"Test" Day coming soon....
Post-session swims in swim conditioning are coming up next week (!). On tap for Wednesday is the 450 and the 100/50/25 (the 450 is luckily going to be a counted swim, although since the counters usually only can tell you when the last lap will be, it usually isn't all that helpful for pacing purposes). Thursday will entail the wonderful 1650 swim (uncounted unfortunately). I'm definitely in better shape than I was at the start of the course, but my performance is likely to be based on how well I can pace myself (especially in the 1650 so I have enough left in the tank to finish it correctly).
METAR KRDU 272351Z 23507KT 8SM SCT070 BKN150 BKN250 25/16 A3009 RMK SLP185 1032 2025 60001Labels: actual swimming, swimming
Followup on cohabitation law
The News & Observer ran an article today noting the realities of jurisdiction--Thursday's ruling in Hobbs v. Smith striking down G.S. § 14-184 only enjoins the parties involved from enforcing G.S. § 14-184. This would prevent the Pender County Sheriff's Department from enforcing G.S. § 14-184, but not any other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction inside of the court's jurisdiction (in this case, Pender and New Hanover counties). The order will presumably also enjoin the district attorney as well, which would create a situation where some law enforcement agencies would be allowed to arrest for violation of G.S. § 14-184 (like they would!) and the district attorney would be enjoined from prosecuting such cases (like he would do it anyway!).
In addition, the ruling is only really precedential in the Superior Court's jurisdiction. Other judges may find the ruling instructive (the presumed reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas would obviously apply everywhere), but they would not be required to strike it down because of this decision. The ruling isn't precedential the same way an appellate court's ruling would be.
Given this complication, it seems more likely to me that the Attorney General will appeal the ruling for the purposes of reaching a precedential decision that would clear up the situation and apply statewide. Since the N.C. Court of Appeals is a court of mandatory jurisdiction for appeals, the assigned panel would have to do something with the case (either decide with or without oral arguments). However since the case would involve the unconstitutionality of a State law, the Court of Appeals would likely fully hear the case.
Although it is highly unlikely this case would reach the U.S. Supreme Court, it probably would result in the law being struck down. The Lawrence Court in 2003 had Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the majority, with O'Connor concurring with them on seperate grounds (she believed the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated equal protection by treating gays and straights differently). That majority is still around, and as Kennedy was the one who wrote the opinion in a very forceful fashion (including Stevens's condemnation of the majority in the case Lawrence overturned, Bowers v. Hardwick), it would probably be a 5-4 result to strike down the law. I doubt that the Court would be inclined to waste their time with this case.
METAR KRDU 230151Z 18013KT 10SM SCT040 BKN100 BKN200 27/21 A2985 RMK SLP106Labels: law
Superior Court Judge strikes down NC cohabitation law
Craven County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford ruled today that the North Carolina cohabitation statute (N.C. G.S. § 14-184) was unconstitutional. In Hobbs v. Smith, et al. (Pender County Superior Court 2006; Case Number 05-CVS-000267), Alford ruled that the law violated the liberty interest set forth in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
The case originated from when Hobbs was working as a dispatcher at the Pender County Sheriffs Department. Smith, the sheriff, told her that she could either marry her live-in boyfriend, move out, or leave her job. She chose the latter and then sued the department among others in 2005.
While the cohabitation statute is still on the books, it has been thought to be unenforceable for some time. It is rarely enforced criminally, but more often used for other coercive purposes.
It is unclear at this point whether the State will appeal the ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The statute is so rarely enforced that the Attorney General may just let it pass into oblivion. On the other hand, he may opt to enforce it. There are potential issues of standing (she was never charged; can she sue ex post facto of her job loss?) and whether the North Carolina Court of Appeals and/or the NC Supreme Court will buy the Lawrence reasoning.
There is as of yet no released opinion in the case, and Superior Court opinions are notoriously hard to get. A memorandum opinion will probably be issued in the next couple of weeks, and due to the high profile nature of the case, someone is bound to redistribute it.
