Have I Gone Insane?

Today, I took Professor S. Williams' 24-hour take home test. Well, technically, I'm still taking it. I'm going to go to sleep after writing this, wake up, and then do some editing before turning it in. Anyways, here's a summary of my day:

1307: Picked up exam at S-Kern's office. I was reading the exam while walking to the library. Several other students could be seen doing the same in the hallways or just outside the law school.

1530: Finished outlining the first section of the first problem. This is what happens when you only study for two whole days instead of three or four (two days lost to drinking/laziness/hangovers).

~1700: Went to Jimmy Johns to pick up lunch. Ate lunch in the lounge while researching parts of the doctrine I didn't know and outlining the final sections of the first problem.

1826: Received text message from Nicky asking me to come to Nicks. Unfortunately for her, I belong to Swilliams right now. She can have sloppy seconds once Swilliams is through with me. She's probably fucking with me though, since the Facebook newsfeed is anouncing to the world that I'm doing a 24 hour take home test.

~2200: Finished second problem. Went home to have dinner. Saw a message on AIM from Butcher "commanding" me to go to Jungle Room. Sigh. Rittle left me a message about how he no longer liked "Suzy." Exhanged brief banter. Ate dinner while researching all the theory I didn't review that I needed to know for the last question.

2300: First signs of mental exhaustion setting in. I feel the call of the internet, Falcon 4, Rise of Nations, Battlestar Galactica, porn, more food, and sleep distracting me from the task at hand. I keep reading.

2400: Finished the "reasearch" phase of the last question. Noticed that the library would be open til 2. It's worth it. I stop at the Circle K to get a Polar Pop. Mmm. Caffiene.

0005: A law student walks by the window outside the library. He holds up a Blackberry with the words "Come to Kilroys" displayed on it. I flip him the bird.

0100: Received incedulous looks from more passerby.

0155: Time to clear out. As I'm gathering my shit, another passerby outside takes notice. He exclaims "no way" and something else as he walks by.

0158: As I leave the library, I notice another student on the leather couches outside the library. A thought occurs--if I go home, I'm not going to be able to concentrate anymore. I ask the librarian if the whole building is closing at 2. Nope. I park on the couches.

0330: Finished!

I think most objective observers outside the law school would find my behavor today to be bat shit crazy. Most law students probably understand the concept of 24 hours that determine the entire grade for a semester, but that's not much consolation. We may all be crazy, and I certainly didn't help change the anyone's mind on that count.

By this time tomorrow, if you need me, check the emergency rooms. I'm going to restore some balance in my life, and by balance, I mean alcoholism and sloth.

The results are in!

It's true, I'm evil.

You scored as Dr Gaius Baltar. You have betrayed humanity, for a blonde. However you'd rather people learnt to just get past that. After all, you never meant wipe out the human race. Luckily you are cleverer than everyone else, so no one will ever know. Even though they look at you with suspicion behind their eyes. Dr Gaius Baltar 88% Capt. Lee Adama (Apollo) 75% Lt. Kara Thrace (Starbuck) 69% Commander William Adama 50% Tom Zarek 44% President Laura Roslin 38% Lt. Sharon Valerii (Boomer) 38% Number 6 25% CPO Galen Tyrol 19% Col. Saul Tigh 6% What New Battlestar Galactica character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

I'm rather surpised I'm more Apollo than Tyrol or Tigh, though.

Election Day

So I managed to decide on the local issues based on a few websites and newspapers. Beh, not that it's what's important this time around. Iraq is really all that matters.

If the Dem's manage to take control, they better not pull the purse strings too tightly. Nothing could possibly be more important right now than for the ordinary folks over in Iraq to know they can count on us to be there for them. We need their help, and that's not going to happen if they believe that we'll pull out and leave them at the mercy of the Islamofacists. Why is it so hard for us to build up a reputation for reliability?

I guess we'll get the government we deserve one way or another... but the Iraqis will be getting the goverment we deserve as well.

Woke up on the Wrong Side of Poolside

I'm pissed today. Someone apparently thought it would be a good idea to mow lawn/leaf blow/shred mulch/whatever at 0700 hrs this morning, right outside my fucking window! They kept at it for an hour. Do these fucktards not realize that in a college town, people have (gasp!) class in the fucking morning and might need to sleep?

Apparently the noise ordinances in this town suck monkey balls. (I'm assuming that noise is allowed starting at 0700 since that's exactly when the fucktards began their work.)

Moot Court Round 2

It wasn't an argument. It was a gang-rape. Two of the judges filled me out like an application. And every time I started to answer a softball question from one of the gentler judges, the aggressive two would cram my mouth with some more crap that I've never thought of. And if I tried to get back on point, they'd talk over me, forcing me to shut up to be deferential (which I didn't always do quickly enough).

For rebuttal, I had been writing down points the judges were making to try to salvage the case, but when I got up there, the judges prompty put me on my partner's issue and kept me there.

So basically, I need to figure out how to transition onto the shit I need to talk about without being undefferential when doing so. Fuck!

The last round better not be like this. That is all.

Battlestar Galactica Inspirational Pics

That last one's delightfully on-topic, eh?

A follow up

First, a housekeeping note.
From this point forward, the use of the slang contractions substituted for the plural form of "you" will not be tolerated on this blog. EVER. Comments not conforming to this rule may be edited or removed, and the poster may be permanently banned. After all, I did say it's important to have standards.

So wow, this thing really blew up over at Pete's. 26 comments last time I looked, plus a bunch more entries over at Dizzy's, including one today. Not to mention some obnoxious rif-raf (probably linked from CDL) who managed to demonstrate a lack of brains (i.e., use of ad hominem attack) and balls (i.e., anonymous) at the same time. Usually us guys make the mistake of using one of those at the expense of the other, not have a lack of both, so I salute you, Mr. Boneheaded Anonymous Commenter, for lowering the bar for the rest of us.

Well, I certainly didn't expect that big of a response. I can't go over all the stuff on both sites in detail, but I do think I need to respond to the gist of them, because it seems like the commentary goes well beyond what I was saying. So, I write this to clarify my position--which, I believe, shouldn't be terribly controversial. After all, most of the gripes that have been conveyed I'm in perfect agreement with... and they don't go to the point I wanted to make (although perhaps they might go to some of Pete's instead).

