
Whoot!
First of all, I'm totally gleeful this morning because my best friend (Climber) got her dream job. This is huge for two reasons. One is that NO ONE gets this job because it's so popular the turnover is nil. The second reason is that they told her they'd call her two weeks ago so we all basically thought she didn't get it. She had other great job offers, but this one was definitely her top choice.
For those of you who don't know, my best friend is about to graduate from nursing school with a 4.0. Her job is working in the Neonatal Intesnive Care Unit (NICU) at the top children's hospital in her region. Climber is about the smartest woman I've ever met. And the most motivated. I'd certainly want my child in her care. I'm super happy for her (and a bouquet of cookies is on its way!).
The interesting thing about all this is that none of us supported her going to nursing school. Basically, she had a full scholarship to a premier east coast med school and we were flabbergasted that she would turn it down. I still am, honestly. But besides wanting to go into medicine, Climber wanted to .. well, climb. She knew that med school meant no more competitive climbing, and so she left it behind for a more balanced option. Most of our girls don't know balance well. And we made a huge mistake: we didn't trust her. I look back on how difficult that decision was for her and I feel awful that I added to it by pressuring her to go to med school. But you do what you think is best for your friend. And now, she's working in her top choice job AND she's currently the "reigning queen" of women's elite climbing. So boo on us for not trusting our friend, but yay for her for coming out on top.
For those of you who don't know, my best friend is about to graduate from nursing school with a 4.0. Her job is working in the Neonatal Intesnive Care Unit (NICU) at the top children's hospital in her region. Climber is about the smartest woman I've ever met. And the most motivated. I'd certainly want my child in her care. I'm super happy for her (and a bouquet of cookies is on its way!).
The interesting thing about all this is that none of us supported her going to nursing school. Basically, she had a full scholarship to a premier east coast med school and we were flabbergasted that she would turn it down. I still am, honestly. But besides wanting to go into medicine, Climber wanted to .. well, climb. She knew that med school meant no more competitive climbing, and so she left it behind for a more balanced option. Most of our girls don't know balance well. And we made a huge mistake: we didn't trust her. I look back on how difficult that decision was for her and I feel awful that I added to it by pressuring her to go to med school. But you do what you think is best for your friend. And now, she's working in her top choice job AND she's currently the "reigning queen" of women's elite climbing. So boo on us for not trusting our friend, but yay for her for coming out on top.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Survival, Lyco Style
I am convinced that no matter how well a family gathering goes, it is emotionally and psychologically taxing in a way that has particular and identifiable physical ramifications. For me, my stomach goes sour and my skin gets bad. Of course, that could be the heavy foods, the drinking, and being surrounded 24-7 with Casa Blanca cigar smoke. But whatever. The point is that despite the fact that I enjoyed my time with my family, I came back exhausted, cramped, and with the skin of a 60 year old smoker (nooo, I wasn't smoking). And on top of that I'm PMSing. Bad. Real bad. Even after taking a 4 hour nap and then getting a full 8 hours of sleep, I could barely drag myself out of bed this morning. And when I looked in the mirror I saw a leather-faced marshmellow. So I decided that I'd blow off my 45 page draft (due tonight at midnight) for the moment and do some recooping:
I guess I should get to work. Meh.
- Woke an hour earlier than I needed to and spent some quality time in bed snoozing.
- Cooked a real breakfast and had a tall glass of water with Emergen-C in it.
- Put on soft, loose fitting clothes that I thought were flattering (debatable).
- Made myself go out and jog 5 miles.
- Sat in the jacuzzi with the jets on my hip and legs and feet.
- Gave myself a high-quality facial in the changing room of the gym (that got me some funny looks but it was worth it).
- Stayed away from packaged foods and drank tons of water.
- Blogged this.
I guess I should get to work. Meh.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
A Change of Pace
My day was long but well spent. I woke at 4:30 am (two and a half hours of sleep) to shower and get down to the airport, where I (of course) flew through security and sat in the waiting area for an hour and a half. Better safe than sorry and all that mess. I just started Motherless Brooklyn, which is proving a lovely read - and somehow perfect for the Thanksgiving holiday. Once on the plane, I slept like a drooling monkey (the Dominican woman next to be chortled everytime my head snapped back from its inevitable bob forward) until my layover in Miami, where I sat and thusly continued my read. My next flight was delayed, which stressed me out and made it so that I could not sleep, an amazing feat for me.
Once I arrived at the casa de Grandparents, I noshed and chatted for a few, followed by a much needed 30 minute nap - I woke at 5:00 and literally ran out the door to do a 4.5 mile run and get back before dark. The run was amazing. I played my regular music mix so it was fun to kind of guage my mall run against this new tropical environment. It was also nice to run outside in my light summer gear.
Instead of falling leaves, I was surrounded by floating bouganvillas and swooping palms. I admired bright oranges and grapefruits and the graceful green necks of coconut trees. Instead of crossing streets, I ran on arched bridges over dark canals. I ended up at the harbor, running in the park down by the ocean while the sun set. It was pretty windy and so the bay was choppy, which made all the piers seem particularly solitary. Instead of seeing the Capitol glowing red in the sunset, I ran towards the open bay, lit on fire from mirroring the clouds. The salty wind stuck in my clothes and I felt suddenly renewed. As I carefully plodded back home, I felt so uplifted by the sliver of moon and the soft purple outlines of the foreign flora. It seems that I needed a change of pace; I'm glad to be here.
When I got back home, I showered slowly and came out to the smells of shrimp and rice with cognac sauce (flambe!) and revelled in the fact that such fare was being prepared for me instead of by me. It was amazing. I sipped on a gin and tonic and asked my granparents for stories from their early years together. Their 62nd anniversary is tomorrow and I love to use that as an excuse to hear about my dear solidiers and their early struggles (they were married during WWII). I was rewarded with some new and fun stories of long train rides and clandestine visits.
My only difficulty is that I am sad that I can't be with all my loved ones; but it's nice to take my place in this madhouse family. My family is certainly not limited to my blood relatives - so holidays are always hard because you cannot manage to be with everyone. And actually, that is certainly something for which I am thankful. As are all of the dear ones I've met through law school and this blog. If your loved ones are so great in number and diverse in character that you cannot be with them all, well, you are blessed indeed.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Once I arrived at the casa de Grandparents, I noshed and chatted for a few, followed by a much needed 30 minute nap - I woke at 5:00 and literally ran out the door to do a 4.5 mile run and get back before dark. The run was amazing. I played my regular music mix so it was fun to kind of guage my mall run against this new tropical environment. It was also nice to run outside in my light summer gear.
Instead of falling leaves, I was surrounded by floating bouganvillas and swooping palms. I admired bright oranges and grapefruits and the graceful green necks of coconut trees. Instead of crossing streets, I ran on arched bridges over dark canals. I ended up at the harbor, running in the park down by the ocean while the sun set. It was pretty windy and so the bay was choppy, which made all the piers seem particularly solitary. Instead of seeing the Capitol glowing red in the sunset, I ran towards the open bay, lit on fire from mirroring the clouds. The salty wind stuck in my clothes and I felt suddenly renewed. As I carefully plodded back home, I felt so uplifted by the sliver of moon and the soft purple outlines of the foreign flora. It seems that I needed a change of pace; I'm glad to be here.
When I got back home, I showered slowly and came out to the smells of shrimp and rice with cognac sauce (flambe!) and revelled in the fact that such fare was being prepared for me instead of by me. It was amazing. I sipped on a gin and tonic and asked my granparents for stories from their early years together. Their 62nd anniversary is tomorrow and I love to use that as an excuse to hear about my dear solidiers and their early struggles (they were married during WWII). I was rewarded with some new and fun stories of long train rides and clandestine visits.
My only difficulty is that I am sad that I can't be with all my loved ones; but it's nice to take my place in this madhouse family. My family is certainly not limited to my blood relatives - so holidays are always hard because you cannot manage to be with everyone. And actually, that is certainly something for which I am thankful. As are all of the dear ones I've met through law school and this blog. If your loved ones are so great in number and diverse in character that you cannot be with them all, well, you are blessed indeed.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
welcome to my life
Someone just got to my blog on the search string
dorks-in-a-neck-brace-in-sixteen-candles
Go figure.
dorks-in-a-neck-brace-in-sixteen-candles
Go figure.
*Hic*
Oops. It's the last day of class before Thanksgiving break, and the President of our SBA (and fellow Section 3 most awesomeness) threw a Keg on the Quad at 4:00. Well, my class let out early, so I dropped by at 5:20. And had a beer. Just one beer. In 15 minutes, but whatever.
And then I had class at 5:45. A class I h.a.t.e. The worst class I've had in law school. I say this because if it had been a class I loved... well, I might have had only 1/2 the beer. So now I'm sitting in said class. Only with beer in my system. That hit me surprisingly hard. I've gone to class hung over, but never actively boozed up. Although there was that shot (read: cup) of whiskey after the Property exam after 1L year, care of Paleobiology.
Well, there's a first time for everything and 3L year might as well be it.
And then I had class at 5:45. A class I h.a.t.e. The worst class I've had in law school. I say this because if it had been a class I loved... well, I might have had only 1/2 the beer. So now I'm sitting in said class. Only with beer in my system. That hit me surprisingly hard. I've gone to class hung over, but never actively boozed up. Although there was that shot (read: cup) of whiskey after the Property exam after 1L year, care of Paleobiology.
