Free Love in Bloomington

So I was feeling like shit today [Friday] (the price I pay for getting drunk off 151 on a worknight), but I gathered up the will to drag myself off the couch and go to Hairbanger's. Great show--as always--and it was good to see the 0L's beginning to integrate with us. One thing about me though, is as much as I like good shows, I fucking hate crowds. I hate having the mob press in on me, and I hate it when people try to walk through me instead of around me while they're on their way to wherever. To me, the crowd is really one single entity instead of individuals. Unless, of course, you do something to stand out.

Halfway through the show, we moved up to close to the stage, and I started to get a bit more relaxed and into the mood. And, I started to notice a certain regularity in the incidental contact I was getting from the stern quarter. Hmmm. Worth a glance. So I quickly survey the scene. There's a dancing couple right up against my back and they're pretty into it. The girl is OK looking, and the guy is a dirty long-haired hippie in a tank top. Ew. So anyways, I evaluate the situation to be accidental, albeit repeated, contact from an apparently drunk girl. No big deal. And as the night goes on, I notice that others around me are getting "bumped" into as well, but I'm clearly getting the brunt of it, and the duration of the contact is getting longer. At one point, I turned around and made eye contact with her. She smiled and said something--I couldn't hear, but I assumed to apologize--so I just said it's cool and directed my attention back to my group and the band. But immediately after, she backed into me again. This continues for a few minutes, and the contact is lasting long enough that we are clearly out of the "bump" side of the spectrum and into the "grind" side. I'm slightly annoyed, but not really, because there are much worse things that could happen to me than having a girl grind her ass against mine. But it's awkward because I can't really reciprocate, because she's obviously with this dirty hippie guy...............

Girl grinding on me...not an accident...but still dancing with her date? Still dancing with the dirty hippie. Wait, hippie--

...And then it hits me.*




Ew.

So now I have to try not to wonder too much about why they apparently thought I was a comparatively good bet.

Sigh. Fucking hippies.

*To better illustrate this moment, recall the scene from The Hunt for Red October where Jack is shaving and thinking aloud, trying to figure out how Ramius intends to deal with the crew that are not defecting with him: "...they'd have to want to get off. How do you get a crew to want to get off a submarine? How do you get a crew to want to get off a nuclear sub---?"

Razor is coming!!!

Jack, I want to transfer a detachment of marines to Galactica, and I want you to hand pick them. Completely reliable. Completely loyal. Razors.

Resurrection Ship, Pt. I.

It's going to be very nice to see Admiral Cain again. And with a name like Razor, with the meaning that the term carries, it's going to be one hell of a ride. Apparently the episodes/movie/telemovie/whatever is going to span a rather large timeframe, but it seems obvious that at least some of it will be dedicated to the story of the Pegasus before it met up with Galactica. The Pegasus crew was interesting, to say the least. On the outside, they had the look of a well-polished, well-disciplined, professional military machine. But when you got right down to it, they were more of a barbarian horde than a military unit, in the sense that we use the word. The fabric that held them together wasn't discipline, duty, or honor. It was fear, and rage. Cain nurtured that emotion, and then directed it to suit her purposes...or what she thought were humanity's purposes.

My prediction is that Cain and Adama aren't going to be as different as we think they are. Both of them had to face a situation where they thought they would lose control, and they knew the stakes were too high to allow that to happen. Both of them resorted to manipulating the emotions of the people to give themselves a fighting chance. Adama chose hope--and he had to lie to create it. Cain chose fear and rage. Two sides of the same coin, really. The difference is that control through fear gives you a lot more latitude with the measures you can take before your leadership is compromised, and using rage requires there to be outlets to prevent that rage from compromising your own control. Not everyone wants to go, or is even capable of going, that far. Adama wasn't. Roslin wasn't. Cain was.