So, to precisely restate my objection that started this, it is that blame was placed upon CDL for missing a hint and continuing from there. Missing a hint cannot be blameworthy conduct. It is not even "conduct" at all. One cannot decide whether one will fully comprehend something or read between the lines. One can certainly try, and one may even be right most of the time, but on those occasions when one does not, it is not blameworthy. It is a failure of performance, it is not a bad choice. The choice to communicate in hints rather than directly IS a choice. The speaker has assumed the risk of not communicated, and by virtue of that choice, bears the responsibility if that choice leads to non- or mis-communication. You cannot equate a failure of performance to a bad decision. That would be like saying that a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver is as guilty as the drunk driver because he didn't jump out of the way in time. Nor can you say that the listener has assumed a risk of miscommunication by placing him/herself in a broader social context; as that would be the same as blaming the pedestrian for going outside that day.

This isn't to say that the partner from CDL did anything wrong. In her case, the hint preceded a direct shootdown. In my book, she did everything right. CDL made an ass of himself by continuing after the direct shootdown, and for that he certainly is blameworthy, not the partner.
Moving on to the comments and new posts... I can't stress enough that my argument is very narrow and is a moral argument about decisions, assignment of blame, and assumption of risk. Inferences of what I would say beyond that are probably--and have been--wrong. So please hold all the "So you're saying that..." stuff, because a lot of it probably goes beyond that context. The only way my argumemt went beyond this was when I also stated that I would be pissed if someone thought I was communicating something I wasn't and that I bore the consequences... This is not an argument against communicating in hints, it is an argument against assuming that what you know what a hint was and acting on it. By deciding to act on imperfect information, the actor has now assumed a risk and is blameworthy for the consequences.

I don't believe that people can ever expect 100% direct communication all the time or anything even close to that. Hints and subtleties are, and will always be an important part of human communication, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. The better people can use and pick up on these things, the better their social interactions would be...when it works. But, what's important is to remember that this information is imperfect. So, by all means, hint away, and try to read them in others. But, keep in mind that if you are communicating indirectly, or assuming that you've read such a communication yourself, that YOU bear the moral burden for the consequences if you're wrong because YOU had the power to either say it directly or ask a direct question. The other person didn't have a choice in the matter.

I hope it's obvious that this applies to men as well as women. All those instances where guys assumed that a girl would pick up a hint and then blamed the girl for that... those guys are wrong, not her. All those assholes in clubs that are assuming that someone is flirting without knowing and acting on that assumption with aggressive grabbing and whatnot... they're wrong, not her. But at the same time, the girl who turns down an advance by saying she's busy instead of not interested, implying that she'd accept the date another time, eventually leading to an embarrassing situation later on that would have been prevented but for her decision to rely on his picking up the hint... she's wrong, not him. And the same for things that happen within an existing relationship, where the consequences are much, much higher.

Finally, I want to address the "telemarketer" argument. As I've said above, hint away. Hinting can get rid of a lot of unwilling advances and is probably not only a good idea in the bar/club situation, but is quite necessary. It does not solve the imperfect information problem, though, and cannot be expected to (although it does help). But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that one can be out somewhere and have an entitlement not to be propositioned in some way. Quite the opposite, I think everyone has the right to ask and everyone has the right to decline. This is quite different from what might be appropriate of course, but appropriateness doesn't count for much and in a lot of cases really shouldn't. Of course, you and I are still free to think less of people that do inappropriate things, especially when it does count for something.

I stole this from Kristina: follow up

My computer has been replaced, and I was able to recover nearly all my data from the old one!

Here are the answers to the songs from last fracking semester!
1. The Donna's - do you want to hit it?
2. Avril Lavenge - complicated
3. MB20- real world
4. Godsmack - bad religion
5. Queen - we are the champions
6. RATM - No shelter
7. Linkin Park - Breaking the habit
8. Aerosmith - Something's gotta give
9. Devildriver - Digging up the corpses
10. Kittie - Charlotte
11. Lords of Acid - the dude
12. AFI - Death of Seasons
13. Edna's goldfish - purple
14. Mest - What's the Dilio?
15. Mephiskapheles - Saba

Shit, I don't even know who Devildriver is or where I got it...but that's what it played!

An Old Gripe

I won't pretend that this entry is insightful or original, but both genders are guilty of forgetting some obvious things, which means repetition is unfortunately necessary.

A few weeks ago, one of my friends here in Bloomington got me interested in a law blog by Dizzy. The blog is mostly about relationship gripes, and manages to entertain while also giving us guys useful intel about how "the other side" is thinking. Of course, by subjecting myself to a stream of complaints about men, I'm inevitably going to run into things about the way women think and/or act that make me want to bitch back. Things such as this post and this post.

The first post is about a guy who got his hopes up about being able to take a colleague home, and since he was about to be leaving the job anyways, he figured he had both good shot of getting a yes and not much to lose if he got a no. He took the shot, she apparently tried to gently wave him off, he missed the hint, she then directly said she didn't think it was a good idea, and he then proceeded to completely air his feelings, guaranteeing an embarrassing and awkward time for all parties invovled. The guy here is clearly a bonehead for disregarding the direct shootdown; the woman there did just fine. But, it wouldn't have been good enough for Dizzy if he stopped at "I don't think that's a good idea." Dizzy is griping that he didn't catch onto the fact that she "had clearly rejected him" from the beginning with the hint--as if the situation that resulted would still have been his fault even without the direct rejection--and it's this expectation that has pissed me off for years.

