I like this topic, so I'm gonna stick with it until it has run its course.
*I learned that "riparian" means "of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water." In a similar vein, I also learned that "effluent" means "something that flows out or forth, especially (among other things) a stream that flows out of a body of water. [Note: all definitions are coming from thefreedictionary.com.]
Context: Reading for Environmental Law, of course.
*I learned that Sheryl Crow sold her catalogue for $10 million. Not bad. I should probably say something like "All she wants to do is have some fun, amirite?!?!" but I'm above that.
Context: Listening to the radio in my CD-playerless car.
*I learned that tundra is a biome (an area, essentially) whereas permafrost is the actual soil that stays below 32 degrees year-round. At least, that's my understanding as of now--I could have that mixed up.
Context: Ironically, this has nothing to do with Environ Law. I was watching Cash Cab and this question arose (my best approximation): "What soil or surface covering 70% of Alaska is known for staying at or below 32 degrees year-round?" I guessed tundra, it was permafrost (which sounds obvious when you read the question with the word perma-frost in your head).
*I learned that "[i]t is not always easy to decide what is heads and tails on a given coin. Numismatics (the scientific study of money) defines the obverse and reverse of a coin rather than heads and tails." (from random.org) and here I've been saying "heads" and "tails" like a sucker!
Context: $10k flips to get unstuck after a bad session, obviously.
*Finally, I learned that Tracy (no one we knew, of course) should probably never use facebook again.
Context: 2p2
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
(Some of the) Things I've Learned Today
School has resumed and my cup now runneth over with knowledge. Today, I learned the following things:
*I learned that "anthropogenic" means "caused by humans." (Used when discussing pollutants and other bad things that man has produced.) I discovered this while doing my reading for Environmental Law.
*In a related matter, I learned that Environmental Law is going to be a boring course.
*I learned that back in the day, motorists driving into a state different from their domicile were once required to pull over near the border and execute a consent to be sued. Why? Well, this is most easily explained with an example, so let's say you're driving from IL into WI. (Let's assume that there's something worth seeing in Wisconsin...a stretch, I know.) Let's also say that you crash into a Wisconsinite in his home state. This Wisconsinite wants to sue you--a dirty FIB--for negligence. Let's also say that we're all living in 1880. Finally, Wisconsinite wants to sue you in a Wisconsin state court. Well, the Supreme Court said in Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) that a state court has "personal jurisdiction" over you only if you are within the State. So, if you are back in Illinois, Wisconsinite cannot bring the suit in a Wisconsin court.
In short, Pennoyer premised personal jurisdiction on presence. So, if you were stupid enough to go back to Wisconsin, you could get served in Wisconsin and then all of a sudden you hafta appear in front of a Wisconsin state court. Oops! Anyways, Pennoyer mighta made sense when it was written, but with the advent of automobiles and whatnot, the test (of presence) made less sense. So, for a short time, motorists had to sign those consent forms (waiving their objections on the grounds of personal jurisdiction, essentially). Later, courts came up with the legal fiction that motorists, by driving across state lines, impliedly consented to being served via a State official. Finally, we just trashed Pennoyer (more or less) and came up with a different standard.
Confused? Yeah, same here. That's not all, either: there's also "subject-matter jurisdiction" issues. For example: can a federal court hear a breach of contract claim? (Breaches of contract are purely state matters.) Can a state court hear a case concerning federal legislation? There's also some sick, sick stuff about determining whether a state court should apply its own state law or a different state's law, but I have no idea how that stuff works, haha. Stay tuned, I guess.
*I learned that "Doin' Time" is a loose cover of a Gershwin song (covered here by Janis Joplin...I probably should have known this by now, but I guess I cut that day of 'Sublime Songs 101'.
*Back to vocabulary quickly, I learned that "factitious" means "lacking authenticity; a sham". I only throw that in here cuz the definition is kinda counterintuitive (maybe it's not if you're an etymology major).
*I finally learned what "Cap and Trade" means...it's not confusing at all, but I never bothered to look it up. Thanks, Environ Law!
*I learned that China pollutes more than we do, but that we have more pollution per capita. On the other hand, in terms of pollution per unit of GDP, the U.S. is just chilling in the middle of the pack. U-S-A! (Btw, guess where I learned that?)
*I learned that both sides of the political aisle are framing the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a "jobs bill." (Obama's words, but echoed by a Republican congressman.)