Well, there's a first time for everything and 3L year might as well be it.
Ok Go
So I went to the Ok Go concert on Sunday because I was totally fruiting out from stress and needed to have some fun. Did I? Well, YES. They put on a great show. Their opening act, the French Kicks were pretty mediocre though. I certainly would never pay to see them. Apparently there was another act before that called Quit Your Day Job that made everyone want to stab at their ears as an excuse to not hear the "music" anymore. But anyway.
Ok Go did their little dance at the encore, which is, of course, the whole reason why I went. I think I would've gone for the straight music and the show itself had I known any.thing. about them beforehand. You have to know something about me - I (old Lyco Magee), living in my law school cave of despair, had never heard of these new peeps. So Idaho sent me a link to their videos. Which then made me miss college - because I have about three tapes worth of video of my girls and I doing things like that (usually involving a well placed elevator) only not nearly as cool. And thereby I decided that they, in turn, were cool. Because only wonderful lovely people can have fun with making that much of an arse out of themself. And I can relate to that.
Anyway, something scary happened during the show to which I definitely could not relate. At the instistance of the lead vocals, instead of holding up lighters, everyone held up cell phones. Cell phones. I was absolutely horrified and refused to do it. Ew. Stressbunny informed me that this was teh common and I was totally unhip for not knowing about it. I don't remember there being any freakin cell phone waving at the Twighlight Singers. Sheesh. But I'm not one to argue against my relative unhipness to oh say a 90 year old Russian hermit, so who knows. All I know is that I'm not doin that. I think I'm just on the other side of that generation gap. And I'm not good at jumping.
My other huge disappointment was that Tim Nordwind was not the actual lead singer (REMEMBER HOW I KNEW NOTHING!!) because I heart him. I mean, I didn't know his name until just now, but I did heart him. He reminds me of my one of my oldest friend in all things happy:
Besides being technilogically far advanced from my granny self (between the YouTube and the cell phones), they really put on a fun show. I really hope they are enjoying it as much as their crowd.
But man, I've never felt so old at a concert before. Heh, anyway, I just found their blog. These guys really are on top of it.
Ok Go did their little dance at the encore, which is, of course, the whole reason why I went. I think I would've gone for the straight music and the show itself had I known any.thing. about them beforehand. You have to know something about me - I (old Lyco Magee), living in my law school cave of despair, had never heard of these new peeps. So Idaho sent me a link to their videos. Which then made me miss college - because I have about three tapes worth of video of my girls and I doing things like that (usually involving a well placed elevator) only not nearly as cool. And thereby I decided that they, in turn, were cool. Because only wonderful lovely people can have fun with making that much of an arse out of themself. And I can relate to that.
Anyway, something scary happened during the show to which I definitely could not relate. At the instistance of the lead vocals, instead of holding up lighters, everyone held up cell phones. Cell phones. I was absolutely horrified and refused to do it. Ew. Stressbunny informed me that this was teh common and I was totally unhip for not knowing about it. I don't remember there being any freakin cell phone waving at the Twighlight Singers. Sheesh. But I'm not one to argue against my relative unhipness to oh say a 90 year old Russian hermit, so who knows. All I know is that I'm not doin that. I think I'm just on the other side of that generation gap. And I'm not good at jumping.
My other huge disappointment was that Tim Nordwind was not the actual lead singer (REMEMBER HOW I KNEW NOTHING!!) because I heart him. I mean, I didn't know his name until just now, but I did heart him. He reminds me of my one of my oldest friend in all things happy:
Besides being technilogically far advanced from my granny self (between the YouTube and the cell phones), they really put on a fun show. I really hope they are enjoying it as much as their crowd.
But man, I've never felt so old at a concert before. Heh, anyway, I just found their blog. These guys really are on top of it.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Ode to My Gardens
I miss my gardens horribly. I therefore posted all my pics of my garden up on my Flickr account. Since I'm too lazy to create a googlenonymous account, it's under my real name. Therefore, I won't post the link here, but if you want to see all my geeky cooking and gardening pics, shoot me an email and I'll send the link.
It's cold and gray out today. So I'm doing my fantasy garden thang. You know how people do the "what would you buy with a million bucks" game? I'm doing the unlimited resources garden game. Veggies and herbs galore, lots of aesthetic and practical value - winding paths and benches and two main flower areas: one is a moonlight garden (all whites and greens) and the other is a butterfly garden. Implanted drip irrigation. A small greenhouse/conservatory connected to my house.
I would only need thousands of dollars and a team of helper monkeys. It's doable.
It's cold and gray out today. So I'm doing my fantasy garden thang. You know how people do the "what would you buy with a million bucks" game? I'm doing the unlimited resources garden game. Veggies and herbs galore, lots of aesthetic and practical value - winding paths and benches and two main flower areas: one is a moonlight garden (all whites and greens) and the other is a butterfly garden. Implanted drip irrigation. A small greenhouse/conservatory connected to my house.
I would only need thousands of dollars and a team of helper monkeys. It's doable.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
How to Ruin a Saturday Night
So I'm taking this class on commercial transaction documents. And I've never been worse at anything in my entire life. I'm working on an assignment to draft a Promissory Note and a Guaranty and it's so hard I actually want to cry. Nothing fills me with the black tar of hatred like drafting these freaking documents.
I don't get it. Not matter how hard I try, I have no idea as to what is going on. I'm making a bad grade in the class and I don't know what to do. And it's midnight. At least I have a sense for what I should never never ever do with my life. Talk about an ethics violation. Well, I guess I could single-handedly take out a corporation in the sad and terrifying year I worked in a firm's corporate department. That's something.
I'm stopping now. I need a drink. Stupid stupid.
I don't get it. Not matter how hard I try, I have no idea as to what is going on. I'm making a bad grade in the class and I don't know what to do. And it's midnight. At least I have a sense for what I should never never ever do with my life. Talk about an ethics violation. Well, I guess I could single-handedly take out a corporation in the sad and terrifying year I worked in a firm's corporate department. That's something.
I'm stopping now. I need a drink. Stupid stupid.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
And the Next Morning
I have INXS stuck in my head. And I can't seem to motivate my way out of bed. Instead, I am drinking delicious delicious coffee, hearing the rain patter outside, and eating warm pumpkin spice bread. I'm supposed to run 4 miles today. Did I mention the rain? And that I'm still in bed?
The one thing that is helping is coffee. All I'm sayin is that Idaho makes a damn fine cup of coffee. I am the worst coffee maker alive. Ask anyone. So it's awesome to live with a woman who just made the best cup of coffee I've had all month. She also talked me into going to the Ok Go concert this Sunday by showing me this. Because she makes a mean cup o jo AND knows her shizznit. I gotta beat off potential roommies with sticks just to keep my place around here. Sticks. And the occasional rusted blade. Because when you mess with Lyco, you get sliced.
Yes. I am listening to Beautiful Girl. Sliced.
The one thing that is helping is coffee. All I'm sayin is that Idaho makes a damn fine cup of coffee. I am the worst coffee maker alive. Ask anyone. So it's awesome to live with a woman who just made the best cup of coffee I've had all month. She also talked me into going to the Ok Go concert this Sunday by showing me this. Because she makes a mean cup o jo AND knows her shizznit. I gotta beat off potential roommies with sticks just to keep my place around here. Sticks. And the occasional rusted blade. Because when you mess with Lyco, you get sliced.
Yes. I am listening to Beautiful Girl. Sliced.
Wanna Go For a Ride?
In Limine and I finally caught up with one another at the Twilight Singers show at the Black Cat tonight. Greg Dulli was amazing with his never ending cigarette and muddy grooves and Mark Lanegan was guesting. They had a candleabra with lit candles and incense on the amps. Dulli had a cup holder and an ash tray attached to his mic stand. Pure rock. Opening for them was Stars of Track and Field who are not only surprisingly talented and fun, but teh hotness. It was awesome, though I didn't have as much time to chat and play catch up with IL as I would have liked seeing as how we were busy being wooed from stage.
Afterwards, a big group of us headed over to Ben's Chili Bowl for Chili Cheese Fries, veggie burgers (with cheese and veggie chili) and vanilla milkshakes. There was much laughing and happiness after the long show - especially because I got to show Idaho the Chili Bowl. Yay! With newly distended bellies and fits of giggles, we all finally headed home.
What an awesome end to a Wednesday.
Oh, and I was on call in Corporations, but I read the wrong assignment - I didn't get called on AGAIN! WOOHOO!
Afterwards, a big group of us headed over to Ben's Chili Bowl for Chili Cheese Fries, veggie burgers (with cheese and veggie chili) and vanilla milkshakes. There was much laughing and happiness after the long show - especially because I got to show Idaho the Chili Bowl. Yay! With newly distended bellies and fits of giggles, we all finally headed home.
What an awesome end to a Wednesday.