It isn't because her interpretation of what the woman said is unreasonable. Not only was it reasonable, it was right, and her reasoning for why the woman said what she said makes perfect sense. But, there isn't anything "clear" about a hint or any statement that requires reading between the lines--as a matter of definition. (And remember what our LRW prof's keep telling us, if you need to use words like "clearly" in making your argument, it's precisely because it's not clear!!!) Whenever people look beyond the face value of words, there is always room for different interpretations. What interpretations are more reasonable depend on the listener's own point of view, experiences, biases, mental processes, etc. It also depends on the speaker; different people might even have spoken the same words for different reasons. For example, from my own point of view, if a girl I'm attracted to asks me if I had plans after the current engagement or if I was just going home, I might very well say that I was tired and planning on going home even if I was open to the idea of going home with that person. This is because (1) it's just plain true, (2) the other given choice of having plans already pretty much precludes a hookup, if that's what I want (and still true), and/or (3) I might need to deflect any inferences that the reason I look the way I do is because I'm in a bad mood when I'm actually doing fine; I've just been in that noisy bar too long and I'm coming off my buzz, and nothing would please me more than to go someplace quieter where I can be more comfortable, both physically and emotionally (and again, true). I know you're saying that one's crazy but that really is the way I usually feel after the 2 hour mark. I might say 'drained' instead of 'tired' though--whatever. The point is if you get me in a better environment, I'll perk up. We can argue back and forth about the reasonableness of different interpretations, but it doesn't matter if the listener is right or wrong or even reasonable or unreasonable--especially because a person under that sort of emotional stress probably can't think rationally in the first place! What matters is that because our minds work differently, we will inevitably reach different conclusions--and that's assuming the listener even tries to read between the lines at all. Because of this, when you try to communicate in hints, you assume the risk of the hint not being communicated. Period.

And don't give me any of that crap about how you're using hints becaue you don't want to hurt his feelings. That's a cop-out, or at best, a sign that you've forgotten a lesson you should have learned by now: that at least to us, there are far worse things than being rejected. We're mentally prepared to take "no" for an answer (well, not Bonehead apparently...), but we will be justifiably pissed off if we end up having to deal with a greater emotional harm later down the road that could have been prevented with a little up-front honesty.

What's more is that I'd be fucking pissed if I found out I missed a golden opportunity because someone tried to read something into something I said that wasn't there. (It's happened before, except by people far more important than casual hookup candidates.) Since I don't want to bear the costs of misinterpretations, I deal with my friends honestly. Naively, I suppose, I expect the same from others. I'm quite sure that if it had been me in the Bonehead's position, I would have missed the hint too, and while I do fault myself for some degree for being dense on such matters, I do fault the speaker more for making the choice to communicate ineffectively. And in keeping in line with the tradition of the "advice" motive of Dizzy's blog (not to imply that advice by me to women is as useful as hers to men, of course. I have no such delusions), I'll add to this rant that if I can't trust someone to say what she means and mean what she says, it's unlikely that I'll be interested in her. It's inconsistent with my belief in relationships being based on mutual respect, and probably also a major reason why I'm single.

The second post is along the same lines. Dizzy graciously offers us advice on how to get laid--thanks!--and offers us some useful intel: that what women really want is someone who's great in bed. Well shit, that's encouraging, because after hearing about the stupid nitpicky stuff that I hear women criticize people about it's nice to hear that the key is actually something that we can expect to matter and that we have some control over. Besides, I've always had much more trouble being invited the first time than I have being invited back for a second. ; ) So far, so good... But then my hopes are dashed, because I then find out that we are being evaluated on this based on the degree of control we're willing to give up in social situations (witholding personal secrets, not exerting influence on other's decisions, deciding on a partner instead of "keeping one's options open," etc).

First off, if there is any relationship between a willingness to give up that sort of control (some of which reeks of tired gripe about committment) and "performance," it's very attenuated. I'm willing to give Dizzy this much though--someone with a personality that is amenable to accepting the vulnerability that comes with "losing control" is also going to be more self-confident and more willing to let go of inhibitions, and will therefore be more passionate. (If I'm wrong about how the dots are connected, please correct me, because I don't want to set up a straw man.) The problem with this is that personality does not tell us much about actual behavior. Behavior is situation-based. It's entirely possible that a person who does not display vulnerability-accepting behavior in a social context is quite willing and able to cut loose in a more intimate setting. I just fear what else is on that list that wasn't mentioned, because really, I want to know if I'm accidentally sending any messages I don't know about!

This is actually another one of my old relationship gripes. I call it "the test." As in, your girlfriend (or potential gf) isn't sure about something about you, and tries to approach the problem quasi-scientifically. She thinks up a hypothesis and a way to test it--if you do X, then you must be/think Y. The problem is that the variables are never controlled and the whole thing is invalid. One uncontrolled variable here is the social context, and it renders the analysis invalid.

I have to admit though, that I can only be so frustrated with this last one, because I'm guilty of doing it as well. One of my main criteria is my own estimate of the quality of the "experience," and I can't say I have anything reasonable to base it on either. My hypocrisy goes only so far, though. I won't state flatly that a woman who does X or doesn't do Y is going to suck. I won't go farther than "probably," and I'm acutely aware of the fact that I've been surprised before.

Leadership Requires Moral Clarity

The President has decided not to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and apparently not to accept his invitation to a debate as well. That didn't come as a surprise, but does that mean we should be OK with it? I'm a bit put off by the thought of an American president running away from a debate with any other head of state; the fact that it would be with a head of state as pompous and arrogant as Ahmadinejad and from a state as rogue as Iran makes it so much worse. But the real kicker is that this comes at a time when America needs to demonstrate moral leadership even more than it must demonstrate military resolve.

We're told that a debate right now would be a distraction from the more pressing issue of getting Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programs. Well, that's certainly true, it would be a distraction... but I don't hear any counteroffers of having a debate after Iran brings itself into compliance. Forgive me if I sense that there's a bit of a cop-out here. A more likely explanation (and rather obvious, considering this came as no surprise to anyone) is that the debate will pretty much be an opportunity for Iran, Venezuela, et. al. to spout off all their complaints against us, and we don't want to face it.

Well, that's a problem. If we're being blamed for being "the root cause of all the problems in the world," we sure as hell need to face up to that charge. We're afraid to do so. Part of this is because we're worried that, although our detractors are wrong on most points, we will not be able to effectively rebut them and the global attention will hurt our image regardless of who is right. The other part that bothers us is that we know in some ways, they are going to be right, and that most of us within the US are going to learn things about ourselves we didn't know and were happier not knowing. Both of these excuses suck ass.

First of all, we never miss an opportunity to compliment ourselves on how great our political system is. One would think that in a country with such an advanced system, great politicians, orators, researchers, and scholars would be produced. We should be able field a team that can create and communicate a winning argument. Yeah, I doubt Bush is the best guy to actually articulate the argument. But Cheney may well be, and I don't see any problem with offering someone else. I'm sure Ahmadinejad wants Bush because he knows Bush will make an ass of himself, and he'll be angry if we offer a pinch hitter. And not offering Bush will signal weakness in the sense that we know Bush can't debate worth a damn--but guess what? The whole world already knows Bush is a shitty speaker. Making a counteroffer will put Ahmadinejad on the defensive though, because then he'll have to choose what is more important, embarrassing a leader with just 2 years left in his term, or having a discussion on issues that will continue to be important to the 3rd world for decades to come. By running away altogether, we signal weakness not only in Bush himself, but in America's policies as well.