And of course, there was a price to be paid for that style of leadership. It cost them their humanity. But it's not an answer to paint the world in black and white and condemn Cain and the Pegasus for that, because--and this is what I love about Ron Moore--there is no right answer. In spite of how distasteful Cain was, the fact of the matter was that the fleet really was safer with her than without her. There is no way in hell that there ever would have been an occupation under Cain--because there wouldn't have been any democracy. We've been raised to believe absolutely in democracy, but the truth is that democracy led to the wrong result, and the consequences of that mistake were staggering, and could have cost everything.

I think Razor is going to continue to challenge our values and assumptions, and once it has torn down that facade, it's going to tell a very different story about how people have stepped up to face the challenges of war, replete with great triumphs and terrible costs (some of which we already know about...the Scylla comes to mind).

Now I just have to wait until November....

Yet Another Video Post

Natural Predation at its Finest

Sorry, no imbed allowed on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g5BoU8dKZ4

This is just a great clip all around. It's got everything. An ambush. A takedown. A counterattack and reversal of fortune. And even a surprising little twist in the middle--too bad us soon to be lawyers couldn't help them sort it out, though. I really thought the lions had earned an a property right they could have sued upon....

Closer than I'll ever need to get

The most shocking thing about this besides how insane these guys are is how small the funnel appeared to be on the ground. I thought even these "ropes" were pretty big on the ground, but then again, this is the first video I've seen that was actually close enough to provide an accurate sense of scale.

PS: For anyone who wants to do this, please approach from the side or behind, not from the front. These guys were fucking DUMB.

Crappy Video.....Awesome Lyrics

Well, I was down in Southern Watch
Flyin' my F-16
When lead called for a picture
And AWACS called back clean
But I saw a contact on my scope
and it was runnin' hot
And although I wasn't targeted
I went ahead and shot
.
.
.
Now oil's a buck a barrel
And it's all because of me
'Cause I'm the motherfucker
That started World War III.

For Pete, Amanda, RJ, and Blake

The Rifleman's Insight

Without me, my rifle is useless.


Without my rifle, I am useless.

Heroes

One of the most aggravating things about colossal crimes is that the person least deserving of recognition is just about the only person who gets any. The Joel Myricks of the world deserve more credit than the Dylan Klebolds. Let's reverse the trend.

Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, was a professor of engineering at VT. When the shooting started outside his classroom, Professor Librescu barricaded the door, preventing the shooter from entering the classroom as his students escaped out the windows. The perp fired through the door, fatally wounding Librescu. Let him be remembered.

The Mea Culpa: An Obsolete Ritual?

When this whole Imus thing started up, I didn't think it would be something that would get my attention. I don't have any particular interest in the show, and I'm not the least bit surprised that someone who makes a living off throwing insults around went too far. It was just one more case of someone making a major gaffe in public, pissing people off, and humiliating himself. Given that this was a racially-charged gaffe, it wasn't the least bit surprising that those leading the charge would not be satisfied by anything less than Imus' termination. What grabbed me were comments in a story to the effect that the public apology was becoming irrelevant in general. Two samples:

"I don't care about an apology," said Angela Burt-Murray, editor in chief of Essence magazine. "You're not a child on the playground. You're an adult who needs to take responsibility for his actions. And there need to be consequences."

This, to me, is an instant gratification culture gone mad. To Burt-Murray, I ask, What qualifies as 'taking responsibility' for the words one has spoken? In my mind, taking responsibility usually means righting whatever wrongs have been inflicted on others, and accepting the consequences you have created for yourself. When the wrongful act is speech, and when the wrong inflicted is offense, what means other than an apology is needed to right it? It's not like there is a physical injury to remedy by, say, paying someone's medical bills, or property damage to be remedied by replacing or repairing said property. And to the extent that the wrong inflicted is a harmful idea propagated through society, what remedy besides negating that idea is necessary? For most speech-related "offenses," a public mea culpa should right the wrongs caused.