Oh, and I was on call in Corporations, but I read the wrong assignment - I didn't get called on AGAIN! WOOHOO!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Poetics
The stuff below is cool enough on it's own, except for an event occurred just after it that made me laugh so hard I almost peed my pants. I found the quiz via G's blog and immediately had to share with the Scop because, well, you know why. Anyway, his first response was "I'm going to be Maya Angelou." To which I laughed most loudly. He said that if he answered every question the opposite of what he really thought, he would be Maya Angelou. In a couple minutes I was following a link to "You are Maya Angelou!" Too freakin funny. If you know the Scop at all, it's enough to keep you in stiches. So then I did my negative answers and what did I turn out? The Scop's true answer Now, to follow that up with much less amusing news, here's how mine turned out:
Philip Larkin! You scored 37 Demeanour, 54 Debauchery, 62 Traditionalism, and 80 Expression! |
Cheer up, asshole. Everyone loves you, and still you treat them like shit. And still they love you! They love you all the more for it! Why is that, do you suppose? Because you're a freakin genius, that's why! You make an insult sound like love song! You spew your venom at the world and the world laps it up! From your dark, ugly little heart gushes forth a veritable geyser of gorgeous ideas and melodious language. I hate you. Let's hang out sometime. Your masterpiece is "The Less Deceived". |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Which Famous Poet Are You Test written by Torontop on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Transactional support
Oh dear Universe please make it so that I never have to work in transactions ever ever in my whole life. Ever.
LA Police Beating
So I went running today and hopped over to the caf to grab something to eat for refueling before class. The seating area has two large flat screen tvs that constantly run. I know, it's horrid. The only time I liked it is when they play the baseball games. Anyway, I was walking back though with my overpriced curry wrap and the news was on. They were showing the YouTube police brutality clip from LA. I was absolutely horrified to see that - it was a total shock. I went from contemplating whether my wrap was soggy to seeing a police officer repeatedly punching a man in the face. Then stopping. And punching repeatedly again. Horrified. It was all I could do not to start sobbing in the middle of the caf. I ran to the bathroom, took a view deep breaths, and got to class.
You know, a Judge said that they were more than justified because he was resisting arrest and the police officers were afraid that he would try and grab their guns. I think that is the biggest pile or horseshit I have ever heard. There were so many other things they could have done besides repeatedly punching a human being in the face and then stopping and starting again. For the love of God, what is wrong with these people? I feel like resisting arrest can merit physical force, but that just did not make sense to me.
How can you sleep at night after brutally injuring another being? I get a shock of sympathy pain when I accidently step on someone's foot. What happens when you intentionally break someone's face? I do not understand how someone can cause that level of pain to another being. I just can't. The amount of rationalization and false consciousness in which these people live baffles me. It is even more disturbing under the "he's a bad person" philosophy. When did we decide that there was a hierarchy of humanity? If you do bad things, you're less human and therefore it's ok to treat you as less than human? No. Nothing justifies that, and I hope those police officers lose their power over this. Somehow I doubt it.
You know, a Judge said that they were more than justified because he was resisting arrest and the police officers were afraid that he would try and grab their guns. I think that is the biggest pile or horseshit I have ever heard. There were so many other things they could have done besides repeatedly punching a human being in the face and then stopping and starting again. For the love of God, what is wrong with these people? I feel like resisting arrest can merit physical force, but that just did not make sense to me.
How can you sleep at night after brutally injuring another being? I get a shock of sympathy pain when I accidently step on someone's foot. What happens when you intentionally break someone's face? I do not understand how someone can cause that level of pain to another being. I just can't. The amount of rationalization and false consciousness in which these people live baffles me. It is even more disturbing under the "he's a bad person" philosophy. When did we decide that there was a hierarchy of humanity? If you do bad things, you're less human and therefore it's ok to treat you as less than human? No. Nothing justifies that, and I hope those police officers lose their power over this. Somehow I doubt it.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Marathon Post
So this is week 2 of my marathon training schedule and I thought I'd do a small update. I am doing basically a 41 week program. One 19 week mileage builder, one 18 week marathon training program, plus a 2 week starter.
Basically, I'm taking my time because I don't want to get hurt and I'm not in a hurry. It tends to be that once injured, I have the best excuse not to exercise. So this two week period is kind of my pre-training. The problem is that I have bad knees from years of ballet (shut up) and horseback riding (shut UP) and my hip from the surgery has a tendency to fruit out. Similarly, if I strain myself and don't build slowly, the simple pressure and impact of running siezes my neck up. So I'm keeping it between 10-12 minute miles for now, short strides, and form-conscious. It's a little embarassing and hard to have everyone pass me, but it's far more important to stay injury-free. Oh, and I sprint my last 1/2 mile. That feels good.
Last week and this week the goal is to run a basic schedule - because I've not so far. I figure that 2 weeks of basic but diligent training is enough to start Phase I. The goal is to run 16 miles, or 4 4-mile runs. Last week I was successful and so far this week is going well.
Then I start the program by dropping back to 14 miles and building up from there. This 19 week program is purely for building my mileage for the 18 week marathon training, and looks like this:
Basically, I'm taking my time because I don't want to get hurt and I'm not in a hurry. It tends to be that once injured, I have the best excuse not to exercise. So this two week period is kind of my pre-training. The problem is that I have bad knees from years of ballet (shut up) and horseback riding (shut UP) and my hip from the surgery has a tendency to fruit out. Similarly, if I strain myself and don't build slowly, the simple pressure and impact of running siezes my neck up. So I'm keeping it between 10-12 minute miles for now, short strides, and form-conscious. It's a little embarassing and hard to have everyone pass me, but it's far more important to stay injury-free. Oh, and I sprint my last 1/2 mile. That feels good.
Last week and this week the goal is to run a basic schedule - because I've not so far. I figure that 2 weeks of basic but diligent training is enough to start Phase I. The goal is to run 16 miles, or 4 4-mile runs. Last week I was successful and so far this week is going well.
Then I start the program by dropping back to 14 miles and building up from there. This 19 week program is purely for building my mileage for the 18 week marathon training, and looks like this:
| Week# | Sun. | Mon. | Tue. | Wed. | Thu. | Fri. | Sat. | Total |
| 1 | 4 | Rest | 3 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 3 | 14 |
| 2 | 4 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 3 | 15 |
| 3 | 5 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 3 | 16 |
| 4 | 3 | Rest | 3 | Rest | 3 | Rest | 3 | 12 |
| 5 | 5 | Rest | 3 | 3 | 3 | Rest | 3 | 17 |
| 6 | 6 | Rest | 3 | 3 | 3 | Rest | 3 | 18 |
| 7 | 6 | Rest | 3 | 4 | 3 | Rest | 4 | 20 |
| 8 | 3 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 3 | Rest | 3 | 13 |
| 9 | 7 | Rest | 3 | 5 | 4 | Rest | 3 | 22 |
| 10 | 7 | Rest | 4 | 5 | 4 | Rest | 4 | 24 |
| 11 | 8 | Rest | 4 | 6 | 4 | Rest | 4 | 26 |
| 12 | 4 | Rest | 3 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 4 | 15 |
| 13 | 8 | Rest | 5 | 6 | 5 | Rest | 4 | 28 |
| 14 | 9 | Rest | 5 | 6 | 6 | Rest | 4 | 30 |
| 15 | 9 | Rest | 5 | 7 | 6 | Rest | 5 | 32 |
| 16 | 5 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 4 | 17 |
| 17 | 10 | Rest | 6 | 8 | 6 | Rest | 4 | 34 |
| 18 | 10 | Rest | 6 | 8 | 7 | Rest | 4 | 35 |
| 19 | 6 | Rest | 4 | Rest | 5 | Rest | 4 | 19 |
Sunday, November 12, 2006
For Your Historical Proscrastination Pleasure
Ever wondered what Washington was really like? We watched an informative video on the history of President George Washington at the most recent Taco Night. You can see it here.
Kat, you may want to consider this for your history sections in your class. Seriously. It's really informative.
Kat, you may want to consider this for your history sections in your class. Seriously. It's really informative.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy
I know this is extremely overdue, but I hope it's helpful anyway. As many of you know, I spent my summer working on the petitioner's brief in Duke Energy. I poured a lot of my heart and soul into this thing, so it there was a lot of emotion for me afterwards. hence my not blogging about it.
I have to admit, I was disappointed with the oral arguments. Not Sean Donahue, mind you - he was fantastic. Unfortunately, so was Duke's representation. Needless to say, both sides performed top notch, which is what you would expect in the Court. Jason Harrow over at the SCOTUSblog has a great overview of the oral arguments. Everyone here needs to remember that I am not the SCOTUSblog so I don't have to be objective in any way. This is my blog. The problem is that I'm not sure I feel as though it was so ambiguous. Here's the problem: the Justices were asking questions that seemed to be clearly answered in out reply brief. So one of two things was happening. One, they didn't read the reply brief. That's infuriating, but it happens. That's actually preferable to the second option because their clerks will go back, read it, and it will clarify some of the issues. However, the second option is that they read the reply brief and just simply didn't buy the theories set forth by the petitioners. Which I find shocking, to put it simply. I guess we all just expected the Justices to be farther along. I'm not saying we lost, I'm just saying that I feel pretty unsure about it. After Maine v. BEP, I felt really strong about our position. But hey, I'm jsut a 3L... what the heck do I know?