There is very little official information online about the case. The Pender County Superior Court calendar is excerpted below in case is anyone is particularly interested:
05-CVS-000267 HOBBS,DEBORA,LYNN MILLER,JEFFREY,S
KENNEY,SHELAGH,REBECCA
ISAJIW,PETER,J
-VS-
SMITH,CARSON THURMAN,CARL,W,III (TREY)
PENDER COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
DAVID,BENJAMIN,R
COOPER,ROY ADINOLFI,DAVID,J,II
COOPER,ROY FID
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
NC STATE OF
ISSUES: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
DAYS SINCE FILING: 448
Summary Judgment / Determine Sufficiency of Answers or Objections - 1 Hour
(Adinolfi)
All pending motions - 1/2 Day (Miller)
On a related note, a similar statute N.C. G.S. § 14-186 may be unconstitutional on similar grounds ("Any man and woman found occupying the same bedroom in any hotel...for any immoral purpose...shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor."). Based on the construction of G.S. § 14-184, G.S. § 14-186 is likely fatal for the same reasons.
An interesting point is that it is possible that Lawrence may not be needed at all to take down this statute. The statute mentions that "...Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other." This implies that such a violation would be need to breach the privacy of the bedroom which is protected for individuals by Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), for the progenitor protection for married couples). Granted since Lawrence is squarely based on top of Eisenstadt, Griwold, Row v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), Lawrence is definitely sufficient to get the job done.
Sources (some are time sensitive):
METAR KRDU 210551Z 00000KT 6SM HZ FEW150 23/21 A3006 RMK SLP174 1028 2023Labels: law
Shuttle landing forecasts
As I noted earlier, I would lend some interpretation to landing forecast when the SMG included Monday in its landing forecast. This morning, we get the first look at the landing forecast for Monday and Tuesday. NASA has budged its projected landing time in Florida slightly to 9:14am EDT (1314Z). Based on the inclinations of the earlier local forecasts, it is unlikely that the shuttle is touching down in Florida this mission either.
Among other concerns, the shuttle cannot land in a ceiling under 8000 feet, in precipitation, or windy conditions.
"Perma"link to this forecast. Use
this link for the latest forecast.
First try:
SHUTTLE LANDING FACILITY...KENNEDY SPACE CENTER FL
FIRST OPPORTUNITY
KSC FEW020 BKN100 BKN250 7 26003P05
CHC SHRA WI 30
Meaning: < 25% coverage at 2000 feet, 75% coverage at 10000 and 25000 feet (ceiling=10000 feet, okay). Visibility 7 statute miles (good). Winds out of 260 degrees (from the west) at 3 knots (about 4MPH), peaking to 5 knots. The big issue is the last line–chance of showers within 30 nautical miles. The NWS forecast currently lists "scattered afternoon showers", and the chance part seems to indicate a POP of ≤ 20%.
SECOND OPPORTUNITY
KSC SCT025 BKN100 BKN250 7 22005P07
SHRA WI 30
Meaning: 3/8-4/8 coverage at 2500 feet; ceiling at 10000 feet (good). Visibility 7 miles; winds from southwest at 5-7 knots. Rain showers within 30 nautical miles.
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CA
EDW FEW150 SCT250 7 20005P08
WND 20010P15 AFT 17Z
Meaning: <25% coverage at 15000 feet; <50% coverage at 25000 feet (no ceiling). Visibility 7 miles; winds south-southwest at 5-8 knots; winds change to 10-15 knots after 17Z (1pm EDT, 10am PDT).
NORTHRUP STRIP...WHITE SANDS SPACE HARBOR NM
NOR FEW060 SCT120 BKN250 7 16004P07
Meaning: <25% coverage at 6000 feet, <50% coverage 12000 feet, ceiling at 25000 feet. Visibility 7 miles; winds from south-southeast at 4-7 knots.
Edwards should be okay to land at Monday, but Florida is out of the question.
Tuesday:
Florida: Ceiling 1000 feet, visibility good, winds from south at 3-5 knots. Change of rain showers within 30 nautical miles.
California: Ceiling 12000 feet, visibility good, winds from south at 5-8 knots.
New Mexico: Ceiling 25000 feet, visibility good, winds from southeast at 5-8 knots.
Looking further forward on the
SMG Weather Forecast Sheet, on page 2 there is still a chance of showers within 30 nautical miles on Wednesday.
Given the nature of forecasts, I suspect that NASA will try for Florida on Monday, and should Florida not work out on Monday, it will probably be an Edwards Air Force Base landing on Tuesday.
The next forecast is issued later this evening around 23Z-00Z.
METAR KRDU 151751Z 31505KT 10SM FEW045 SCT090 BKN150 BKN250 32/22 A3001 RMK SLP157 1033 2025Labels: meteorology, space
Swim Conditioning Pre-times
In the tradition of the most recent time post, I bring the pre-class times for SS2.
