So in a sweet afternoon when I was sipping my coffee, an Australian friend told me,
"Quina, I don't think you should ever drink coffee. You have too much energy, and when you drink coffee, you go crazy!!"
So I told my boyfriend with a hope that he will give me some nice words that I'm okay drinking coffee. But the reply that I got was... evil.
"He has no idea how monstrous you can be," that's what my boyfriend told me.
Thanks, lovely BF. I guess I pick the right person to deal with my superfluous "monstrous" attitude. Shiva granddaughter I am, like how they called me... couple of years ago. Or, bandit, like how my dad's clients used to call me and my sister. OH BIG THANKS, I thought I'm a grown up lady.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Ozama binNa(ga)Ragawati
Meet Ozama, our new pet! He's from Afghanistan, dropped by to our house by an Afghanistan shipping company which happen to be on its way to deliver incinerator ash to Tuvalu, so he's been buried pretty long inside that incinerator ash before hatched in Pandji's house. He said he wants to be a hipster kiddo dragon. He adores both Kurt Cobain and Osama bin Laden. We're having a problem controlling his smoking habit, pretty sad since he's just hatched and already took Pandji's cigarette without permission. Please pray for us to grow a healthy generation of dragon without cigarette!
Monday, April 13, 2015
Towards the land of monsters
I wanted to marry a mafia, like for real. The kind of future family I had in my dream was a stressful one, full of blood, surviving conflict after conflict, with him managing the dirty business and me managing the family charity. Allocate the dirty money to the least marginalized, who will never get funded for typical charity projects. Search for long-term solutions for the worst of the worst. Sounds like a really beautiful cooperation in this imperfect world.
But as I dated "dirty" people and bad guy (I've never dated a real mafia though), I realized that those kind of ethical contractions are only beautiful in hypothetical. My ethical voice inside just couldn't survive their stories, seeing them doing injustice in front of my eyes killed my emotions faster than I thought. While sometimes they just need an ear to hear, I couldn't help to be less than a judge to punish them and adding their stress. One "dirty lawyer" in my past really did what I imagined, really charitable, but play all the dirty cards. I enjoyed the mental exercise of being his diary, but realized that it's no more than a curious journey for me.
I never thought of future family again until this morning suddenly I talk with my boyfriend about another hypothetical. I said to him I want to learn pole dance. He always knew I want to move to rural areas where environmental conflicts get no advocate, so practicing pole dance would normally be weird. But we like to imagine stuffs, so we continue the story. I said I want to work more closely with religion groups, including MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia), basically religious leaders. And we're joking about me being a pole dancer while pursuing my Ph.D. and doing environmental religion law reform, and while I'm working on my paper and advocacy somewhere he will clean up the mess sent by Islam extremists to our house. Like, seriously, the terror you can imagine for going against the communal norm can be as chill as threatening phone call to dead chicken sent to you in package. We won't be married, and I don't imagine having children but I'll be interested in adopting one. He's totally fine with both options, but he wants dogs. I want monsters, so we'll name our dogs after monsters and dress them like ones. He still wants to be a movie critics, and I'm so supporting him to be more irritating to stupid filmmakers. We both will have lots of enemy, and our daily life will discuss strategies to protect our dogs and children from terrors. Maybe if we get bored with Indonesia, we will go to South Asia or post-Soviet countries or Africa, but he wants to go to Iceland. Either way is fine, but Iceland got to be chaotic first, maybe some revolution before we're going there.
Hmm, an interesting fiction already. I've never got a partner who can't being imaginative, and he's being a nice one, we're still living our childish dreams. I hope we'll really live it :) Ah, already on our way, kiddo.
But as I dated "dirty" people and bad guy (I've never dated a real mafia though), I realized that those kind of ethical contractions are only beautiful in hypothetical. My ethical voice inside just couldn't survive their stories, seeing them doing injustice in front of my eyes killed my emotions faster than I thought. While sometimes they just need an ear to hear, I couldn't help to be less than a judge to punish them and adding their stress. One "dirty lawyer" in my past really did what I imagined, really charitable, but play all the dirty cards. I enjoyed the mental exercise of being his diary, but realized that it's no more than a curious journey for me.