Second, if we are doing wrong in the world, sticking our heads in the sand isn't exactly the kind of leadership we need to be demonstrating. The conflict we're in now is one of ideology, and what happens in the minds of people all over the world is just as crucial as what happens on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we want to persuade the poor, hopeless, and angry masses of potential terrorists not to resort to violence against the West, we can't do it by being hypocrites and by providing them with reasons to hate us. We're trying to persuade them to adopt a different moral order, because we know that the progress of society requires peace and stability and that peace and stability can only be achieved if (1) people are willing to accept their differences and co-exist rather than resorting to force, or (2) the sovereign is able to force the same views upon everyone and is repressive enough to ensure stability. We also know that the absolute power of (2) corrupts absolutely and will not work over time, and even while it is working it imposes terrible costs. A moral argument is not persuasive, however, if it comes from an immoral source. Clerics and other leaders will not endorse democratic reform and non-violence if they are firmly convinced that doing so will simply allow the US to expand it hegemony to their detriment. The rank-and-file will be happy to listen to radicals who blame the US for injustices as long as we fail to refute the cases where we are right AND to apologize and make amends for the cases where we are wrong. There will be such cases.

In our policies, there is often a conflict between acting in our interest and doing the right thing. We may be realizing, however, that our place in the world cannot be maintained through force of arms alone. It requires maintaining the cooperation of our allies and breaking up the unity of our enemies. Our old ways of supporting corrupt regimes, covertly toppling governments, assassination, exploitation of economic power, etc., must be reigned in if we're to be perceived as the "good guys" we like to believe we are. Doing the right thing is becoming our interest.

So why not tell the world that we are doing the right thing when we are accused of causing problems? Why not apologize when they are right, and resolve to act consistently with our values? This is what the version of America that exists in our hearts and minds would do; isn't it worth a little discomfort to make the America that actually exists act the same way?

Applying legal concepts to ordinary buisiness dealings (AKA: Why non lawyers hate us)

I just received my replacement system. I don't know if it works yet, because I can't plug my keyboard in. Apparently, this new system (a Dell Dimesnion E310) only supports USB keyboards and mice. I had a conventional keyboard with my old Dimension. They did not send a compatible keyboard with the E310. And I am thoroughly pissed. So, I'm about to send this email to tech support:

The system is here (mostly). Thank you.

However, it appears that this system does not support conventional mice or keyboards. The Dimension that I bought did, obviously.

I would like to point out that when I agreed to receive a new system and to send the orginal system back, I was promised, "Since your system is no longer in production at our factory, the replacement system will be refurbished. It will meet/exceed the specifications of your original system." (Emphasis added) The system you have sent me does not meet or exceed the specifications of my original system because my original system supported conventional mice and keyboards, while the replacement cannot.

As a rememdy, I propose that Dell ships a keyboard that is compatible with the E310 system to me. In the alternative, if I am forced to buy new components in order to have a system that functions, then I will not ship back the original system. The sale and/or use of salvaged parts should adequately compensate me for Dell's breach.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Sincerely,

Ken Bach

I'm actually a little weak on whether there was actually an offer and acceptance here, or on whether they are obligated to replace the keyboard under warranty, but no need to tell them that yet. Hopefully I can save myself a trip to Best Buy.

Progress Report

So far, so good. I've been able to find the time to work out as planned without missing too much. My record was not perfect, however most of the sets I missed I was able to make up over the weekend. What I didn't expect was that it wasn't busy-work type stuff that bumped most of my workouts, but social engagements. That's not something I feel too badly about. Overall, I'm giving myself a B+ for the week.

Goal Progress: On target, completed nearly all sets for the week w/o unduly interfering with other priorities.
Completeness: Mostly complete. Missed regeneration and prehab sets. Made up strength and prehab sets.
Performance: weight range for upper body sets low, but improving quickly. EAS (cardio) performance OK in the 0-12 minute range, but need to maintain effort for the longer sets.
Motivation: Adequate. Will be considered good when I begin looking forward to going to SCRC. Will be considered great when the more it hurts, the better I feel. Currently at the "I don't care if I'm tired, I'm doing all the fucking reps" stage. Being in a room with other people, about half of whom are female, about 85% of whom are quite attractive, helps a lot with that one.
Injury: OK. No sign of tendonitis. Some residual soreness in calves after runs.
Fatigue: Moderate. Feeling a little worn out at the beginning of a set sometimes.
Nutrition: Good. But could be improved. I pretty much stuck to the plan from last weekend to Thursday, but from that point forward consumed too much beer and soda and spaced my meals too far apart.

Reflections on the War on Terror

Like many others, I've spent the last two evening watching ABC's path to 9-11 and the President's speech, so I've been thinking about where we on in the war and where we soon could be. I'm starting the feel that the situation is rather bleak.

There's really no excuse if we fail in Iraq. We have competent, adaptive people on the ground and a country that wants to be secure. I'm personally aggravated because we only hear about Iraq when US personnel die or when there are significant civilian casualties. We rarely hear about their political system, development of education, development of government and social institutions, and anti-terror raids. It's not a balanced picture, and it's sapping our will to fight. And that's just the thing. We can win. But in the final analysis, we may lose anyways because we're pussies compared to the fundamentalist extremists. We bitch and moan about high gas prices, health care, and the occasional casualty for a war many of us don't even understand, while our enemies completely dedicate themselves to the cause, forsaking their careers, family, safety... risking their lives, and in some cases, voluntarily giving their lives, to that cause. If these people only understood the futility of using force over beliefs and the value of religious and intellectual tolerance, they would be heroic. But we can't be bothered by the reality that we're in a war that's bigger than a regional flare-up; we just want to get on with our normal lives and be happy.

