Only its Weaverville. I had a case in Willits this afternoon, then drove to Weaverville for a hearing tomorrow morning. It takes about 2.5 hours from my home and I could have done it in the morning, but if the temperature drops to freezing those mountain roads are deadly, so I came over today. Never got below 35 degrees en route.

But I got to the motel and asked for somewhere good to eat. Once again they recommended a little Italian restaurant, and once again it was closed when I got there about 7:30 pm. A sign on the door said they were hiring servers. I'm trying to diet so no pizza. Back in town I found the Red Dragon chinese restaurant open (till 9pm they said) so I got sweet and sour pork (real adventuresome, huh) and some rice. They still don't serve alcohol, so tea was the drink of choice. It was ok, and not expensive, but not great either. I have to say the sweet and sour pork was better than I got on the Princess cruise ship - but I sent that back to the Princess kitchen it was so bad.

I was sure there was a restaurant in town with a modern menu - you know, pinenuts on celery rounds with llama hooves. But I couldn't find it in the dark, and if it were dark, then it was also closed. I keep thinking I'll find another restaurant like Patrona in Ukiah - after all that's not a huge town either - but I'm not having any luck in Weaverville. Anyone got any thoughts?

I'm a lawyer, so (or because) I'm a big fan of law. I was disappointed at Bush's reaction to 9/11 for that reason. I thought 9/11 was not an act of war, it was a criminal act. The appropriate response would have been to bring those responsible to justice. What an opportunity to advance the cause of law in the world, War is the opposite of justice. In wars the innocent are always the victims, and by the logic of war that's too bad, but its also tough luck because war is at its essence unrestrained. Its the logic of war that has led Bush to destroy the legal rights of those he suspects might be associated with crimes against the US. So now instead of the international court, with lawyers and justice, we have kidnappings, murders, torture, denial of the Geneva conventions, and habaeous corpus (see it's so far gone that I can't even spell it anymore). Its hard to see this as a step forward.

And look at Saddam's trial. Two of his lawyers were murdered, and the trial went on anyway. What kind of justice is that? How can our government find it acceptable? Imagine an american soldier on trial in North Korea. He gets a lawyer, but that lawyer is murdered. He gets a new lawyer, and that lawyer is also murdered. The soldier is found guilty and condemmed to die. Sound fair?

I've just finished a week with 4 trips to courts in it. Eureka, then Ukiah two days, then Eureka again. The roads are getting a bit slow now because rain and fog obscure the mountainous areas. I climb over the ridge between the Eel and the South Fork of the Eel for each trip, and I'm very happy that they painted a "fog line" on the right side of the road. Sometimes that's all I can see. So far no snow or ice, but I have a motion to do in Quincy and I'm concerned about getting there by my usual route over the mountains. Route 36 can be quite treacherous in freezing weather. Nothing perks a driver up like a long steep downhill grade covered with black ice, and ending in a curve. I believe in the winter there are stretches of Rt 36 where the sun never touches the road for months at a stretch. There are alternate routes of course. But they take hours longer.

Spent two nights at the Economy Inn in Ukiah. It is comfortable, and a very easy walk to the courthouse. Courthouse security is easing up a bit for lawyers, too. Now you can give them your briefcase to scan and show them your bar card to avoid emptying your pockets. In Martinez you can bypass the entire security system with a bar card. In San Rafael there seems to be no alternative except for court staff. Other counties, thankfully, have not succumbed to security hysteria yet. There is something quite disturbing about a security search before entering public courts. It suggests that the government does not trust the public.

Anyway 4 days in court and today's off. Cases have been clearing up as if I were waving a magic wand. It is the way of the law. Some months nothing seems to happen except delays and continuances, other months the cases go banging along like a string of firecrackers on the 4th of July. (Not that I would have first hand knowledge of strings of firecrackers since my long-ago youth).

Or something close to that is what Dr. Martin Luther King said shortly before he was murdered in Memphis. It seems to me that a vastly longer, if not eternal, lifespan on earth is actually within reach of people living today, as science continues to discovery cellular secrets. I'm not just thinking of advances in medical knowledge of how to treat and cure disease. I'm thinking of advances in preventing or, better yet, reversing aging itself. Nothing like this is on the near event-horizon perhaps, but its certainly no longer simply science fiction, either.

The current record for documented longevity is 122 years, with only a handful of people making it over 110. The world's most recent oldest living person died at 116. These figures mean it is hard to see my present 67 years as less than middle age. At 61 I was half the age of the oldest known person at death. I'm presently planning on working until I am in my mid-80s, always assuming that my health keeps up with my plans. I might work past then - lawyers have - but by then I will have been a lawyer 25 years or more and perhaps I'll be tired of it.