Now, as some readers (to either your woe or delight) know, I try to post entries on events to which you do not have access. After the Duke Energy case, we held a debriefing at Georgetown University Law Center. Now, to my surprise, the press was there and we are actually showing a webcast of this event that you can see off the GULC website here. I would highly suggest watching it because the panel was very heated and emotional. Exciting stuff. However, for those who do not have 2 hours, I will do a brief rundown of how the different sides viewed the issues facing the Court on November 1:
Panelists
John Echevaria: Moderator
Sean Donahue: Attorney for Environmental Defense and Prof. at Washington and Lee
Holly Gordon: clinical fellow at Stanford – wrote amicus brief for prior EPA administration
Scott Segal: Bracewell and Patterson lobbyist
F. Williams (Bill) Brownell: attorney for Hunton and Williams, representatives of Duke Energy
The Panel was done by issue. An issue in the case would be presented and each of them had a chance to comment on it. I will write a brief explanatory comment about the issue and then present summaries of the panelist responses. P.S. Segal was clearly the devil, as he is the lobbyist for oil and energy. Just sayin. Remember, this is my blog, and I can say it.
Issue 1: CAA Section 307 Jurisdictional question
Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act basically says that challenges to EPA regulations may be pursued only in the D.C. Circuit and must be raised within ninety days of promulgation. The 4th Circuit opinion held that the new source review (NSR) emissions increase regulations were invalid, creating the basis for Environmental Defense's assertion that this case was improperly brought before the 4th Circuit. If the Court finds that the 4th Circuit exceeded its jurisdiction, it will not even reach the merits.
Sean: Section 307 has very complex language, so it was a challenge to toggle between the big picture concepts and the necessary regulatory detail. §307(b) says that actions of the EPA administrator are exclusively reviewed in the DC Circuit Court. To make this work, then there can be no challenge to regulations in enforcement proceeding. This is done in order to get a uniform judicial interpretation given the complexity of the statutes and regulations. Here, the question is whether the controversy is subject to this bar, which is disputed (what the controversy is). Our side is basically conceding that this is ambiguous, but the matter in controversy about how broad the programs should apply, the regulations in 1980 took a clear position on an actual annual rate and would take a account in increased utilization resulting in a physical improvement. Respondents say EPA didn’t make it that clear in the initial regulations and so they couldn’t challenge them at that time, only when the govt sued them. That’s what is before the Court. The Court this morning was concerned about the complexity and whether a fair opportunity to challenge was available to the regulatory community. We tried to show that it was clear and could (and should) have been in DC Circuit. And in fact respondents, they actually got review on this issue. It's not clear how the Court will go – early on there were a lot of concerns about the fairness of 307(b).
Echevaria: What was the most helpful question you got on this issue?
Sean: The most helpful question was Justice Breyer’s reference to the settlement in 1982 requiring them to amend the rules to amend the hourly rates test. If he thought that was potentially significant, that’s good because it’s so early in time, which means that they read the rule, they saw the issues and they took it to court. It's difficult to swallow consequences and Judges have expressed concerns (especially Due Process concerns) and Duke did a very good job of putting it in the frame of unfairness – we think that doesn’t fit the law and real developments here.
Bill: One of the initial things about this case is that the regulatory and legislative history covers about 35 years. Some of the attorneys working on this case (ed note: like me) weren’t even born then. On the jurisdictional issue... the case focuses on the 1980 major modification issues. The initial issue is that it really collapses into the merits issue. It’s clear that modification can have only one meaning. When they adopted that view of the regulations, they invalidated it, which only the DC Circuit can do. The problem is that petitioners are saying the regulations are clear, but there’s very little to tell you there can only be one answer and the EPA did not in fact answer this question. So not a lot of time was spent on this because it’s so intertwined with the merits. Industry did challenge the 2002 Rules issued by EPA and the 1980 rules, which has been used to say industry has already had its day in court, but what happened is that industry said that “this” is how we view the 1980 Rule, but if the rule had the meaning being attributed to it now, we had no chance to notice and comment so it’s invalid anyway. The DC Circuit never dealt with this but said it was better left for other courts where there’s more developed record and threw it back to local enforcement courts. The rules being implied here are State Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed by North Carolina and South Carolina to implement CFR pt 51 and 52 back in 1982. SIPs are subject to challenge only in a local circuit court. So either way you’re in the 4th Circuit. What was interesting was Justice Kennedy’s concern over 307(b) – concerned with a position that would require the Court to apply a rule that was clearly adverse to law. Just because a company did not file a challenge, does that preclude a court hearing the case? This is why the Justices would give a very careful reading to this to really say what the law means.
Holly: In regard to 307, I am optimistic that this would be the initial issue the Court decides on, and I remain cautiously optimistic. For me, the turning point was when Justice Breyer said that the 4th Circuit decision was hard to defend on jurisdictional issues. From the former EPA administrator’s perspective, it’s extremely important because of judicial review and building enforcement cases and the problem of whether you can go back to DC Circuit and and invalidate these enforcement actions that take years to develop; it takes a huge amount of time.
Segal: Bracewell filed an amici on behalf of the Brotherhood of Oilmakers. Our interest in the case had much to do with the fact that if the interpretation of the New Source Review (NSR) regulations slows down the ability to undertake maintenance projects, not only do they not get to do these projects, but otherwise people will end up less safe because they won’t do them. This makes the boilermakers very concerned. Electric Reliability Coordinating Council looks at effects on the grid (power generating companies). My views of the jurisdictional argument is that institutional reasons seem more apropos, and that it only makes sense in administrability, etc. What does makes sense here? This is an enforcement case so who sued who and where? Duke didn’t sue anyone, this suit was brought by EPA in the 4th Circuit. This seems unfair that when you raise legal defenses, you are precluded. I admits that I am was grossly oversimplifying it. But I can imagine in the future a case coming out of the 9th Circuit that’s totally opposite and what disappointment (no joy in mudville) would the environmentalists feel? This is a case of the dog chasing the garbage truck.
Issue 2: The merits of the dispute
Whether there is a cap on the amount of actual emissions or hourly rate of emissions. The key issue here is that "modification" was being triggered in different ways (in how they measure emissions standards) under the New Source Performance Standards program (NSPS) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program-- hourly rates under NSPS versus actual annual emissions under PSD. Can they be findamentally distinct or must they be the same where the term “modification” is defined for NSR purposes by cross-reference to the NSPS definition?
Sean: I just have to briefly return to Segal's last comment. If Segal was right, 307(b) would mean nothing. Environmentalists have a stake in the orderly administration of the law and otherwise they will lose because of resource disparities. Now, on the merits issue, the 1977 Act grandfathers existing sources but not their capacity; they have to get permits when they get a modification. The language is broad and the DC Circuit Court agrees with us. They say that any physical change that increases the amount emitted – this is the most natural reading. No requirement to retrofit, but you’re not immune if you are upgrading. So the contrary view is to base it on the maximum design capacity of the plant. That you’re entitled to continue to emit that amount without PSD. EPA is now (and this is interesting) considering this approach because they have said it would eviscerate the NSPS to PSD. We have to note the importance that abandoning this is a significant loss for air quality. Steven’s line of questioning regarding the different terms meant that he wanted to look into this. There are two different statutory theories in play: one is the requirement that EPA have regs that are identical no matter how they are designed and 2: (ed. note: I had to help a friend so I missed this...).
Bill: Duke is really saying "what is the construction trigger for NSPS for NSR for PSD?" Look at regulatory history. 1971 introduced the modification concept and then it was implemented with clarification in 74 and 75 so that modification was one concept. The first time the "major modification" concept came up was the regulatory concept in the 1976 Nonattainment NSR interpretive ruling. It came up as a concept that limited applicability for NSR to modifications that are major. That was its sole purpose when the term first came up. Then it was defined as an increase in allowable, then potential, then annual, now actual. Under the 1973 PSD provisions, all modification was subject to PSD, then major modification was adopted for PSD. There are interesting applicability issues in the preamble that explains it as applying only to programs that are major sources and major modifications. Duke’s point is that you need that construction activity to trigger the major modification analysis. A lot of back and forth in the argument – that is how EPA said the program should be implemented in the Ed Reich (ed: that was the Director of the Stationary Source Compliance Division) applicability determinations. Duke said that that’s what EPA was telling us the programs mean when we were implementing our SIPs back in 82 when Reich’s applicability determinations were the only interpretations available. Scalia, Alito, and even Stevens had a number of interesting comments and questions on that about increase in hourly rate. In the early stages of the case, they asked EPA for interrogatories and they referred us to the rules and then the Region 7 website where there is a policy and guidance database. What’s there? The Reich determinations. It has 550 docs overall, 105 of those are Reich – he was the guy responsible for uniform guidance and determination back when this was determined – if he was wrong on this, what can anyone rely on in this database? I think the Justices had that understanding of the rule.
Holly: I want to backup and say the former EPA administrator would argue that there is complete consistency. Reich is a minor point and I'm optimistic that when the Justices go back to the briefs, they will realize that. EPA has been consistent over the last 25-30 years. The real question is what are we getting at? Increased hours don’t count but increased rates do. What does this mean? It's a simplification, but think about the ramification. 40 hours a week at 10 tons, that’s 400 tons. If you increase to 80 hours, that’s 800 tons. Now your emissions have significantly increased but you’ve kept your hourly ate. The purpose of the CAA was to maintain air quality in areas that were ok – that's PSD. Now if you increase your emissions but maintain hourly rates, I don't see how you are maintaining air quality. Breyer said at one point, "doesn’t that make twice as much pollution?", so I thought that was a turning point. It’s important to look at the policy issues and what the CAA is trying to achieve.