*I learned that Denis Clemente could probably beat me in HORSE (basketball, not poker, haha).
*I learned that "anthropogenic" means "caused by humans." (Used when discussing pollutants and other bad things that man has produced.) I discovered this while doing my reading for Environmental Law.
*In a related matter, I learned that Environmental Law is going to be a boring course.
*I learned that back in the day, motorists driving into a state different from their domicile were once required to pull over near the border and execute a consent to be sued. Why? Well, this is most easily explained with an example, so let's say you're driving from IL into WI. (Let's assume that there's something worth seeing in Wisconsin...a stretch, I know.) Let's also say that you crash into a Wisconsinite in his home state. This Wisconsinite wants to sue you--a dirty FIB--for negligence. Let's also say that we're all living in 1880. Finally, Wisconsinite wants to sue you in a Wisconsin state court. Well, the Supreme Court said in Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) that a state court has "personal jurisdiction" over you only if you are within the State. So, if you are back in Illinois, Wisconsinite cannot bring the suit in a Wisconsin court.
In short, Pennoyer premised personal jurisdiction on presence. So, if you were stupid enough to go back to Wisconsin, you could get served in Wisconsin and then all of a sudden you hafta appear in front of a Wisconsin state court. Oops! Anyways, Pennoyer mighta made sense when it was written, but with the advent of automobiles and whatnot, the test (of presence) made less sense. So, for a short time, motorists had to sign those consent forms (waiving their objections on the grounds of personal jurisdiction, essentially). Later, courts came up with the legal fiction that motorists, by driving across state lines, impliedly consented to being served via a State official. Finally, we just trashed Pennoyer (more or less) and came up with a different standard.
Confused? Yeah, same here. That's not all, either: there's also "subject-matter jurisdiction" issues. For example: can a federal court hear a breach of contract claim? (Breaches of contract are purely state matters.) Can a state court hear a case concerning federal legislation? There's also some sick, sick stuff about determining whether a state court should apply its own state law or a different state's law, but I have no idea how that stuff works, haha. Stay tuned, I guess.
*I learned that "Doin' Time" is a loose cover of a Gershwin song (covered here by Janis Joplin...I probably should have known this by now, but I guess I cut that day of 'Sublime Songs 101'.
*Back to vocabulary quickly, I learned that "factitious" means "lacking authenticity; a sham". I only throw that in here cuz the definition is kinda counterintuitive (maybe it's not if you're an etymology major).
*I finally learned what "Cap and Trade" means...it's not confusing at all, but I never bothered to look it up. Thanks, Environ Law!
*I learned that China pollutes more than we do, but that we have more pollution per capita. On the other hand, in terms of pollution per unit of GDP, the U.S. is just chilling in the middle of the pack. U-S-A! (Btw, guess where I learned that?)
*I learned that both sides of the political aisle are framing the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a "jobs bill." (Obama's words, but echoed by a Republican congressman.)
*I learned that Denis Clemente could probably beat me in HORSE (basketball, not poker, haha).
Monday, August 3, 2009
3 AM and I Kant Sleep
People have an unhappy habit of conflating legality with morality. I recently admonished my cousin for trash-talking his brother (these are young kids--his insult and my subsequent scolding were both innocuous). His reply? "The Constitution gives us all a right to free speech." (Yes, this kid is too precocious for his own good.) This is a simplistic example of a straw-man argument that you'll hear throughout your life. Don't fall for it. Yes, we should theoretically have a legal system that embodies our morality, but that's not the case. (For one, whose morality should we embody?) There are numerous examples of actions which are largely accepted as immoral that (rightly so) remain legal: lying* and committing adultery come to mind. I'm having a tougher time thinking of affirmatively moral actions that are illegal...that's probably a good thing that few if any examples exist. Admittedly, there are a healthy number of amoral actions that are illegal: antitrust laws, speeding laws, maybe even statutory rape laws. ("Statutory rape" as defined in a penal code is arguably way too broad to be classified as wholly immoral. I hate to qualify that statement but it's 3 AM and I could be thinking nebulously.)
*You don't have to be Kant to realize that there are some situations in which lying is immoral. No, I didn't reference Kant in order to tie the post back to the title. I swear.
*You don't have to be Kant to realize that there are some situations in which lying is immoral. No, I didn't reference Kant in order to tie the post back to the title. I swear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)