America may well be in military decline, and not just unconventionally. We have allowed eastern antiship missile technology to exceed ours. We have allowed eastern air to air missile technology to equal ours. We are allowing petty environmentalists to endanger our capability to defend against subsurface threats. The day may very well be coming when our forces are denied access to areas of the world where we need to maintain a presence to secure our economic interests. But as the world's only superpower, we don't care because we don't see a new Russia emerging. That's a big mistake, and it may cost us far more than proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states (although probably not as much as proliferation to terrorist groups). Again, this state of affairs isn't because we're not better than them. It's because we're allowing them to beat us. It's a question of will and priority. Our missile priorities have turned sharply to the strike role, despite the proven ineffectiveness of the LAM against terrorist targets (due to them getting the hell out of dodge) and a reasonable appraisal of their effectiveness against conventional targets (will be shot down by air defenses before reaching them). What really matters in a conventional battle isn't stand-off LAMs, but air supremacy. But, in our arrogance, we have assumed that we will have air supremacy by default and have spent our money on programs that exploit this assumed condition. With Russian and Chinese equipment and expertise being sold around the globe, that assumption will likely prove not to be true.

Security is not a fixed status. One does not attain it and then not worry about it anymore. America feels that it has done just that. We feel safe because we are the only superpower and because terrorists seem unable to strike targets outside of the mideast at present. And because of that, we feel we can just go on our merry way and not have to worry. We're wrong about that, and if we don't wake up we are going to lose our position in the world. And considering just how badly our ideological enemies and developing rivals want it and how far they are willing to go to get it, I'm not sure we deserve the top spot with our current attitude.

Making a Commitment

I think it's time. For too long, I've sit around watching my muscles shrink and my gut expand, and I haven't done anything about it besides complain about my lack of motivation to change the trend. There was a time when I could make my own motivation and it wouldn't matter. I'm not sure if I'm back to that point, but if I'm not I need to get there. In any case, at the moment I think my brother has provided enough motivation for me to push me along to the point that I can do it on my own.

So, today, I started on Mark Verstegen's excercise plan, which is essentially the same plan that my brother introduced to Special Boat Team 20 (yep, he's in the Navy). The SEALs are expected to follow suit. After all, SBT20 was plagued by overuse injuries under their older plans, and those injuries dropped off to ZERO after the new plan was implemented. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. And better still, it isn't supposed to take much more than 30-45 minutes a day. Considering my tendonitis and my time constraints, this seems just about perfect.

Right now, my only real goal is to implement the plan and stick with it. I think once I get it to be a routine, I'll view it as one of my daily responsibilities, just like going to class or reading cases. I think I'm going to manage. I've already tweaked the recomended plan to fit into my schedule and bought some equipment. Also, I've been regulating my diet much more strictly than I have in the past since mid-summer. I've stuck with that so far, and I think I'm going to rachet that up a notch as well... I'll have to check my intake levels and see how close they are to the targets (right now I don't know, I'm adhering to the principles rather than any strict plan).

With any luck, this will be an important step in getting my life to where it should be. Who knows, as my health and energy levels improve, I might even stop being the non-smiling mopey guy all the time. We'll see...

It's alive!

Sort of. It's been brought to my attention that fellow IU law bloggers have *gasp* actually linked my page! Seeing as it is that I might actually get more than 2 hits a month, I should probably start writing again now that things have started up again.

Speaking of starting again, this semester terrifies me. Between the normal courseload, job-searching, journal, and moot court, I think I'm going to be thoroughly burnt out by winter. And I know a lot of you are sick of hearing the complaints of the journal monkeys, so I apologize to all of you reading this that feel that way. The fact remains that I feel that I have to do both journal and moot court and that it's going to hurt, so there.

Normally, to help me through the dark times...or to be honest, to exacerbate the problem, has been my underpowered yet reliable Dell desktop PC. But, as fate would have it, that PC did not survive my moving to Poolside. I don't understand why exactly; it wasn't dropped or slammed around or anything. But it's very dead. So dead that even after having techies here twice, replacing the motherboard twice, replacing the processor, replacing the power supply, reconfiguring the memory, and going over every diagnostic procedure four times, Dell still doesn't know WTF is wrong with it and is replacing it with a new system. I better get something above my current specs because this new system's memory will NOT be compatible with the one I have now, and I very recently purchased a now-useless upgrade. They also want me to ship the hard drive back, which is sort of aggravating. That old drive is probably not worth more than $20, but the data on it is worth a shitload to me. It isn't clear that I'll be able to transfer the data to the new system, but I'm sure as hell going to try.

I can't wait for Season 3 of BSG to start. I can't wait so bad I've re-watched just about every episode from Season 1-Season 2.0. Why not Season 2.5 too? Well, because they haven't released the DVD yet and because the .avi's are on my dead fracking computer! Sci Fi was supposed to put a summary program on On Demand, but they didn't. They were supposed to but the same on their website "for the entire month of September." They didn't. Miraculously, they managed to post the first "webisode" up today, but at a mere 4 minutes, it doesn't do much to help my withdrawal. I need to go toaster hunting, and soon.

Well, without my 'puter or BSG to amuse me, I guess I'll have to rely on my old fallback, alcohol. Unfortunately, I tend not to drink a lot unless I'm in a good mood. So, I need to get myself in a good mood quick for this weekend. I'm not sure how to do that. Any ideas? I have one that involves shooting people. I better make sure that won't be too expensive on my budget. ; )

Oh... and as for the answers to last semester's post about random music... I do have a list of all the files. But, you guessed it, they're on my other computer!

I stole this from Kristina

OK, so Kristina had this great idea on her blog where you post the first line of the first random 15 songs to play on your MP3 player, and see who can be the first to name the songs--no googling the lyrics allowed. I know my taste in music is not exactly in the mainstream nor caught up with the times, so this should be interesting. I'll italicize these when people get them...assuming someone besides Colin and Jen are reading, anyways...

1. "Another Friday night with contraband, waiting for my plane to land"
(yeah, that's probably pretty obscure)

2. "Chill out, what'cha yellin' for, lay back, it's all been done before."
(Ooh, an easy one)
Kristina picks this one off like the sniper she is. Avril Lavigne-Complicated


3. "Well I wonder what it's like to be the rainmaker."
(Too easy!)
Kristina with two! Matchbox-20 - Real World

4. "Can you feel I'm not like you anymore? I can't see, I can't breathe."
Nicole gets this one. Godsmack - Bad Religion

5. "I've paid my dues time after time, I've done my sentence, but committed no crime."
The only classic rock song on the list, picked off by Kristina. Queen - We are the Champions

6. "The main attraction distraction, got you number than number than numb."
Nicole strikes again! RATM - No Shelter. Not one of RATM's lead tracks, I'm impressed.