Which brings me to consequences... Apparently, when Burt-Murray says "consequences," she means artificial rather than natural. After all, the natural consequences are the harms caused by the conduct, both to the individual and the injured. In this case, the consequences are Imus' humiliation, a loss of audience and revenue for his program, private offense, and, perhaps, a public harm flowing through the marketplace of ideas. Now, in the case that the offender is able to remedy the harm caused to others, what role do artificial consequences have to play? I argue none. The function of artificial consequences should be, to borrow economic lingo, to internalize externalities. If it was the case that someone committed a wrong upon others that s/he did not, or could not, remedy his/herself, then artificial consequences should be imposed to close the gap (E.g., an action in tort against someone who did not pay up). By forcing would-be wrongful actors to pay face the costs of their actions, the wrongful conduct is deterred. That should be enough. Going beyond that level of consequence is simply vindictive, and that's why this comment bothers me. It isn't about righting a wrong--by definition, it's punitive. And when the implied consequence sought is the termination of one's employment, the punishment quite simply does not fit the "crime," so this is outside the realm of deterrence. It's being done just to hurt him. It's anger, not reason.

Cohen was careful to note that there ARE times when apologies are meaningful. When you're in a fight, for example, and you say something hurtful at the height of passion, your apology means something.

Or when your apology has real meaning, such as recent official apologies for slavery by the Virginia Legislature and the North Carolina Senate.

Or when the person apologizing shows real, undeniable remorse and a clear intention never to repeat a similar offense again. Few people believe that about Imus, Cohen says.

This snip came after a few paragraphs about how meaningless public apologies are. The last part of this almost makes sense, but I question why it is only an "intention" of not repeating the conduct that is necessary. A meaningful apology to me is one that leaves the injured person with no doubt that the conduct will not occur again. After all, the recipient has an interest in preventing harm to him/herself, but has no interest in a 3rd party's mental state. With this criticism in mind, I'll now go to the beginning of these remarks.

The examples of meaningful apologies this guy gives are bunk. An apology for something done at the height of passion will be meaningless in most situations. Take Michael "Kramer" Richards, for example. Looking at his breakdown/rant, it's hard not to conclude that those were his true feelings that came out, and that he was suppressing them in public until the "real Kramer" broke through the shell. We don't consider him to be genuinely remorseful, because we think he really meant what he said. We also don't have any confidence that he won't engage in any racist conduct in the future for the same reason. Your typical domestic "fight" isn't much different--those are suppressed feelings coming out too. The speaker might be sorry about having said what he/she did, but a retraction of the statement itself would be a lie in the vast majority of cases.

And as for an official apology from a legislative body, all I can say is 'what the hell are you smoking?' How can the public remarks of any politician be understood to be 'genuine remorse' rather than political interest? How can any person be genuinely remorseful about something someone else did? What meaning does an assurance that something won't happen again mean when the people we did it are long dead, and the legal system that permitted it had been altered long ago? To quote an old chain letter, "he's not familiar with the problem."

As for myself, I think that the public apology deserves to have a role in our society, especially since so many of the harms society gripes about are emotional, rather than tangible. Emotional harms can't be remedied by compensation, nor can they be remedied by revenge. If an emotional harm is significant enough for us to pay attention, the best that can be done is for us to have an assurance that it won't happen again. Having a public apology to "dissect" for significance and sincerity is the best way to get that assurance.

(But as for conduct resulting in tangible harms, then yes, talk is cheap. Pay up.)

Doll Face

Doll Face

Too cool not to share. Even if it's a little cliche at this point, it's a really original way to send the message (at least I think so).

Buy the Sizzler, close the Straits

It's bad enough when your principal adversary develops a weapon that threatens your most important assets. It's even worse when that (former) adversary sells that weapon to likely future adversaries, and when similar weapons in development are likely to be widely exported. But when the Navy is unwilling to do anything to ensure that it can counter this threat at some point in the future, it's just beyond disturbing.

I'm absolutely shocked at this article, which states that the Navy has declined to allocate funds to develop it's own versions of these weapons to use in testing to develop a countermeasure. Apparently, they've got too much of a hard-on for their new shipbuilding projects to deal with the cold, hard reality of the fact that we are vulnerable now, and that we are becoming more vulnerable every year. Having a new carrier class or destroyer class won't change that fact... our enemies will just have newer, more expensive targets to blast away.