I never thought of future family again until this morning suddenly I talk with my boyfriend about another hypothetical. I said to him I want to learn pole dance. He always knew I want to move to rural areas where environmental conflicts get no advocate, so practicing pole dance would normally be weird. But we like to imagine stuffs, so we continue the story. I said I want to work more closely with religion groups, including MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia), basically religious leaders. And we're joking about me being a pole dancer while pursuing my Ph.D. and doing environmental religion law reform, and while I'm working on my paper and advocacy somewhere he will clean up the mess sent by Islam extremists to our house. Like, seriously, the terror you can imagine for going against the communal norm can be as chill as threatening phone call to dead chicken sent to you in package. We won't be married, and I don't imagine having children but I'll be interested in adopting one. He's totally fine with both options, but he wants dogs. I want monsters, so we'll name our dogs after monsters and dress them like ones. He still wants to be a movie critics, and I'm so supporting him to be more irritating to stupid filmmakers. We both will have lots of enemy, and our daily life will discuss strategies to protect our dogs and children from terrors. Maybe if we get bored with Indonesia, we will go to South Asia or post-Soviet countries or Africa, but he wants to go to Iceland. Either way is fine, but Iceland got to be chaotic first, maybe some revolution before we're going there.
Hmm, an interesting fiction already. I've never got a partner who can't being imaginative, and he's being a nice one, we're still living our childish dreams. I hope we'll really live it :) Ah, already on our way, kiddo.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Public Trust Symposium Panel 4: Future Development of the Public Trust
John Dernbach from Widener University Law School started this session with the Robinson Township case and the potential meaning of Constitutional Public Trust. As many environmental lawyers in the US might reckon, Robinson Township is a groundbreaking case which strikes down a fracking statute under the Pennsylvania constitution. However, this is still potential, because there are many meanings and implication which might be taken from the case.
Prof. Dernbach broke down Penn's environmental amendment in Article I, Section 27, into two big part: (1) right to environment; and (2) public trust language. However, like other environmental rights constitutional provision, it gets buried right away, with the former case saying it is not self-executing. It was followed with other of the litigation which did a remarkable judicial activism, giving three balancing test to the right, the "protect and conserve" test. Next, entered the Robinson Township, challenging Marcellus legislation, and decided using a public trust framing of its environmental rights amendment!
On his words, what the court saying was, "We know that industry needs predictability, but also the people who's living under the place vulnerable to this oil and gas exploration - they need predictability, too! Their interest and expectation must be protected!" -- A totally quotable words!
Pre-Robinson Township, the PTD in Article I, Section 27 might be: (1) Confirm and extend governmental authority; (2) Guide statutory interpretation; (3) Provide constitutional authority for laws which legislation/executive enacted against. And, the potential effect of Robinson Township will bring these three functions further: (1) Strengthens each of these; (2) Imposes duties on government, not just confirming and extending governmental authority. And hey, it might happen in Indonesia, too, if we can do some test case!
After him, Richard Frank took the floor, pointing to the groundwater pumping that affect navigable waters and the PTD implication to that. He begun with the Waiahole Ditch case from Hawaii and some other cases, also some states' legislation which give trust language in protecting groundwater. His primary focus is the Scott River litigation in NW California, regarding the Klamath & Scott Rivers, which getting dried because of more and more wells being drilled around the river for the agricultural purposes. The case was filed in 2010 in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the main argument relying on Mono Lake's decision, that the government have an affirmative duty to do something about the water, and the agencies have disclaimed authority/obligation to do so, and asking the court to issue order requiring management consistent with PTD. The litigation is still ongoing, but a positive development is signalling.