7. "Memories consume like opening the wounds, I'm picking me apart again."
(Maybe I'm more mainstream than I'm giving myself credit for?)
Nicole gets three: Linkin Park - Breaking the Habit

8. "Cybererotic head explode, information overload, and I just can't take anymore."

9. "Tell me another story, tell me another story, everyone has stories, they bore me, they bore me..."

10. "So, I'm nothing, you took something from me, now you've disappeared."

11. "New York, 3 o'clock at night, no sleep, God I must be tired."
(Good luck with that one)

12. "Of late it's harder just to go outside, to leave this deadspace with hatred so alive."

13. "Question me about my bruises? He's the one who wins and I'm the one who always loses."
(This surprisingly talented band broke up before "making it." Good luck.)

14. "There's this little girl and I think she's so fine, And I'm not giving up until she is mine."
(speaking of not removing the embarrassing ones...lol)
Kyle strikes down Mest - What's the Dilio?

15. "Shake your body like me girl, Shake it all the time"
(This one used to drive my old roommate nuts...)

Politics of Race Maturing in America?

Well, perhaps that is too profound a conclusion to reach based on the relatively trivial and short-lived controversy that Representative McKinney drummed up last week. But, as a friend pointed out to me in property class the other day, it is a relief when someone inappropriately plays the race card, and gets absolutely nowhere with it, despite the complicity of the media in helping her try to make a security incident a racial issue. It wasn't that long ago that Chicago's own 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson was able to make headway in the defense of a number of students caught on videotape in an act of mob violence by claiming that the defendants were being discriminated against because of their race. It's nice to know that America is apparently maturing to the point that we can tell meritorious allegations of racism from the cheap shots that would otherwise damage the credibility of actual victims of racial discrimination.

A Trend of Increasing Liberty?!

This Wednesday's Con Law class just floored me. We were talking about the "living tradition" idea enshrined in Griswold when Professor (D.) Williams put two graphs on the board, one representing the trend of liberty over the years, and other other totalitarianism. The idea was that the trends in areas such as these form patterns that judges can observe and make decisions that maintain the pattern. The totalitariansim graph was essentially constant, which, for purposes of the thought exercise in class, is fine with me. But he drew liberty as a steadily increasing trend.

I was completely shocked. My first instinct, without giving it a moment's thought, would have been to draw the line going down rather steadily. On further examination, and noting the particular years marked on the graph, his view can be reconciled in terms of the breadth of liberty. Things like the abolotion of slavery, the equal protection clause, and granting women the right to vote made the "liberty club" bigger. But, Griswold wasn't about giving someone freedom that didn't have it before, it was about recognizing how far that freedom went for the parties at issue. Except for incorporation, the trend for the depth of liberty in America has been decidedly downward.

This is so obvious that I didn't even originally consider the breadth of liberty argument. It's a truism that when the legislature is in session, liberty is in jeopardy, that legislation nearly always contracts a person's freedom rather than expands it (the law tells you what you CAN'T do), and that new laws are passed more quickly than the are repealed or struck down. The decrease of liberty over time is a systemic problem of any democracy.

But I suppose I should be more concrete. Let's bust out a more complete liberty timeline.

1824: Gibbons v. Ogden goes farther than is necessary to prevent states from interfering with interstate commerce, leaving only commerce "which does not affect" other states free from federal regulation.

1868: 14th amendment passed; through incorportation, most federal rights will now apply against the states. the only substantial expansion of the depth of liberty in US history

1914: Shreveport Case pushes the federal power/liberty front back a bit by holding that the effect on other states must be substantial

1930s: New Deal ends any remaining restrictions on the scope of Federal power; economic regulations work their way into most intrastate contract situations

1934: National firearms act passed, restricts possession of weapons useful for personal defense and militia purposes to only those rich enough to afford expensive licences

Post-1940's: With the end of World War II, wars are no longer "declared," but merely fought at the command of the executive; the removal of this authority from Congress insultates the decision to go to war, moving the decision farther away from the people who will bear the burden of the fighting (the liberty interests here are that of life and consent).

1960's: State restrictions on firearm ownership are on the rise; the Court declines to incorporate 2nd Amendment against the states

1970s: State restrictions on abortion on the rise; Roe v. Wade curtails some of this, but leaves enough wiggle room for states to burden abortion to the point of impracticality.

The government further intervenes in contract and takes a huge step backward from the passage of the 14th Amendment by requiring sexual and racial discrimination in hiring.

1980's-today: War on drugs leads to an unprecedented expansion of law enforcement search and seizure powers (not to mention curtails the autonomy one had in one's own body). No-knock searches result in frequent fatal shootings, while convictions for trivial offenses are used to curtial other rights.

1994: Brady Act further restricts possession of weapons and ammunition

1996: Lautenberg amendment provides for firearm ownership being restricted without due process of law

2001: USA-Patriot Act makes banks, libraries, etc. agents of the federal government and expands the government's power to spy on its citizens, in many cases without judicial oversight.

2002: McCain-Fiengold Act restricts the means of political speech, delivering a severe blow to the ability of people to gain access to the media. The Court is not swayed by the argument that a right to do something is meaningless if one is prohibited from the means to exercise it and upholds the law.

I don't intend for this to be anything close to an exhaustive list, but I think it's safe to say that the truisms are correct--liberty contracts over time, and will continue to do so without massive reforms. We've made great progress in making our polity more inclusive over the centuries, but to say that the "space" we have in which to live our lives in our own way free of interference has increased is absolutely ludicrous.

Finishing up the foreclosure project

Our second day of work was much better. We got an early start, skipping stopping at HQ competely and just got out there at 0900. We finished up one county before lunch and did another afterward. That county was rather interesting, since thier "courthouse" has actually a large park of air-conditioned trailers; apparently thier normal building was heavily damaged in the storm. We took part of the afternoon to take a trip out to the US-90 bridge. It was collapsed on the west side; each segment in that area had broken free and fallen at one end, with the top of the other side propped up against its support. It had the appearance of a concrete-and-rebar accordian. Think "True Lies," only worse.