I don't have the postclass times for Fall 2005, but as I recall they were similar to the preclass times (~6:30 on the 450 and roughly 27:30 on the 1650, but it's been awhile).
450 Free:
- 7/10/2006: 7:30 ?!
- Fall 2005 preswim: 6:27!
- SS2 2005 post: 6:37
- SS2 2005 pre: 6:37
- SS1 2005 post: 6:43
- SS1 2005 pre: 7:58
Compared to my out of shape time of 7:58 in SS1 2005, 7:30 is a little better. I'm not sure 6:30 is going to be in reach by the end of the summer session, but it would be interesting to see if I can make it there.
100 Free:
- 7/11/2006: 1:23!? (pace=1:32)
- Fall 2005 pre: 1:05!!
- SS2 2005 post: 1:18
- SS2 2005 pre: 1:12 (:33/:39)
- SS1 2005 pre: 1:15
I would definitely like to be better than 1:23. I was hoping somewhere in the neighborhood for 1:10-1:15ish, but I was poisoned by last fall's in shape 1:05 (the all time best for me is a :59.7 in meet conditions at my last USS meet, which happened to be the only time I ever broke the 1:00 barrier). To elaborate on the nature of the 100/50/25, this time they were conducted in that order, so the 100 was my best effort and so on (which is better than the reverse since the 100 is the best of event for me of the three).
50 Free:
- 7/11/2006: :40?!? (pace=:42)
- Fall 2005 pre: :34
- SS2 2005 post: :36
- SS2 2005 pre: :31 (should have been !! in retrospect)
- SS1 2005 pre: :37
Okay so today's 50 sucked. :40? :40? I haven't seriously swum a :40 in many years (it's been a long time since I pulled down :44's at summer swim league meets). I expected at least something in the :30's, maybe even that :37 I checked in with in SS1 2005 (of course, that was a 50/100/200 pre rather than 25/50/100). The best 50 ever for me was somewhere in the neighborhood of :27.3 (I have record of a :27.79Y, but since it was well before I ended year round, I have to assume that I could do better than that). Granted I was tired (I was dying in the first length), but this was the 100 pace (for example, a :40/:42=1:22), which isn't a good thing for a 50 spring.
25 Free:
- 7/11/2006: :18 (pace=:17 or :18-)
- Fall 2005 pre: :16
- SS2 2005 post: :17
- SS2 2005 pre: :14 (! in retrospect)
I am definitely not a short distance swimmer; I had a distinct feeling that I would be hammered on the 25. Of course, I did get beat by my lanemate (once again no surprise). It is extremely hard to critique these kinds of swims because the differences are so minute (pun unintended). I will say that this :18 felt a heck of a lot worse than the :14 last SS2.
The 1650 is always a post-course swim only, the 450 is also guaranteed as post-course (there may be intermediate 450's, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them). On the 450, I think a reasonable expectation post-course is going to be a 6:40 (perhaps a 6:45 would be safer), but a marked improvement on the order of 60 seconds is likely. The 1650 is a different animal; I usually tend to do better on them (how, I'll never know). There is no way in the world I am catching last SS2's 26:24!! (however, the 26:00 barrier could be had by graduation); given my lack of shape and worse physical condition compared to last SS1, 27:30 may be too much to ask for. I'll go for 28:00 and hope that I can be suitably impressed (I once made the statement that I expected to do at least a 30:00 before my first 1650 in the audit era, and it would be quite a catastrophe if I couldn't deliver).
METAR KRDU 110151Z 18005KT 8SM BKN250 27/19 A3018 RMK SLP216Labels: actual swimming, swimming
Space Shuttle Discovery Landing Forecast
For those of you who care, here is a link to the Spaceflight Meteorology Group's forecast.
Since this is loaded with all of the standard NWS product jargon (some of the SPC products raise abbreviation writing to an art form), I will make a translation when it gets closer to landing (landing forecasts are only two days in advance. In the meantime, you can enjoy the more digestable NWS point forecasts for each site: Kennedy Space Center (Cape Canaveral, Florida), Edwards Air Force Base (California), and White Sands (New Mexico).
Changes to original post in RED.
METAR KRDU 100351Z 18002KT 10SM SCT200 22/17 A3011 RMK SLP192Labels: meteorology, space
