ISleepInADrawer.com

The Great Unravelling

You know, I think we should start a system here. When you see this map, you should probably realize that the following entry is an EU rant - for better or worse. So, if such talk gives you the willies, it's probably best to just go have an ice cream cone.

I see nothing inherently wrong with a united Europe. While I'm not out there chanting "Federalize Europe!" or "God bless the United States of Europe!", I do indeed believe that some sort of EU-evolution into a federation or confederation would ultimately, if done right, promote regional stability, ensure persistence of the democratic process, raise the standard of living, revive the European economy, etc.

Of course, such an evolution is long away. It may not even happen in my lifetime. But, I always thought that the foundations of such an enterprise had been laid out, in the European Union. You know what I mean. Remember that humble, six-member European Coal and Steel Community started by the gang of six (West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy) in the early 1950s? It expanded into the European Economic Community, then the European Community, and now the European Union - an intergovernmental organization of twenty-five states:
Germany
the Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
France
Italy
Denmark
Ireland
the United Kingdom
Greece
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
the Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
Cyprus
Malta

The phrase "goings on in Brussels" no longer refers to Beligian royal court intrigue. Over the past fifty years, the European Union has evolved into a political and economic bloc of 455 million people. Yes, that's larger than the United States and Canada combined. Just a year ago, the EU undertook its most impressive, and challenging, enlargement, with the addition of the ten nations at the bottom of the bottom of the list, including eight former Communist nations (three were former Soviet republics). A symbolic enlargement, especially following the end of the Cold War and the swift introduction (or resurrection) of democratic processes in former regimes. The enlargement was perhaps even more relevant than the addition of Spain and Portugal (after both recovered swiftly from their own brushes with dictatorship) in the 1980s.

A large trading bloc, with the political might of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, combined into one. Smooth sailing, right?

Of course not.

We all have our problems. Even Europe.

Take another gander at that map up there. The EU's expansion last year was painful, if not shocking. The welcoming of ten new members further diluted the voices of the UK, Germany, and France. Ten fresh economies began to gobble up euros, as formal entrance demolished most other remaining trade barriers, allowing infrastructure and service projects to commence. Cyprus was rashly permitted to join without handling the break-away Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus... something which should make Turkey's EU accession negotiations (set to commence just before my birthday) very interesting indeed. The EU fifteen (that is, the fifteen EU members that were present before last year's enlargement) began to sweat as they saw ten cheap agricultural and manufacturing production centers (the former especially in Poland, the largest new member and a farming stronghouse), spring up for business, perhaps at the expense of more costly markets in the EU fifteen. The examples go on and on.

The enlargement, I believe, also put a strain on some already inefficient EU institutions. The bloated EU Parliament shuttles between Brussels and Strasbourg, refusing to pick an permanent home and trim down (or at least place a voluntary ceiling on) its own ranks. The three principle largest and wealthiest EU members, already arguing amongst themselves over Iraq and other matters, began to hear squabbles over votes, taxes, and whatnot from other large powerhouses, particularly Spain, Italy, and Poland. This slow-to-digest enlargement from fifteen to twenty-five also led to a rise in Euroscepticism, as reflected by the European Parliament elections which gave EUsceptics a much more pronounced voice. The general public remains woefully indifferent (at best), or openly hostile (at worst), to EU policy, as shown by dropping voter turnout in European elections (particularly in established EU members). The term "Eurosceptic member" is no longer reserved for countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the UK... and some EU-heavy supporters (especially France) are beginning to waver.

This recent enlargement also curbed the enthusiasm of many Europeans to see their club expand more, much to the dismay of the current candidate nations (grey in the map): Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey. Bulgaria and Romania are pretty far along: they've signed the last treaty of accession (which must still be approved by the EU 25 and either the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, or the European Council), and are set to join on 1 January 2007. If either fails to implement final protocols and procedures (which is much more likely to happen for Romania than Bulgaria), joining can be postponed for up to a year. This delay will certainly damage the EU's credibility more, and harm the Romanian or Bulgarian economies, as current economic forecasts are depending on the inflow of billions of euros on 1 January 2007. Portions of Croatia's accession negotiations are on hold, since their government has taken up a nasty habit: inability to hand over key suspects to the Hague's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As for Turkey, it already faces an uphill (and I believe decades-long) journey to full EU membership. With opposition to Turkey high in some EU institutions (and France and the Netherlands), the sticky Cypriot question lingering, old tensions with Greece, divided public and governmental opinion at home, lingering questions over Kurdish autonomy and Christian rights, and Turkish inability to come to terms with the goverment's role in the World War I-era Armenian genocide, there are plenty of items to check off before Turkey can even BEGIN to address government and economic reforms needed for EU membership.