On Wednesday, we finished up our last county, grabbed a newspaper for the other group, and then went back to the center to record all our data and compile it with the other groups. We got kicked out of the center around 5, which was definitely a good thing because I knew we were working harder than we had been on the previous days.

They actually managed to get me to go out on Wednesday night. Jen's group had been working on a historical survey in the local neighborhoods, and had apparently made good friends with a local bar owner. That paid off later at night, when our group visited the bar and got served some of the stiffest drinks we've ever had. Fortunately, I wan't too hung over the next day. =)

On Thursday, it was reassignment time. I worked a bit with Sue (Chicago Kent, with the other group on the project) for a bit on compiling the data and then did some clerical work for an apartment survey project. The letters were ready to go out friday morning. Hopefully, we kept a few people in their homes.

Day 3: Orientation and first assignments

Our HQ is the Mississippi Center for Justice in Biloxi. We drove down on US 90, but then had to detour north to I-10 because the bridge for 90 is out (I might have some pics later...). The damage in this area is severe, even months later. It looks like F3 damage on the Fujita scale. The beachfront homes are essentially all destroyed, although a few sturdy structures remain. There is also significant damage moving inland among low-cost residences that could not take the wind and storm surge. The Casinos along the shore are about 50% intact, which is to say that the bottom floors are blown out, leaving the stuctural supports alone in place, and tha the top halves mostly have subtaintial damage to the roofs, with some collapsed walls. This is on average, some are slightly worse or better. Some are mostly repaired and operating (a good thing, since the casinos are apparently the best source for employment in this area). The local rebuilding priority appears to be clearing out the beaches of debris, so there is heavy equipment sifting through the sand. It seems like an odd priority, but I guess it's important so that the casinos can be rebuilt.


The priority for the MSCJ is to get the public aware of the emergency aid funding of the state. Apparently, MS got X$ in federal disaster relief money, of which 75% had to be spend on low-income families that had lost their homes; Congress later docked the cap to 50%. But, there was a provision in the act which allowed the state discretion to drop the caps "for substantial need" or something like that, so the governor has decided that the money will be spent regarless of income, and will only be eligible to homeowners who had homeowners insurance (but not hurricane/flood insurance) and who did not live on a floodplane. OK, I can understand holding back on the peope living on the floodplane, but the requirement that it only go to people who already had homes and could afford insurance is a bit crackheaded. This is a middle- and upper-class recovery bill now that is leaving the most vulnerable to rot. So, the "plan" is basicly to go out and get people to know that this is happening so they bitch to their reps and get the plan stopped before it's too late. They have until the end of the week. Yes, not a very good plan.


My assignment for the first day is unrelated, though. Our job is to head out to the local courthouses and find notices of property forclosures. We copy down the info and bug the tax recorders to give us the addresses of the people being foreclosed on. The idea is for US to mail them to let them know what's happening. Why us, you ask? Because in this state, all due process requires is a notice on the bullitin board and an add in a newspaper, so a lot of these folks probably have no idea. Also, there is a moratorium on foreclosures in MS right now, but in order to prevent it, the person being forclosed on has to file some documents--and they're going to have a hard time doing that if they don't know they're being foreclosed on! So, we identify who these people are, and then we try to get them the information they need to keep them in their homes.


I wasn't happy with the amount of work we got done today. It took us forever to find the first courthouse, in part due to our own disorganization, and in part due to incomprehensible directions. We eventually got there and got to work...copying detailed property descriptions through glass proved very frustrating. The lack of internet access while away from HQ didn't help; we thought it would be best to try the white pages before using the tax assessors, but the white pages were a bust so we didn't get the addresses. We'll leave that for tomorrow.

Jen and Nancy finished off the cooking supplies; I was sent off to get cheese and ziplocks and that's about all the good I was. =( A bunch of people went out at night to drink again, but again I didn't quite feel up to it again so I chilled with Nancy, sue (Kent), Jen, and Erin pretty much all night. We got a lot of scandalous gossip in, mostly about Terry and Freya (Columbia) who had apparently taken a walk to the beach (the part that had been sifted, I assume), then broke up the meeting and turned in.

Day 2: Gulfport

After an hour-long drive to the east, and some wandering around semi-lost, we found our home for the week; the Long Beach 1st Methodist Church. We're staying in an annex building mostly used for youth groups. Several classrooms are now our bedrooms. We also have an excellent kitchen. The downside is that we don't have an on-site shower. We have to hop in a car and drive to the fire station where we use outdoor showers. They tell us the hot water supply is adequate. I'll hope that's true, but I have a feeling that Navy showers are in order.
The rest of our group seems very smart and friendly for the most part. We've got a large contingent of NYU students, two from Rutgers, one from Columbia, and two from Chicago-Kent. There may be others but I can't remember right now. It's a dominantly male group (sigh) but there are a few hotties for us to fight over.

Jen, Nancy (Rutger's), and I went across the street to the grocery store and bought salad ingredients, pasta, beef, and bread, and then made dinner for the whole group. I really did very little since I'm retarded around the kitchen, but hey, I try. We hit a bar afterward, the Lookout, but I wasn't much in the mood for drinking on a Sunday night, especially with our first day of work coming right up, so I went home early.

Days 1-2: NOLA

There are four of us represent'n IU on our trip to NOLA and Gulfport: Jen, Erin, me, and our 3-L driver, Terry. We made it from Bloomington to New Orleans in about 13 hours. We could tell we were getting close when, while driving through Mississippi, there wasn't a grouping of trees that hadn't taken quite a few casualties. Then the tarp roofs started, and then trees that were bent north instead of just snapped. Going into NOLA, the damage was unsettling. From the elevated highways, we looked down on the residential districts where the damage was severe. It was a story of quality of construction; most of the modern, well-build buildings had damage no more severe than the need for a tarp-roof, but most of the residences were old and dilapidated. These buildings still had no windows, and had sections of the wall or roof blown away. There were a few totally collapsed buildings. I'd guess about 25% were inhabited, and that not much more than that was inhabitable.

The downtown area wasn't so bad. The buisiness district was mostly boarded up and shut down. Some of the appeared to have taken wind damage, but in some areas the wind damage at high level seemed non-existant and the ground level windows were still boarded up. The most striking sight though, was the garbage. It was strewn about on the ground everywhere, and we watched the locals add to it as we waited to get our room at the Hotel Lasalle.