Segal: Society pays a huge price when we use an enforcement program to reduce emissions. There is a right way and a wrong way to do these things. It creates perverse incentives to use enforcement programs in this way when you're simply making plants safer (Sean interrupts – no you’re replacing the engine in a car). If we don’t do this then the workers in the plant will blow up, which is worse. Law suits do not solve this. Our programs are good at incentivizing – otherwise perpetual noncompliance and litigation creates disincentives. No one stood up today and said this is a real world discussion between whether or not there should be lots of pollution or strict regulations – that’s a false choice. The question today is what is most cost reductive and incentivising option.
Issue 3 : What does this case mean for this long running controversy regarding NSR?
Sean: Again, this is a complex case with both a jurisdictional question and substantive issues and they did not come to rest. There’s a lot going on besides this case so if the Court were to hold the NSPS modification was required by statute, that would affect sweeping changes that would raise questions of legislative fixes and make EPA to go back to the drawing board.
Bill: For me, the glass is half full and I'm confident the 4th Circuit will be upheld. Which is the end of the case, and has implications for NSR.
Holly: I think they'll dismiss jurisdictionally and then they won’t reach the merits.
Segal: Who speaks for the CAA? In my view, in 1992-93 something curious happened in the EPA – we divorced enforcement officials from the program in which they had operated. Instead, we herded up all enforcement people and put them in one place in EPA. What’s the institutional prerogative to do that? A good day for that office is filing litigation because they are not part of policy. When one voice speaks for CAA with respect for enforcement and regulatory reform in the same direction, that’s more healthy than having two separate offices with separate motivation. He hopes we can agree that it’s better to have one voice. (ed note: this guy is a total idiot. The problem here is that the enforcement is still tryin to stop pollution while Bush policy makers are trying to let industry run free. See William Andreen for a full discussion on why this is a terrible notion)
Audience Questions
For Segal - What would it take to get a successful program in your opinion?
Segal: For a trading program to be robust and cost effective, it needs to be reliable. If you have litigation overlay with a capture and trading program, what is the value of the credits if there is overtop litigation? If the theory is universal noncompliance and to look backwards and fashion the case, the robustness of the trading regime is undermining the environment. Remember, NSR is not an emissions program.
NRDC Attorney for Bill: Could you comment on the claim by utilities that Whipsaw didn’t have fair notice and were mislead by government, yet there are multiple documents revealing that that is not true. They had a firm contemporaneously making documents that evidence knowledge that there were clear differences between NSPS and NSR – the problem is that law firms have fought violently to keep these documents from public light. I challenge you to turn them over. In front of the media today so that we can have an honest discussion.
Bill: These are the documents produced between 1988-1992 on the uncertainty of WEPCo to change from an actual to potential test – there were comments filed and letters sent explaining that that is not what the law was and a successful challenge arose. This came up early in the Duke case in the District Court. EPA speaking out of both sides of its mouth is not a reason to let them change their position now.
Congressman Boehlert staffor: it’s not EPA or Courts role to read NSR out of existence. We want to have a conversation about NSR and pollution and bring it together and the administration just backed off that conversation through an administrative process and they are forced into litigation. If NSR is about PSD and you allow emissions to rise in a context of PSD you could put someone into nonattainment. How could that be the purpose?? You’d be reading NSR out of existence – it’s common sense – it’s not an emissions reduction program, but to maintain air quality standards.
Bill: B: Sources get reviewed under SIPs at Maximum operation capacities and assume max capacity to prove an emissions limit. So when we’re talking about hours of operation, that’s not the issue because that’s been reviewed – this is about new pollution not being made. This should focus on hours that exceed a permit limit bc otherwise they’re already regulated.
Sean: Putting aside policy merits, the spirit of New York v. EPA is compliance. This program had specific purposes and added specific provisions in 1977 to respond to inadequacies in the Act, and among those are to protect local air quality and health effects below the NAAQS and it’s not uncommon (and this is an issue in the CO2 case) for the SCOTUS to attack this problem through different regulatory means and we’re talking about adhering to a program Congress already made. Rule of law. There's value in amending the law if we don’t like it.
Audience for panel: Did it appear that Kennedy will be pivotal? Leaving aside the jurisdictional issue, it seems that the government brief was seeking a decision affirming their discretion to adopt either test but the Court didn’t spend time on that – what are the implications of that?
Segal: On Kennedy – he was very engaged and that’s a good sign. Important to note his role in the Alaska case and his being consistent with being open minded to the different arguments. Each of the justices are important, but he’s one to watch closely.
Bill: I think Kennedy thinks the modification concept has to be consistent. Stevens was pivotal on that issue too. The Court was grasping for the limits to that discretion. Several of the justices thought that this provided some limitation on that discretion.
Audience for panel: EPA seems to be changing to an hourly test. Can we challenge that itself?
Sean: The language of the statute provides ground for a challenge, among other things. There's a 23 year history of what the statute is about, but I'm not convinced they’ll do it.
Bill: depends on this case
Holly: we’ll see what happens in the election
There were some more questions but not so much on the case. It seemed to move away into broader areas. So if you want more, check out the webcast. I just finished attending a conference on Clean Air Act in the Court. The arguments set forth were challenging, but I feel like we have a stronger argument in general. I hope that Massachusetts v. EPA goes better on the outside. But I remain hopeful. I do.
I have to admit, I was disappointed with the oral arguments. Not Sean Donahue, mind you - he was fantastic. Unfortunately, so was Duke's representation. Needless to say, both sides performed top notch, which is what you would expect in the Court. Jason Harrow over at the SCOTUSblog has a great overview of the oral arguments. Everyone here needs to remember that I am not the SCOTUSblog so I don't have to be objective in any way. This is my blog. The problem is that I'm not sure I feel as though it was so ambiguous. Here's the problem: the Justices were asking questions that seemed to be clearly answered in out reply brief. So one of two things was happening. One, they didn't read the reply brief. That's infuriating, but it happens. That's actually preferable to the second option because their clerks will go back, read it, and it will clarify some of the issues. However, the second option is that they read the reply brief and just simply didn't buy the theories set forth by the petitioners. Which I find shocking, to put it simply. I guess we all just expected the Justices to be farther along. I'm not saying we lost, I'm just saying that I feel pretty unsure about it. After Maine v. BEP, I felt really strong about our position. But hey, I'm jsut a 3L... what the heck do I know?
Now, as some readers (to either your woe or delight) know, I try to post entries on events to which you do not have access. After the Duke Energy case, we held a debriefing at Georgetown University Law Center. Now, to my surprise, the press was there and we are actually showing a webcast of this event that you can see off the GULC website here. I would highly suggest watching it because the panel was very heated and emotional. Exciting stuff. However, for those who do not have 2 hours, I will do a brief rundown of how the different sides viewed the issues facing the Court on November 1:
Panelists
John Echevaria: Moderator
Sean Donahue: Attorney for Environmental Defense and Prof. at Washington and Lee
Holly Gordon: clinical fellow at Stanford – wrote amicus brief for prior EPA administration
Scott Segal: Bracewell and Patterson lobbyist
F. Williams (Bill) Brownell: attorney for Hunton and Williams, representatives of Duke Energy
The Panel was done by issue. An issue in the case would be presented and each of them had a chance to comment on it. I will write a brief explanatory comment about the issue and then present summaries of the panelist responses. P.S. Segal was clearly the devil, as he is the lobbyist for oil and energy. Just sayin. Remember, this is my blog, and I can say it.
Issue 1: CAA Section 307 Jurisdictional question
Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act basically says that challenges to EPA regulations may be pursued only in the D.C. Circuit and must be raised within ninety days of promulgation. The 4th Circuit opinion held that the new source review (NSR) emissions increase regulations were invalid, creating the basis for Environmental Defense's assertion that this case was improperly brought before the 4th Circuit. If the Court finds that the 4th Circuit exceeded its jurisdiction, it will not even reach the merits.
Sean: Section 307 has very complex language, so it was a challenge to toggle between the big picture concepts and the necessary regulatory detail. §307(b) says that actions of the EPA administrator are exclusively reviewed in the DC Circuit Court. To make this work, then there can be no challenge to regulations in enforcement proceeding. This is done in order to get a uniform judicial interpretation given the complexity of the statutes and regulations. Here, the question is whether the controversy is subject to this bar, which is disputed (what the controversy is). Our side is basically conceding that this is ambiguous, but the matter in controversy about how broad the programs should apply, the regulations in 1980 took a clear position on an actual annual rate and would take a account in increased utilization resulting in a physical improvement. Respondents say EPA didn’t make it that clear in the initial regulations and so they couldn’t challenge them at that time, only when the govt sued them. That’s what is before the Court. The Court this morning was concerned about the complexity and whether a fair opportunity to challenge was available to the regulatory community. We tried to show that it was clear and could (and should) have been in DC Circuit. And in fact respondents, they actually got review on this issue. It's not clear how the Court will go – early on there were a lot of concerns about the fairness of 307(b).
Echevaria: What was the most helpful question you got on this issue?