Misguided Outrage

In response to the sentiment being expressed by some on the blogonets that the fine American institution of drinking to excess at universities is to blame for the despicable conduct of one individual:



[For the record: To the extent that this is a response to Doug, it is limited only to the sentiment expressed by his rationale, and does not reach the issue of how he allocates his own resources.]

[For another record: spot the scene that shouldn't have been included and tell me what it is, where it's from, and why, and you win a cookie!]

[And for another record: I also object to the suggestion that people, in their ordinary social interactions, should be "lovable." What a bunch of peace, love, and happiness tree-hugging hippie crap! Oh, and so I don't disapoint those waiting for the Kevin Smith reference--you love the cock!]

So this makes sense to anyone stumbling in here, a "short" recap:

Steven broke Dizzy's nose by applying some kind of force (there's a dispute about whether it was a "punch," "hit," or something else (not that how it it characterized should make a difference to anyone but the neanderthals. See, e.g., comments 12-13.)) in an apparently drunken dare. Steven, instead of apologizing profusely and offering to pay all her medical expenses, made fun of Diz on her blog and on Facebook, which served no function other than to make himself look even worse and to piss off the person who is in the position to press charges and/or seek action from the law school administration.

Then, Doug overreacted and decided to use this one person's behavior as a reason not to throw a party this year--calling irresponsible drinking the "proximate cause" of the incident. Apparently, Doug forgot the "intervening human act" part of proximate cause from Torts, but I digress... Then, sensing that the time was right for even broader blame-slinging, Corey commented (and this is so ridiculous that I'll post it in its entirety)

Stop drinking. It is boring as hell. You are all smarter and more lovable when sober.

In general, this law school has disappointed my optimistic 1L expectations about student engagement with each other on problems of law, politics, and society. People were drunk at my orientation and I should have known then. I found hope in the few wonderful people I met on my way out the door so I stayed. (Even though not all of them did.)

All my friends have provided the counterweight that kept me here and kept me optimistic. And to be honest, the excessive drinking the rest of you did actually helped me, because see... I was studying and spending time with people I love instead.

But if people are going to hit each other and then get ugly over it, then I am done, out. May I have my diploma please?

And yes, this is moralizing, and might anger many. But maybe some moralizing is called for. People are getting hurt.

Peace and better luck next semester for those who have to stay.

Pete has already weighed in on this nonsense.

Words Fail Me

Please remain in your seats until the end.

Boston Follow-up

This is too good not to share.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1741589

Boston: The Stupidest City on Earth

"So we've got a huge terrorist plot theory and a serial hoaxer theory. Top notch!"


Most of us have probably seen the headlines by now about how the Boston PD managed to mistake an [Adult Swim] guerrilla marketing campaign for a citywide terrorist bomb plot.

Yesterday, this was funny. You figure some stupid residents saw one of these things and called the police without pausing for a moment to think...and of course the police had to follow up on it at first. The punchline, of course, was that after they responded to the first "device," they didn't stop. These fucktards kept at it all day, shutting down the city and causing a major panic. As someone who wasn't inconvenienced by their fuckup and who doesn't pay taxes to them, this is hilarious to me. The fact that this same campaign was carried out in (I think) 9 cities makes it even funnier. (It's also solid empirical evidence that Boston is collectively stupider than those other cities.)

But by last night, they started calling this a "hoax." That's right. Not their mistake, but a hoax. Who are they kidding? American Heritage Dictionary defines "hoax" as "an act intended to deceive or trick." Was deception the intent? Is it reasonable, even for a moment, to believe that the marketers intended to promote their programming by making people think there were bombs planted in the city? Or might there be a more reasonable explanation, say, to get people asking about who the depicted characters were and thus increasing viewership? Of course not. So, there's one of two things going on here. Either these guys are SOOOOO dumb that they assume that because they thought these were bombs, that it must necessarily mean that the intent was for them to believe they were bombs (i.e., they're too dumb to realize that they're dumb enough to be wrong unless they were tricked), or to give them a little more credit, this is a deliberate CYA strategy intended to draw attention away from the incompetence of city hall and the PD.