And here comes the man, Michael Blumm, my PTD Professor in Lewis & Clark, and I enjoyed the way he used his first 7 minutes to give entertaining rebuttal to the previous panels! If there's one skill I adore from lawyers, is their ability to use the rightest words to give mean rebuttal. And finally he started, bring a light to the Lake Oswego case, a private lake just three miles from the law school. Relying on two preposition: (1) the water is navigable; and (2) there should be public right to access based on the Statehood Act right. Again, the case is still on going, but if they lose, they'll just get to the Supreme Court. And then things get mushy, I can't remember how, but then he start to talk about the Federal PTD, which I think actually just an impromptu "lecture" to the previous panelists. That was fun, old man!
The next speaker, Mary Christina Wood, is the co-writer of the PTD textbook that Blumm wrote, and she's one of "the guy" in the US PTD world. She started with a really romantic method, brought all the audience to imagine what climate and PTD might look like at the end of the century... and think about how our childrens' life right then. She really get into the point when she mentioned that we lawyers tend to be trapped within the statutory analysis, discussing what might fit to be brought to court and which fits for the other branches, and forgetting that the nature is actually already working so much faster than we anticipated. And then she got back to climate change, comparing how the regulations have been the micro approach, while the trust litigation are macro approach, basically saying "government need to have a plan"! She also mention about the "Our Children's Trust" where children brought petition to the government, saying that the agencies must have a plan. One of the case that got through the court was brought in Eugene, OR, and you can google about it.
That's kind of the end of this Symposium for me. Totally cool, but definitely cooler if we can try it back home ;)
Prof. Dernbach broke down Penn's environmental amendment in Article I, Section 27, into two big part: (1) right to environment; and (2) public trust language. However, like other environmental rights constitutional provision, it gets buried right away, with the former case saying it is not self-executing. It was followed with other of the litigation which did a remarkable judicial activism, giving three balancing test to the right, the "protect and conserve" test. Next, entered the Robinson Township, challenging Marcellus legislation, and decided using a public trust framing of its environmental rights amendment!
On his words, what the court saying was, "We know that industry needs predictability, but also the people who's living under the place vulnerable to this oil and gas exploration - they need predictability, too! Their interest and expectation must be protected!" -- A totally quotable words!
Pre-Robinson Township, the PTD in Article I, Section 27 might be: (1) Confirm and extend governmental authority; (2) Guide statutory interpretation; (3) Provide constitutional authority for laws which legislation/executive enacted against. And, the potential effect of Robinson Township will bring these three functions further: (1) Strengthens each of these; (2) Imposes duties on government, not just confirming and extending governmental authority. And hey, it might happen in Indonesia, too, if we can do some test case!
After him, Richard Frank took the floor, pointing to the groundwater pumping that affect navigable waters and the PTD implication to that. He begun with the Waiahole Ditch case from Hawaii and some other cases, also some states' legislation which give trust language in protecting groundwater. His primary focus is the Scott River litigation in NW California, regarding the Klamath & Scott Rivers, which getting dried because of more and more wells being drilled around the river for the agricultural purposes. The case was filed in 2010 in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the main argument relying on Mono Lake's decision, that the government have an affirmative duty to do something about the water, and the agencies have disclaimed authority/obligation to do so, and asking the court to issue order requiring management consistent with PTD. The litigation is still ongoing, but a positive development is signalling.
And here comes the man, Michael Blumm, my PTD Professor in Lewis & Clark, and I enjoyed the way he used his first 7 minutes to give entertaining rebuttal to the previous panels! If there's one skill I adore from lawyers, is their ability to use the rightest words to give mean rebuttal. And finally he started, bring a light to the Lake Oswego case, a private lake just three miles from the law school. Relying on two preposition: (1) the water is navigable; and (2) there should be public right to access based on the Statehood Act right. Again, the case is still on going, but if they lose, they'll just get to the Supreme Court. And then things get mushy, I can't remember how, but then he start to talk about the Federal PTD, which I think actually just an impromptu "lecture" to the previous panelists. That was fun, old man!