But that's normal life. The potentials of science substanially lengthening life raises two questions: 1- Want to live for a real long time, or forever?, and
2- If so, what conditions in the world encourage scientific advances to that end.

As for 1, it seems like a great idea if I can be healthy. Maybe after a milenium or so life gets boring and I'd want to stop the treatment (assuming a stopable treatment), but lets burn that bridge when we get to it.

As for 2, how about world peace for starters. Science does make advances in wartime. Canned food, for instance, is a result of Napolean's wars. But wars waste enormous amounts of resources - not all of which are replenishable - and might actually get so bad as to prevent further scientific development at all. So would religious government have that tendency, in my view. Lets be free marketers about this: if longevity is a saleable commodity, then there is incentive beyond the personal to develop it. I don't think then that an authoritarian government is likely to develop this knowledge. Sorry, China. Well, actually China may not be out of the running the way they are going. Sorry, Saudi Arabia.
Or would a centralized power be able to focus the resources of the nation upon a goal like this? Well, its not in my hands, but I wouldn't mind living a long time longer.

Lifespan has already been extended considerably by scientific advances in the past 2 centuries (or so) and one result has been a population explosion. This is not necessarily a good thing. Malthus had a point, and our ability to improve our use of non-replenishable resources has its limits. We are liable to reach those limits before population reaches its limits. (I know, those limits are population's limits). Life is precious, and I would not wish to have living people die, but how about having fewer people born?

What can happen is a population collapse if we reach the point where the resources won't sustain the population. Studies with rats show that the collapse drops the population far below the sustainable limit, and, I think, can even be terminal for the population. In humanities case the real risk is that we suffer a population collapse such that we can not
bring back the level of scientific knowledge and industrial capacity we have now. Our present civilization might be our only chance, so it would be nice to do it right the first time. (If I only knew what that required I'd let you know)

In a curious little story the Times-Standard tells us that Worth Dikeman, fired from the Humboldt County District Attorney's office after a very long tenure there, has found new employment in El Dorado County where he will be a prosecutor in the South Lake Tahoe Branch of the DA's office. I wish him well there, and envy him the physical setting in which he will work. It's a beautiful area.

But I find the T-S coverage odd. It's a short piece and it ends like this :

"A two-time contender for the North Coast's top law enforcement seat, Dikeman worked for the Humboldt County District Attorney's office for 21 years and eight months, until Sept. 15 when he was dismissed by his political adversary, District Attorney Paul Gallegos."

This statement is true, but its implications are not. The article leaves out the fact that Paul kept Dikeman on for long time, after, and despite some very vicious statements Dikeman made about Paul, while running against Paul in two elections. (The recall election, and the DA's election.) Having both of these men working in the same office after these campaigns must have made the DA's office an uncomfortable place for both of them, and the divisiveness must have affected the office's ability to function effectively. I believe it would have been proper, and wise, for Paul to have fired Dikeman after the first campaign. Certainly it would have been proper after the 2nd. To quote Benjamin Franklin "A house divided against itself can not stand." I also think that had Paul fired Dikeman after either of these campaigns, it would be fair to say "he was dismissed by his political adversary."

In fact, Paul only fired Dikeman after the 9th Circuit remanded one of Dikeman's cases because it found that he had been racially discriminatory in his jury selection. The case was from the 20th century, and the issue could have been defused by Dikeman saying times changed, or by even saying that he disagreed with, but would abide by, the Court's decision. But Dikeman did not concede wrongdoing and continued to defend his conduct even after the court rebuke. (See the T-S coverage 9/13/2006). I think it is fair to say that Paul did not fire Dikeman until events forced him to. He could not not fire Dikeman, now that his conduct was causing the expense and burden of retrying a major case, and there was no way to tell if it would happen again.

So, it is true that Worth was "dismissed by his political adversary" but it is also true that he was fired after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found his jury selection to have been racially discriminatory. Why is this fact missing from the T-S story? They covered the 9th Circuit's decision fully, and well, so they were aware of, and had published, the facts. Maybe this is just an editing error. Something like "the next paragraph discussed the 9th Circuit, but we ran out of space." I would guess that the T-S was simply reprinting a press release from Mr. Dikeman, instead of doing actual reporting, because the phrasing is so oddly biased. Whatever the cause, the piece was not up to their normal journalistic standards.

All of that said, I still wish Worth Dikeman well in his new position. He and I were often matched against each other in the Humboldt Courts because he was often the "green" DA (ie did the marijuana cases) and he was a tough and competent opponent. We did not hit it off personally, but he certainly kept me on my toes, and I've no doubt that the defenders of those acused of crimes in El Dorado county will be better lawyers for having to meet the challenge of facing him in court.