And now this morning, it gets even less funny. These fucktards are going so far to cover for their own mistakes as to arrest and charge the two guys that posted the ads, and are planning on going after Turner as well. Charge them with what, exactly? Apparently, they are using this statute:

a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Which, appropriately enough, has this definition:

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically.

I've added emphasis to make the impropriety of this charge immediately obvious. First of all, there is an explicit intent requirement. Which makes sense, considering that the definition of hoax includes intent. And just as damning in my opinion, is the reasonableness requirement. There's no way in hell that a reasonable person would believe these ads to be IED's. You look at the BS that comes up in the news reports, and they mention that it had "wires," "circuit boards," and "batteries." Shit, so does my cell phone and my laptop. If I set one of those down somewhere, am I committing a hoax? Don't leave our old VCR for the garbage truck! That's a "roadside bomb hoax!" There are of course, at least two important ways to distinguish an actual explosive device from other electronic devices: the presence of explosives and detonators. A reasonable person would only believe an electronic device to be an explosive if he/she saw such a component (or something that appeared to be such a component). Of course, these ads had nothing of the sort. Still, I have to admit that people are fucking stupid and it's entirely possible that the court might get 12 people whose heads are up their proverbial asses. Even so, there is NO WAY they can get around the intent requirement. No good faith argument, no probable cause. And to me, that means if this doesn't get dropped, someone needs to be disbarred.

Cool video of the "suspects" setting Boston up the bomb.

Forging a Wold of Liberty Under Law?

I'm just going to post these excerpts from the Interim Iraqi Constitution (March 2004) without comment. They pretty much speak for themselves.

Article 13.
(A) Public and private freedoms shall be protected.
(B) The right of free expression shall be protected.
(C) The right of free peaceable assembly and the right to join associations freely, as well as the right to form and join unions and political parties freely, in accordance with the law, shall be guaranteed.
(D) Each Iraqi has the right of free movement in all parts of Iraq and the right to travel abroad and return freely.
(E) Each Iraqi has the right to demonstrate and strike peaceably in accordance with the law.
(F) Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.
(G) Slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude with or without pay, shall be forbidden.
(H) Each Iraqi has the right to privacy.

Article 15
(B) Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment. Extreme exigent circumstances, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may justify a warrantless search, but such exigencies shall be narrowly construed. In the event that a warrantless search is carried out in the absence of an extreme exigent circumstance, the evidence so seized, and any other evidence found derivatively from such search, shall be inadmissible in connection with a criminal charge, unless the court determines that the person who carried out the warrantless search believed reasonably and in good faith that the search was in accordance with the law.
C) No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.
(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
(F) The right to a fair, speedy, and open trial shall be guaranteed.
(G) Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner.
(I) Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established.
(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.

(emphasis added)

Super Bowl!

Go BEARS!

That is all.

Ode to Alcohol

So as those who know me have surely noticed, alcohol and I have been having some relationship issues since finals ended. The results were troubling in that I crossed some lines that I normally don't, and much of that I don't remember. On the other hand, and to my surprise, it now seems I got away with all of it. Why? Some of it was because, really, it was the right thing to do anyways and I should have gone farther. Some of it was because it was considered appropriate or excusable in the spirit of the occasion. And the most inexcusable instance of my conduct was not remembered by the person who had to bear the brunt of it because--you guessed it--she was even more blacked out than I was!

Year in Review

Because I'm an unoriginal bastard.

There were a few significant downs, but for the most part 2006 was a surprisingly good year for me.

The year began with a new round of classes, most of which I found interesting. I even argued a little bit with my professors, granted I didn't gain much ground. I got harassed (and yes, that's a fair characterization) to seemingly no end to go to law prom, but I was an oak. I had a great time going out with some friends instead. After dinner had ended and I met up with the law prom crowd, I managed to permanently alienate a classmate with a remark that was--well, actually--perfectly appropriate for the situation. As the saying goes, "if she can't take a joke, fuck her!" However, other gaffes cannot be so easily dismissed, and I come to the realization that as a rule, if I get drunk, I will say or do something I regret. And I've been losing lots of potentially productive weekend afternoons to hangovers. At some point before spring (I think), I implement a new "1-night-of -drunkenness per week" rule. I'm not sure it's made a difference.