One we were situated, we headed down to the french quarter for dinner and drinking. There wasn't really any damage in that section of the city, but the amount of garbage was god-awful. The stink was everywhere, and we were there to eat! We eventually got pulled into a place with a courtyard by a very enthusiastic host and were seated amongst the smells of the kitchen instead of the outdoor landfill around us. I managed to eat half a dinner before getting a bit dizzy... probably from a combination of being cooped up in a truck all day and breathing garbage fumes. It really was good food though; I forgot what the name of it was, but I had a sandwich made of salami and genoa, slathered with provolone and with "olive salad" instead of lettuce.
We wandered around a bit and hit Pat O'Brien's, and took a seat at their piano bar. We ordered a round of Hurricanes and shot the shit for awhile. Jen kept leaving us, saying she was going to the bathroom, but the bathroom was the other way! I assumed she was taking shots. (It turns out she really was going to the bathroom, but wanted to pass by the bar on the way to see if guys would buy her shots--which fortunately did not happen) Terry was trying to get her to drink more despite my warning that it was a bad idea (in part due to my belief that she was leaving to take shots, but also due to the fact that these were very tall, very strong hurricanes. The fact that there would be four of us in one room together didn't deter Terry from getting his flirt on. Of course, it led nowhere, because most people don't like to fuck unless they have privacy, so if anything was going to happen he'd either need a new place or a target with different moral standards.

Day 2: We split up for breakfast, Terry and I found an open-air restaurant in an area of the French Quarter that had garbage service. (About half the Quarter reeked of garbage from the previous night). After eating, Terry hit the Cathedral for service and I wandered around for awhile. I eventually found someplace that sold fine cigars and purchased a Macanudo. It's amazing how differently people look at you when you're walking around chomping on a cigar...Mostly bums anyways, I guess they sense that you have money to burn. Oh well. I did feel a bit guilty though. I was among some tourists, but mostly other relief workers and residents. I was pretty well-dressed, and a lot of people around obviously were in various levels of financial distress. Oh well, I'd be getting to work the next day.

Out by Jackson Square, there was a woman selling some amazing art. They were painted in bright colors on black background, and depicted street musicians and the architecture and life of the French Quarter. They were, in a word, amazing. I don't often see things that I know I'd like at home as decorations, but these really captured me. There was just something incredibly alive and energetic about them. I'll be back when I graduate to get me some golden handcuffs (they cost "several hundred" dollars). Maybe I'll get one for a certain friend too. ; )

Off to Gulfport!

My spring break isn't really a break. I'm off to Gulfport, MS (about an hour away from New Orleans) to do some legal assistance for people and agencies affected by last Fall's hurricanes. I don't have a specific assignment yet, but it's been narrowed down to three possibilities:

1. Pre- and Post-Katrina Affordable Housing Inventory
Students are needed to conduct an inventory of housing needs including the following: (1) contact with and/or site visits of PHA, HUD multi-family, and Rural Development properties to tally how many were damaged and/or destroyed; (2) an inventory of available public and low income housing prior to the hurricane by tallying total units of PHA, Section 8 Vouchers, HUD and Rural Development properties; (3) an inventory of total housing prior to the hurricane; (4) collecting and analyzing FEMA data of total units damaged and destroyed by county; and (5) an analysis of 1990 and 2000 census data showing income levels of residents.

2. Justice Court Eviction Proceedings
The Mississippi Center for Justice needs students to observe Justice Court eviction proceedings and record specific information about case facts and rationales for granting or denying evictions. A training will be provided by housing attorney John Joppling and then students will work in teams attending hearings at courts in Biloxi, Ocean Springs, Gulfport, and other coastal courthouses. The information gathered will be used for a range of purposes including preparation of defenses and model pleadings, attorney trainings, identifying appropriate cases for appeal, media attention, and legislative advocacy.

3. Community historical/cultural profiles
We need teams of law students who can effectively interact with these communities, accessing the oral history, historical photographs or other artifacts, and help prepare a profile of these communities highlighting significant personalities from these areas, events in the struggle for civil rights, and cultural landmarks within these communities.

Well, I'm not sure I'm the "interacting with communities" type, but the others sound interesting. So, I'm off to do a good deed or two and maybe improve my chances of getting a job...

Thank you, Jen, for making this possible!

A Sport of Degradation and Humiliation

Today was the 1st Annual LRAP Dodgeball tournament. Nick was kind enough to let me slip onto his team. Unfortunately, I didn't pull my own weight. I managed to pick off a player early on the the first game only to be eliminated a second afterward; our team managed to eek by for the win that time (our opponents were The Learned (Hand) Jobs). After that, we were beaten by Blue and 7th-Story; both games I got nailed early and didn't even throw a ball. We never made it to the second round.

Overall, I was glad to have the opportunity to do something competitive and athletic. It's a part of my life that I've been missing lately, and maybe this will be the thing that gets me off my ass and back into some sort of competitive sport of some kind. On the other hand, they really needed to do a better job getting the rules out to the teams (a lot of people didn't know about being able to line-cross when 2 or less players were on each side, and then halfway through the they first started enforcing a rule that allowed a player to stay in after getting hit by a head shot) (EDIT: Waldie also had several legit complaints, including people playing on multiple teams, people who were both officials and players, and general bracket shadiness--all good points). I was also dissapointed with the amount of playing-on, false starts, and centerline crossing by my classmates; I had hoped that we were all above that sort of thing. Then again, I guess lawyers are known for trying to get away with whatever they can. On the other side of the coin, I would like to give out props to the Top Gunners and Cullen Sucks, who as far as I can tell, set the standard for sportsmanship throughout the tourney. And Pinkston, because he was just plain awesome. =)

Footnote: For the record, I don't think dodgeball is degrading or humilating, I just thought that line makes a cool title. I'm definitely not one of those whiney hippies that wants to end the great institution that is elementary school dodgeball, and would take great offense if anyone thought I was.

Commissioning Cermony

It's time to get this thing started. And what is this exactly? A waste of my time, probably. "Another one of my endless attempts to avoid responsibility." Mosty, I think I'll be using this to comment on various things, maybe even get a few discussions going. So I guess this is an outlet for my need to get up in people's faces and tell them why they're wrong. Plus, I might throw a few things about what's going on in my life, as long as it doesn't compromise myself or my friends (too much). Let's see where this takes me...