Sean: The most helpful question was Justice Breyer’s reference to the settlement in 1982 requiring them to amend the rules to amend the hourly rates test. If he thought that was potentially significant, that’s good because it’s so early in time, which means that they read the rule, they saw the issues and they took it to court. It's difficult to swallow consequences and Judges have expressed concerns (especially Due Process concerns) and Duke did a very good job of putting it in the frame of unfairness – we think that doesn’t fit the law and real developments here.
Bill: One of the initial things about this case is that the regulatory and legislative history covers about 35 years. Some of the attorneys working on this case (ed note: like me) weren’t even born then. On the jurisdictional issue... the case focuses on the 1980 major modification issues. The initial issue is that it really collapses into the merits issue. It’s clear that modification can have only one meaning. When they adopted that view of the regulations, they invalidated it, which only the DC Circuit can do. The problem is that petitioners are saying the regulations are clear, but there’s very little to tell you there can only be one answer and the EPA did not in fact answer this question. So not a lot of time was spent on this because it’s so intertwined with the merits. Industry did challenge the 2002 Rules issued by EPA and the 1980 rules, which has been used to say industry has already had its day in court, but what happened is that industry said that “this” is how we view the 1980 Rule, but if the rule had the meaning being attributed to it now, we had no chance to notice and comment so it’s invalid anyway. The DC Circuit never dealt with this but said it was better left for other courts where there’s more developed record and threw it back to local enforcement courts. The rules being implied here are State Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed by North Carolina and South Carolina to implement CFR pt 51 and 52 back in 1982. SIPs are subject to challenge only in a local circuit court. So either way you’re in the 4th Circuit. What was interesting was Justice Kennedy’s concern over 307(b) – concerned with a position that would require the Court to apply a rule that was clearly adverse to law. Just because a company did not file a challenge, does that preclude a court hearing the case? This is why the Justices would give a very careful reading to this to really say what the law means.
Holly: In regard to 307, I am optimistic that this would be the initial issue the Court decides on, and I remain cautiously optimistic. For me, the turning point was when Justice Breyer said that the 4th Circuit decision was hard to defend on jurisdictional issues. From the former EPA administrator’s perspective, it’s extremely important because of judicial review and building enforcement cases and the problem of whether you can go back to DC Circuit and and invalidate these enforcement actions that take years to develop; it takes a huge amount of time.
Segal: Bracewell filed an amici on behalf of the Brotherhood of Oilmakers. Our interest in the case had much to do with the fact that if the interpretation of the New Source Review (NSR) regulations slows down the ability to undertake maintenance projects, not only do they not get to do these projects, but otherwise people will end up less safe because they won’t do them. This makes the boilermakers very concerned. Electric Reliability Coordinating Council looks at effects on the grid (power generating companies). My views of the jurisdictional argument is that institutional reasons seem more apropos, and that it only makes sense in administrability, etc. What does makes sense here? This is an enforcement case so who sued who and where? Duke didn’t sue anyone, this suit was brought by EPA in the 4th Circuit. This seems unfair that when you raise legal defenses, you are precluded. I admits that I am was grossly oversimplifying it. But I can imagine in the future a case coming out of the 9th Circuit that’s totally opposite and what disappointment (no joy in mudville) would the environmentalists feel? This is a case of the dog chasing the garbage truck.
Issue 2: The merits of the dispute
Whether there is a cap on the amount of actual emissions or hourly rate of emissions. The key issue here is that "modification" was being triggered in different ways (in how they measure emissions standards) under the New Source Performance Standards program (NSPS) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program-- hourly rates under NSPS versus actual annual emissions under PSD. Can they be findamentally distinct or must they be the same where the term “modification” is defined for NSR purposes by cross-reference to the NSPS definition?
Sean: I just have to briefly return to Segal's last comment. If Segal was right, 307(b) would mean nothing. Environmentalists have a stake in the orderly administration of the law and otherwise they will lose because of resource disparities. Now, on the merits issue, the 1977 Act grandfathers existing sources but not their capacity; they have to get permits when they get a modification. The language is broad and the DC Circuit Court agrees with us. They say that any physical change that increases the amount emitted – this is the most natural reading. No requirement to retrofit, but you’re not immune if you are upgrading. So the contrary view is to base it on the maximum design capacity of the plant. That you’re entitled to continue to emit that amount without PSD. EPA is now (and this is interesting) considering this approach because they have said it would eviscerate the NSPS to PSD. We have to note the importance that abandoning this is a significant loss for air quality. Steven’s line of questioning regarding the different terms meant that he wanted to look into this. There are two different statutory theories in play: one is the requirement that EPA have regs that are identical no matter how they are designed and 2: (ed. note: I had to help a friend so I missed this...).
Bill: Duke is really saying "what is the construction trigger for NSPS for NSR for PSD?" Look at regulatory history. 1971 introduced the modification concept and then it was implemented with clarification in 74 and 75 so that modification was one concept. The first time the "major modification" concept came up was the regulatory concept in the 1976 Nonattainment NSR interpretive ruling. It came up as a concept that limited applicability for NSR to modifications that are major. That was its sole purpose when the term first came up. Then it was defined as an increase in allowable, then potential, then annual, now actual. Under the 1973 PSD provisions, all modification was subject to PSD, then major modification was adopted for PSD. There are interesting applicability issues in the preamble that explains it as applying only to programs that are major sources and major modifications. Duke’s point is that you need that construction activity to trigger the major modification analysis. A lot of back and forth in the argument – that is how EPA said the program should be implemented in the Ed Reich (ed: that was the Director of the Stationary Source Compliance Division) applicability determinations. Duke said that that’s what EPA was telling us the programs mean when we were implementing our SIPs back in 82 when Reich’s applicability determinations were the only interpretations available. Scalia, Alito, and even Stevens had a number of interesting comments and questions on that about increase in hourly rate. In the early stages of the case, they asked EPA for interrogatories and they referred us to the rules and then the Region 7 website where there is a policy and guidance database. What’s there? The Reich determinations. It has 550 docs overall, 105 of those are Reich – he was the guy responsible for uniform guidance and determination back when this was determined – if he was wrong on this, what can anyone rely on in this database? I think the Justices had that understanding of the rule.
Holly: I want to backup and say the former EPA administrator would argue that there is complete consistency. Reich is a minor point and I'm optimistic that when the Justices go back to the briefs, they will realize that. EPA has been consistent over the last 25-30 years. The real question is what are we getting at? Increased hours don’t count but increased rates do. What does this mean? It's a simplification, but think about the ramification. 40 hours a week at 10 tons, that’s 400 tons. If you increase to 80 hours, that’s 800 tons. Now your emissions have significantly increased but you’ve kept your hourly ate. The purpose of the CAA was to maintain air quality in areas that were ok – that's PSD. Now if you increase your emissions but maintain hourly rates, I don't see how you are maintaining air quality. Breyer said at one point, "doesn’t that make twice as much pollution?", so I thought that was a turning point. It’s important to look at the policy issues and what the CAA is trying to achieve.
Segal: Society pays a huge price when we use an enforcement program to reduce emissions. There is a right way and a wrong way to do these things. It creates perverse incentives to use enforcement programs in this way when you're simply making plants safer (Sean interrupts – no you’re replacing the engine in a car). If we don’t do this then the workers in the plant will blow up, which is worse. Law suits do not solve this. Our programs are good at incentivizing – otherwise perpetual noncompliance and litigation creates disincentives. No one stood up today and said this is a real world discussion between whether or not there should be lots of pollution or strict regulations – that’s a false choice. The question today is what is most cost reductive and incentivising option.
Issue 3 : What does this case mean for this long running controversy regarding NSR?
Sean: Again, this is a complex case with both a jurisdictional question and substantive issues and they did not come to rest. There’s a lot going on besides this case so if the Court were to hold the NSPS modification was required by statute, that would affect sweeping changes that would raise questions of legislative fixes and make EPA to go back to the drawing board.
Bill: For me, the glass is half full and I'm confident the 4th Circuit will be upheld. Which is the end of the case, and has implications for NSR.
Holly: I think they'll dismiss jurisdictionally and then they won’t reach the merits.
Segal: Who speaks for the CAA? In my view, in 1992-93 something curious happened in the EPA – we divorced enforcement officials from the program in which they had operated. Instead, we herded up all enforcement people and put them in one place in EPA. What’s the institutional prerogative to do that? A good day for that office is filing litigation because they are not part of policy. When one voice speaks for CAA with respect for enforcement and regulatory reform in the same direction, that’s more healthy than having two separate offices with separate motivation. He hopes we can agree that it’s better to have one voice. (ed note: this guy is a total idiot. The problem here is that the enforcement is still tryin to stop pollution while Bush policy makers are trying to let industry run free. See William Andreen for a full discussion on why this is a terrible notion)
Audience Questions
For Segal - What would it take to get a successful program in your opinion?
Segal: For a trading program to be robust and cost effective, it needs to be reliable. If you have litigation overlay with a capture and trading program, what is the value of the credits if there is overtop litigation? If the theory is universal noncompliance and to look backwards and fashion the case, the robustness of the trading regime is undermining the environment. Remember, NSR is not an emissions program.