After a bit of back and forth about whether there would be legal work, I spent my Spring Break in New Orleans and Biloxi doing volunteer work. It was a great time, despite (or maybe because of) some awkward--yet very comical--moments, and I made a great new friend. Battlestar Galactica ended a rather disappointing second half to the second season with 3 amazing episodes in a row, ensuring that 7 months we had to wait for season 3 would be unbearable. Thank the lords of Kobol for the DVD's! So say we all!

I turned in finals relatively confident that I would do well, but ended up disappointing myself, but not terribly. The post-finals partying was much less intense than it was fall semester, but the smaller groups at the bars made for easier conversation and a much more pleasant time for me. I got a job at the last minute by sliding into a position that one of my friends traded up out of. Yeah, I'm a circling vulture, and I'm OK with that.

I ended up getting jerked around at the summer job, but managed to get some real work done at the end. I also get a new friend to argue politics and talk BSG with, so it's not a total loss. I discovered Falcon 4 and foresaw falling grades. At the end of the summer, I visited my brother in VA with my family. I left with some badly-needed motivation to get in shape and a Smallvile addiction I could probably do without. I also learned that one of my first law school friends would be transferring away.

Just as the fall semester was beginning, I lost my grandmother. She was pretty much the central pillar of the family. Thanksgiving and Christmas weren't the same without her, and never will be.

Fall semester proved to be the most difficult so far. All that crap I heard about the first year being the hardest was, well, crap. A lot of that was brought on by my own choices, though. My classes were generalist-type classes that I just thought should be under my belt, rather than classes in subjects I thought were interesting--with First Amendment law as the exception. I signed up for both moot court and journal, not because I wanted to do them but to make up for an otherwise unremarkable resume. (A friend who was on the journal last year even scoffed at my request for advice from her, knowing full well that I was going to sign up for the wrong reasons no matter what she told me.) Something had to give, and it ended up being the job search. I also saw a lot less of the bars, but with BSG on again, I still had my Friday night reprieve. As the semester wore on, exhausted and bored, my reading started to take a hit in addition to the job search. On the plus side, my new commitment to fitness actually went well, and I only found myself slacking when something major was due (moot court briefs, moot court/trial ad performances, studying for finals). I also managed to get my first paintball game in quite a while. An intense end of the year studying blitz ensured stellar performance on finals though (crossing fingers).

Winter break was awesome. After working hard, it was time to play hard. It started out with me and friend going through half a bottle of Patron Anejo together, plus some Dewar's on the rocks for good measure. The hangover was quite a bitch, though. There was more drunken craziness at Sara's going away party, although my DD bitched out and left early to get laid. (EDIT: My bitching apparently made her stay a bit longer than she otherwise would have). Some arrangements should be made in advance rather than sprung at the last minute--but oh well. I headed back home for pre-Xmas turducken, and ended the year right with the best New Year's Eve that I've had in years. It was a smaller group than I was used to, just two friends from HS and one of their SO's, plus some NU grads I didn't know, but a smaller turnout wasn't going to stop me after a semester like this! We pre-partied at my friend's apt to keep the cost down, and I managed to get trashed off hurricanes before we even left for the restaurant. And as luck would have it, my normal inability to interact with new people was trumped by the fact that I had a number of common interests with the "new" guys. I danced for the first time in years without the slightest hesitation, and I amazingly had fun doing it. I committed excesses for which, although I still have my doubts, I have been assured were considered consistent with the spirit of the occasion. And I got to stay with someone who whose irresistible majesty is matched only by her infinite patience. Either that, or I have a really, really great friend. Or both. ; )


To my friends and family, thank you, and I wish you a great 2007!