The next speaker, Mary Christina Wood, is the co-writer of the PTD textbook that Blumm wrote, and she's one of "the guy" in the US PTD world. She started with a really romantic method, brought all the audience to imagine what climate and PTD might look like at the end of the century... and think about how our childrens' life right then. She really get into the point when she mentioned that we lawyers tend to be trapped within the statutory analysis, discussing what might fit to be brought to court and which fits for the other branches, and forgetting that the nature is actually already working so much faster than we anticipated. And then she got back to climate change, comparing how the regulations have been the micro approach, while the trust litigation are macro approach, basically saying "government need to have a plan"! She also mention about the "Our Children's Trust" where children brought petition to the government, saying that the agencies must have a plan. One of the case that got through the court was brought in Eugene, OR, and you can google about it.
That's kind of the end of this Symposium for me. Totally cool, but definitely cooler if we can try it back home ;)
Public Trust Symposium, Panel 3: Perspectives from Governance
So this is the 3rd Panel of the Public Trust Symposium in Lewis & Clark Law School on this sunny Friday, April 10, 2015. It was really interesting to see the perspective of government in responding to Public Trust Doctrine (PTD). I skipped the first speaker, a really interesting lady who practiced law for 23 years before work for the Department of Interior with a policy hat, Janice Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management., U.S. DOI, nominated by Obama and approved by Congress.
So I started with Geoff McQuilkin, Executive Director of Mono Lake Committee, who shared his experience with implementing the famous PTD case, Mono Lake, which declared as victory by environmentalists some 20 years ago. A photo he shown to us told us how standing at the same edge of Mono Lake can look so differently in some two years in different timing - drought time and normal time. It's pretty heartbreaking to see the hard work to raise the Mono Lake water to certain level finally ends up with the nature's power. "What we're still doing to protect this public resource to be ecologically sound. But if we're heading towards getting the water level to its 'normal' level as set out in the case, we might be heading to the wrong direction,"
Richard Wisman, the Director of Oregon Governor's Natural Resources Office, took the floor afterwards, "You might remember that Montana has the right to clean and healthy environment. But you might not remember that in Oregon, in 1970s, people enacted Scenic Waterways Act," he started, talking about the PTD implementation in Oregon. However, the real challenge right now is real: the water reservoir level in Wilammete basin goes down to 1/3 of its normal level, and its beyond direct human action - it's nature. He pointed to California's Preposition 1: the $7.5 bond dedicated for water storage, water recycling, and many other holistic approach to deal with the drought that threat them. See what Oregon has been doing is fascinating, although environmentalists will probably demand more. Coordination with tribes, protection and restoration of fisheries, groundwater apportionment water right scheme (which is pretty unique water right system in the west as oppose to prior appropriation), CFS through in-stream leasing, and the public investment, all is ongoing. He even pointed that people power to demand is needed, full engagement with executive and judicial system.
All of them comes with the same message: the challenge of climate change is a huge chunk of additional homework. We're talking about drought in the west right now, which might be problematic if we want to see PTD in its traditional sense. We also take into account changing condition of nature, which completely different with 20 years ago.
Erin Ryan raise a really interesting question about how these executive people worry about the separation of power posed by the PTD. Wisman points to the possible backoff caused by overreaching judgment by the judiciary, which might frustrates both parties in the end with its unintended political consequences. McQuillin made a point about the balancing of special interests, where there's always be people who are not satisfied and then the court step in, put a hammer on what's actually been satisfactory for some groups. He pointed that PTD really have its role working when government fails to take certain actions. Scheider points that the agencies' objective to work in a collaborative action to make sure they're not get sued, and nodding to the points raised by her co-panels. She also points about hoping people realize how open the executive branch is to have conversation from the stakeholders -- the more they hear from people, the better decision they can make. Additional issue raised by Wisman on the climate change issue: the court will not make a sound decision on the climate, especially related to the complicated science involved in that, and only by locking people together in the room a sound solution can be reached.