NRDC Attorney for Bill: Could you comment on the claim by utilities that Whipsaw didn’t have fair notice and were mislead by government, yet there are multiple documents revealing that that is not true. They had a firm contemporaneously making documents that evidence knowledge that there were clear differences between NSPS and NSR – the problem is that law firms have fought violently to keep these documents from public light. I challenge you to turn them over. In front of the media today so that we can have an honest discussion.
Bill: These are the documents produced between 1988-1992 on the uncertainty of WEPCo to change from an actual to potential test – there were comments filed and letters sent explaining that that is not what the law was and a successful challenge arose. This came up early in the Duke case in the District Court. EPA speaking out of both sides of its mouth is not a reason to let them change their position now.
Congressman Boehlert staffor: it’s not EPA or Courts role to read NSR out of existence. We want to have a conversation about NSR and pollution and bring it together and the administration just backed off that conversation through an administrative process and they are forced into litigation. If NSR is about PSD and you allow emissions to rise in a context of PSD you could put someone into nonattainment. How could that be the purpose?? You’d be reading NSR out of existence – it’s common sense – it’s not an emissions reduction program, but to maintain air quality standards.
Bill: B: Sources get reviewed under SIPs at Maximum operation capacities and assume max capacity to prove an emissions limit. So when we’re talking about hours of operation, that’s not the issue because that’s been reviewed – this is about new pollution not being made. This should focus on hours that exceed a permit limit bc otherwise they’re already regulated.
Sean: Putting aside policy merits, the spirit of New York v. EPA is compliance. This program had specific purposes and added specific provisions in 1977 to respond to inadequacies in the Act, and among those are to protect local air quality and health effects below the NAAQS and it’s not uncommon (and this is an issue in the CO2 case) for the SCOTUS to attack this problem through different regulatory means and we’re talking about adhering to a program Congress already made. Rule of law. There's value in amending the law if we don’t like it.
Audience for panel: Did it appear that Kennedy will be pivotal? Leaving aside the jurisdictional issue, it seems that the government brief was seeking a decision affirming their discretion to adopt either test but the Court didn’t spend time on that – what are the implications of that?
Segal: On Kennedy – he was very engaged and that’s a good sign. Important to note his role in the Alaska case and his being consistent with being open minded to the different arguments. Each of the justices are important, but he’s one to watch closely.
Bill: I think Kennedy thinks the modification concept has to be consistent. Stevens was pivotal on that issue too. The Court was grasping for the limits to that discretion. Several of the justices thought that this provided some limitation on that discretion.
Audience for panel: EPA seems to be changing to an hourly test. Can we challenge that itself?
Sean: The language of the statute provides ground for a challenge, among other things. There's a 23 year history of what the statute is about, but I'm not convinced they’ll do it.
Bill: depends on this case
Holly: we’ll see what happens in the election
There were some more questions but not so much on the case. It seemed to move away into broader areas. So if you want more, check out the webcast. I just finished attending a conference on Clean Air Act in the Court. The arguments set forth were challenging, but I feel like we have a stronger argument in general. I hope that Massachusetts v. EPA goes better on the outside. But I remain hopeful. I do.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
This is an Official Lyco Announcement
I am training for a marathon. Stop. Ack. Stop. End transmission.
anyone have any training guide suggestions?
anyone have any training guide suggestions?
Nana na na na na HEY nana nana
I don't care what anyone else says. I'm optimistic. I think good things will come of this. I think we're on a better track. I am hopeful for the first. time. in. years. Yay America!
ABC
BBC
CNN
Fox (this was the best they could do)
Globe
MSNBC
NYTimes
Reuters
Tribune
USAToday
Yahoo
*p.s. my sidenote is my deep despair over the marriage amendments that passed. Shocking. I still have faith that we will overcome this embarassing prejudice and look back with shame but understanding of how wrong we were.
ABC
BBC
CNN
Fox (this was the best they could do)
Globe
MSNBC
NYTimes
Reuters
Tribune
USAToday
Yahoo
*p.s. my sidenote is my deep despair over the marriage amendments that passed. Shocking. I still have faith that we will overcome this embarassing prejudice and look back with shame but understanding of how wrong we were.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Missed Connections
You: trenchcoat, bible, thinning hair, killer scream
Me: red pinstripe suit, grey scarf, long black coat, short yet becoming haircut
We: Our eyes met in front of the Supreme Court. I was on my way back to GULC from an interview, you were performing comic relief for the protestors at the abortion case. You screamed "THEBABIESGONNADIE!! GONNADIE!!!" and I, being a sucker for your sense of.. humor, (right? Humor?) laughed outloud. You playfully went along with this charade and threw your bible to the ground and pointed at me. You politely, although with some excess volume and spittle, asked me what I was laughing at. Eyes sparkling, I told you I thought you were hilarious. I was opening my mouth to ask you to coffee.. decaf (you seemed a bit caffienated)... when you screamed "It's people like YOU! YOU tell these babies, 'Babies, you gonna die. I take away your choice, baby! I take away your choice to die!! I mean LIVE!!!'" Ohh you. I especially like how you were now screaming at your bible as if it were the dead baby. Very nice touch.
Bye this point, you had all the pro-choicers laughing. Pert college freshman girls in pony tails, mouths covered with LIFE duct tape and hands playfully tied behind their backs - tears were pouring from their eyes from laughing so hard. A couple snorted. Luckily, you couldn't see their mouths, and the tears probably worked for the media - but they were laughing. They glanced at me and I at them, knowing that we were in the presence of pure comic genius. I know the seriously dressed Christian Right thought you were on their side. But I know you're true genius. The way that our laughter seemed to drive you further into screaming insanity shows your true talent. And it makes me want you. I didn't want to take your moment, so I continued my journey and listened to you scream obscenities to the next passerby. I don't think they thought you were joking by their responses, but that's just because they are so far below your comic genius. If you remember the woman in the red pinstripe suit and laughing eyes, respond to this, and we'll get that coffee. Decaf.
Me: red pinstripe suit, grey scarf, long black coat, short yet becoming haircut
We: Our eyes met in front of the Supreme Court. I was on my way back to GULC from an interview, you were performing comic relief for the protestors at the abortion case. You screamed "THEBABIESGONNADIE!! GONNADIE!!!" and I, being a sucker for your sense of.. humor, (right? Humor?) laughed outloud. You playfully went along with this charade and threw your bible to the ground and pointed at me. You politely, although with some excess volume and spittle, asked me what I was laughing at. Eyes sparkling, I told you I thought you were hilarious. I was opening my mouth to ask you to coffee.. decaf (you seemed a bit caffienated)... when you screamed "It's people like YOU! YOU tell these babies, 'Babies, you gonna die. I take away your choice, baby! I take away your choice to die!! I mean LIVE!!!'" Ohh you. I especially like how you were now screaming at your bible as if it were the dead baby. Very nice touch.
Bye this point, you had all the pro-choicers laughing. Pert college freshman girls in pony tails, mouths covered with LIFE duct tape and hands playfully tied behind their backs - tears were pouring from their eyes from laughing so hard. A couple snorted. Luckily, you couldn't see their mouths, and the tears probably worked for the media - but they were laughing. They glanced at me and I at them, knowing that we were in the presence of pure comic genius. I know the seriously dressed Christian Right thought you were on their side. But I know you're true genius. The way that our laughter seemed to drive you further into screaming insanity shows your true talent. And it makes me want you. I didn't want to take your moment, so I continued my journey and listened to you scream obscenities to the next passerby. I don't think they thought you were joking by their responses, but that's just because they are so far below your comic genius. If you remember the woman in the red pinstripe suit and laughing eyes, respond to this, and we'll get that coffee. Decaf.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Birthday Wishes
First off, Happy Birthday to Paleobiology and the Drunken Gym Rat!!! YAY! Last night I spent some great time at a party with dear Paleo, DGR, and many others to celebrate said life. Paleo is one of those guys where I feel honored that he considers me a friend. He is close to family for me, and that's very special.
Before said debauchery to celebrate all things Paleo, I went to a production of Into the Woods, and I have to say that my friends are one talented bunch of peeps. Then I had to get up early this morning on no sleep and finish writing a response paper for my Land Use Research Workshop. Gosh I love Land Use. I'm a geek. I am about to buy/check out (haven't decided) a book on parking spaces. Beat that. All nerd points for Lyco.
Tonight, I get to see a good friend play lead guitar in her band for the first time! Whoot! What makes that even better? The Blonde Bombshell is in town!!!! YAY! Nothing makes me happier than my lovely ladies.
Ok, I need to shower and work. Meh.
Before said debauchery to celebrate all things Paleo, I went to a production of Into the Woods, and I have to say that my friends are one talented bunch of peeps. Then I had to get up early this morning on no sleep and finish writing a response paper for my Land Use Research Workshop. Gosh I love Land Use. I'm a geek. I am about to buy/check out (haven't decided) a book on parking spaces. Beat that. All nerd points for Lyco.
Tonight, I get to see a good friend play lead guitar in her band for the first time! Whoot! What makes that even better? The Blonde Bombshell is in town!!!! YAY! Nothing makes me happier than my lovely ladies.
Ok, I need to shower and work. Meh.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Knuckle Dragging
I've been yelled at because of my lack of blogging. Apologies. Life can get full, and despite what people think, I prefer the real world to that of the online version. Sometimes blogging falls by the wayside.
An update on the pup - I sent the email. Now I wait! if no response, I'll call them Monday.
I'm still to tired and emotional to blog about Duke Energy. but I will. I promise. Instead, I'm am cooking lots of food for my dear new mommy friend (new mommy, not new friend). I picked out foods that cover the spectrum of nutrition and are all healthy and good for breast feeding. The meal is pretty low fat. My other challenge is that all my other friends have been bring her food as well, so I couldn't duplicate. There's been pumpkin soup, lasagna, and something else.. heh. So I decided on Black Bean Stew with Butternut Squash and Chard served with baked Mexican Rice. I thought I would share the recipes here.
Black Bean Chili with Butternut Squash and Chard
2 tbl olive oil
3 15-oz cans black beans, rinsed
1 13.5-oz can diced tomatoes
1 cup celery
3 cups butternut squash, cubed into 1/2 inch pieces
2 1/2 cups yellow onions, chopped
3-5 cloves garlic, minced
2 tbs chili powder
2 tsp each cumin, coriander
1 tsp each dried thyme and oregano
1 bay leaf
2 1/2 vegetable broth
1 small head chard leaves, roughly chopped
3 tbs each fresh parsley and cilantro, split in half
1 tbs fresh oregano
salt and pepper to taste
a few drops liquid smoke
Heat oil in heavy large pot over medium-high heat. Add onions and garlic; sauté until tender and golden, about 9 minutes. Add squash and celery; stir 2 minutes. Stir in chili powder, coriander, dried herbs, and cumin. Stir in beans, broth, bay leaf, 1/2 fresh herbs, and tomatoes with juices; bring to boil. Reduce heat and simmer, uncovered, until squash is tender, about 15 minutes. Stir in chard, remaining fresh herbs (oregano and second half of parsley and cilantro), and liquid smoke; simmer until chard is tender but still bright green, about 4 minutes longer. Season to taste with salt and pepper. You can also make this in a slow cooker, just put the chard etc. in about 15 minutes before you want to turn it off and stir in the herbs at the very end.
Baked Mexican Rice
2 medium ripe tomatoes, quartered
1 medium white onion, peeled, trimmed of root end, and quartered
3 medium jalapeno peppers, seeds removed and ribs removed from 2, minced, and seperated
1 bell pepper, chopped finely
2 cups long grain brown rice
1/3 cup canola oil
4 cloves of garlic, minced
2 cups mock or real chicken broth
1 1/2 tsp salt adjusted for broth
1 tablespoon unsweet tomato paste
1 1/2 tbs Whole Foods Mexican Spice
salt to taste
½ cup fresh cilantro, minced
1/4 cup fresh parslet, minced
1 lime, cut into wedges for serving
Adjust oven rack to middle position and heat oven to 350 degrees. Process tomatoes and onion in food processor until smooth and thoroughly pureed. Transfer mixture to liquid measuring cup; you should have 2 cups.
Place rice in large fine-mesh strainer and rinse under cold running water until water runs clear, about 1 ½ minutes. Shake rice vigorously in strainer to remove all excess water.
Heat oil in heavy-bottomed ovensafe 12-inch straight-sided sauté pan or Dutch oven with tight-fitting lid over medium-high heat, 1 to 2 minutes. Drop 3 or 4 grains rice in oil; if grains sizzle, oil is ready. Add rice and fry, stirring frequently, until rice is light golden and translucent, 6 to 8 minutes. Reduce heat to medium, add garlic, bell pepper, and seeded minced jalapeños; cook, stirring constantly, until fragrant, about 1 ½ minutes. Stir in pureed tomatoes and onions, chicken broth, tomato paste, and salt; increase heat to medium-high and bring to boil. Cover pan and transfer to oven; bake until liquid is absorbed and rice is tender, 30 to 35 minutes, stirring well after 15 minutes.
Stir in cilantro, parsley, and reserved minced jalapeño with seeds to taste. Serve immediately, passing lime wedges separately.
An update on the pup - I sent the email. Now I wait! if no response, I'll call them Monday.
I'm still to tired and emotional to blog about Duke Energy. but I will. I promise. Instead, I'm am cooking lots of food for my dear new mommy friend (new mommy, not new friend). I picked out foods that cover the spectrum of nutrition and are all healthy and good for breast feeding. The meal is pretty low fat. My other challenge is that all my other friends have been bring her food as well, so I couldn't duplicate. There's been pumpkin soup, lasagna, and something else.. heh. So I decided on Black Bean Stew with Butternut Squash and Chard served with baked Mexican Rice. I thought I would share the recipes here.
Black Bean Chili with Butternut Squash and Chard
2 tbl olive oil
3 15-oz cans black beans, rinsed
1 13.5-oz can diced tomatoes
1 cup celery
3 cups butternut squash, cubed into 1/2 inch pieces
2 1/2 cups yellow onions, chopped
3-5 cloves garlic, minced
2 tbs chili powder
2 tsp each cumin, coriander
1 tsp each dried thyme and oregano
1 bay leaf
2 1/2 vegetable broth
1 small head chard leaves, roughly chopped
3 tbs each fresh parsley and cilantro, split in half
1 tbs fresh oregano
salt and pepper to taste
a few drops liquid smoke
Heat oil in heavy large pot over medium-high heat. Add onions and garlic; sauté until tender and golden, about 9 minutes. Add squash and celery; stir 2 minutes. Stir in chili powder, coriander, dried herbs, and cumin. Stir in beans, broth, bay leaf, 1/2 fresh herbs, and tomatoes with juices; bring to boil. Reduce heat and simmer, uncovered, until squash is tender, about 15 minutes. Stir in chard, remaining fresh herbs (oregano and second half of parsley and cilantro), and liquid smoke; simmer until chard is tender but still bright green, about 4 minutes longer. Season to taste with salt and pepper. You can also make this in a slow cooker, just put the chard etc. in about 15 minutes before you want to turn it off and stir in the herbs at the very end.
Baked Mexican Rice
2 medium ripe tomatoes, quartered
1 medium white onion, peeled, trimmed of root end, and quartered
3 medium jalapeno peppers, seeds removed and ribs removed from 2, minced, and seperated
1 bell pepper, chopped finely
2 cups long grain brown rice
1/3 cup canola oil
4 cloves of garlic, minced
2 cups mock or real chicken broth
1 1/2 tsp salt adjusted for broth
1 tablespoon unsweet tomato paste
1 1/2 tbs Whole Foods Mexican Spice
salt to taste
½ cup fresh cilantro, minced
1/4 cup fresh parslet, minced
1 lime, cut into wedges for serving
Adjust oven rack to middle position and heat oven to 350 degrees. Process tomatoes and onion in food processor until smooth and thoroughly pureed. Transfer mixture to liquid measuring cup; you should have 2 cups.
Place rice in large fine-mesh strainer and rinse under cold running water until water runs clear, about 1 ½ minutes. Shake rice vigorously in strainer to remove all excess water.
Heat oil in heavy-bottomed ovensafe 12-inch straight-sided sauté pan or Dutch oven with tight-fitting lid over medium-high heat, 1 to 2 minutes. Drop 3 or 4 grains rice in oil; if grains sizzle, oil is ready. Add rice and fry, stirring frequently, until rice is light golden and translucent, 6 to 8 minutes. Reduce heat to medium, add garlic, bell pepper, and seeded minced jalapeños; cook, stirring constantly, until fragrant, about 1 ½ minutes. Stir in pureed tomatoes and onions, chicken broth, tomato paste, and salt; increase heat to medium-high and bring to boil. Cover pan and transfer to oven; bake until liquid is absorbed and rice is tender, 30 to 35 minutes, stirring well after 15 minutes.
Stir in cilantro, parsley, and reserved minced jalapeño with seeds to taste. Serve immediately, passing lime wedges separately.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Long Day
So my case, the one that I worked on all summer, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy, was heard today in the Supreme Court. It's been a long day and I'm exhausted. So I'm gonna do a long post on it, but not today. Instead, a poem by A. Van Jordan - it's been running through my head all day:
How Does a Man Write a Poem
at midnight? What better light
to write by than a woman's body
filled with her spirit and her mother's wit?
That body—which does to his words
what the moon does to the night—
is a song that plays
freely in that part of the mind
that makes a man hum, or whistle—
when he least expects it—
a tune that sticks to him for life.
Tonight, the song is a request:
Write me a poem please.
But what is left to write,
when the poem is curled up next to him in bed,
her hair hanging over his chest,
a willow breathing in his ear?
Although no money is wagered on his answer,
no love lost—
she's never told him that she loves him—
he still weighs the odds of her joy;
of her loss:
He picks up the pen.
How Does a Man Write a Poem
at midnight? What better light
to write by than a woman's body
filled with her spirit and her mother's wit?
That body—which does to his words
what the moon does to the night—
is a song that plays
freely in that part of the mind
that makes a man hum, or whistle—
when he least expects it—
a tune that sticks to him for life.
Tonight, the song is a request:
Write me a poem please.
But what is left to write,
when the poem is curled up next to him in bed,
her hair hanging over his chest,
a willow breathing in his ear?
Although no money is wagered on his answer,
no love lost—
she's never told him that she loves him—
he still weighs the odds of her joy;
of her loss:
He picks up the pen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