So I started with Geoff McQuilkin, Executive Director of Mono Lake Committee, who shared his experience with implementing the famous PTD case, Mono Lake, which declared as victory by environmentalists some 20 years ago. A photo he shown to us told us how standing at the same edge of Mono Lake can look so differently in some two years in different timing - drought time and normal time. It's pretty heartbreaking to see the hard work to raise the Mono Lake water to certain level finally ends up with the nature's power. "What we're still doing to protect this public resource to be ecologically sound. But if we're heading towards getting the water level to its 'normal' level as set out in the case, we might be heading to the wrong direction,"
Richard Wisman, the Director of Oregon Governor's Natural Resources Office, took the floor afterwards, "You might remember that Montana has the right to clean and healthy environment. But you might not remember that in Oregon, in 1970s, people enacted Scenic Waterways Act," he started, talking about the PTD implementation in Oregon. However, the real challenge right now is real: the water reservoir level in Wilammete basin goes down to 1/3 of its normal level, and its beyond direct human action - it's nature. He pointed to California's Preposition 1: the $7.5 bond dedicated for water storage, water recycling, and many other holistic approach to deal with the drought that threat them. See what Oregon has been doing is fascinating, although environmentalists will probably demand more. Coordination with tribes, protection and restoration of fisheries, groundwater apportionment water right scheme (which is pretty unique water right system in the west as oppose to prior appropriation), CFS through in-stream leasing, and the public investment, all is ongoing. He even pointed that people power to demand is needed, full engagement with executive and judicial system.
All of them comes with the same message: the challenge of climate change is a huge chunk of additional homework. We're talking about drought in the west right now, which might be problematic if we want to see PTD in its traditional sense. We also take into account changing condition of nature, which completely different with 20 years ago.
Erin Ryan raise a really interesting question about how these executive people worry about the separation of power posed by the PTD. Wisman points to the possible backoff caused by overreaching judgment by the judiciary, which might frustrates both parties in the end with its unintended political consequences. McQuillin made a point about the balancing of special interests, where there's always be people who are not satisfied and then the court step in, put a hammer on what's actually been satisfactory for some groups. He pointed that PTD really have its role working when government fails to take certain actions. Scheider points that the agencies' objective to work in a collaborative action to make sure they're not get sued, and nodding to the points raised by her co-panels. She also points about hoping people realize how open the executive branch is to have conversation from the stakeholders -- the more they hear from people, the better decision they can make. Additional issue raised by Wisman on the climate change issue: the court will not make a sound decision on the climate, especially related to the complicated science involved in that, and only by locking people together in the room a sound solution can be reached.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
LAW 101: Loving Your LAW Jobs
I love cases.
I can't say enough how I LOVE observing people's story in cases: the more heartbreaking it is, the more interesting it is. Like one of the complicated case about defining "wetlands" in Rapanos v. United States, decided in a rare 4-1-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court. The case, and the judges opinion, is just about "water of the US" and CWA jurisdiction -- and I was not that interested to the case until I found out the story behind the case,
The way law dramatize people's stories is simply fascinating.
I can't say enough how I LOVE observing people's story in cases: the more heartbreaking it is, the more interesting it is. Like one of the complicated case about defining "wetlands" in Rapanos v. United States, decided in a rare 4-1-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court. The case, and the judges opinion, is just about "water of the US" and CWA jurisdiction -- and I was not that interested to the case until I found out the story behind the case,
"After seventeen years of protracted civil and criminal litigation and a denial of certiorari in the criminal trial, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Rapanos' civil case." (68 La. L. Rev. 983)There you go. A single definition of a single WORD has ruined someone's life for seventeen years, and a small (or huge, depends on your perspective in seeing that) shift on interpreting that word can affect everything from a huge sum of penalty to criminal conviction.
The way law dramatize people's stories is simply fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)