With all of these problems, one wonders why the EU hasn't splintered yet. Well, of course, I'm just pointing out some negatives here first off. So, don't walk away thinking the EU is all somber, Cassandra-like prophecy. Far from it. Remember, I'm still all about the EU! I just wish they'd get their act together in some of these... pressing areas.

Some say that's what the EU Constitution is supposed to take care of. At over 60,000 words (over 300 pages), it dwarfs our own wimpy 4,000-odd word U.S. Consitution. Yet, this extensive document seeks to streamline all aspects of European Union government: policies spelled out in all former treaties are represented in the European Constitution, whether preserved or modified. This will be it. The single, documented source of all government policy. If passed, European law and government students should breathe a sigh of relief: no more confusing the Maastricht Treaty with the Treaty of Rome! It's all in the Constitution!

Some policies are preserved in word-for-word from past treaties in the EU Constitution. Others are tweaked, modified, or simplified to, quite frankly, ease the EU government into a better fit with... well... Europe! The streamline motif particularly applies to justice and commerce, though it also reaches some administrative government positions, such as the precise relationship between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and the European Commission is blessedly modified and reduced in size. Voting matters are laid out with precision detail, as well as powers reserved for national governments. Is it a perfect document? To me, far from it. Like I said earlier, I'd prefer more streamlining, particularly in the functions of the European Parliament. I'd also like institutional addresses to the huge gulf that exists between Brussels and the general public.

But, even our own precious American Constitution has its critics and detractors on both sides of the aisle. No document has yet solved all of humanity's many problems. In the EU's case, I initially thought, "Well, it's not entirely what I would want. But, it's not my EU, and it's a good, necessary starting point." So, imperfect or no, the EU Constitution was signed in October of last year, and must be ratified by all twenty-five member states before it can come into force next November.

So, now we sit in the Great Waiting Game. The process of ratification varies from country to country. Fifteen of the twenty-five are using simple legislative votes. The other ten are holding referenda, either binding or consultative. The process is a nail-biter since one "NO" vote could sink the Constitution, and plunge the EU into a spat of bickering, accusations, and back-stabbing that would make Jerry Springer's old show look like an all-hug cake-walk, petting zoo, and reconciliation ceremony along the Korean DMZ (at least that's how I'd like the Korean conflict to end, plus a few balloons). Could the EU fragment with a Constitution failure? Perhaps. At the very least, it would lose international clout, political gusto, and any remaining economic vibrancy, possibily plunging the EU and the rest of Europe into further economic stagnation, political instability, and general uncertainty. Enlargements with Romania and Bulgaria, and future additions of Croatia and possibly Turkey would become ho-hum flag-waving bores, at best. Moves to Confederation/Federation would stall, or take a few gigantic steps back. In short, EU "progess" (as I see it) would halt for a few decades while Brussels begins to shout at itself in the mirror.

So, from my perspective, passage of the EU Constitution should be paramount, right? Absolutely. Five EU national parliaments (Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, and Greece) have passed ratification legislation by huge margins. The parliamentary votes are all widely expected to pass through easily, as no single government wants to be seen as "sinking" the EU with a "NO" torpedo. The referenda are other matters. Spain held one a few months ago and, while turnout was embarrassingly low, approval of the EU Constitution was high (over 75%). Next in line is France, historically as EU-enthusiastic as I am Y Chromosome-enthusiastic. Polls at the beginning of the year foresaw another easy "yes" vote. Euro-federalists and confederalists began to look far into the future, to referenda in Denmark and the UK.

And then the world exploded.

Well, not really. But, suddenly, in France and other EU nations, the Eurosceptic movements began to find their voices... and people started listening. The Eurosceptic bloc is far from unified. Their objections vary greatly both within and without nations... their single unity is that an EU "NO" would satisfy their needs. French approval of the EU Constitution by polls fell below 50%. The Chirac government had a heart attack. France, what happened to thee? The European Project's foundations were laid by the blood, sweat, and tears of many prominent French politicians!

Well, one possibility often mentioned is that, for many decades, the EU was sold to the French people as a renewed pan-Francophone movement. "Make Europe like France," so to speak. Pretty easy to convince folks that it's working when the EU has 15 members, and the French must really only collide with the Germans and British to make themselves heard. Plus, they're the largest founding nation. Germany, at the time, was a small shadow of its former self, and the UK didn't join until the 1970s. But now, in a twenty-five member strong EU, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Cypriots, Maltese, Czechs, and so forth are welcomed into the building and, combining their cries with Portuguese, Danes, Swedes, Irish, Finns, Dutch, and other long-whispering EU members, France's dominating voice is being drowned out by dozens of other foreign tongues.

So no Francophone project. Big deal, right? A unified Europe can still work. But, with other large nations perching in the "wannabe" section, especially vast, poor Turkey, the French are really getting hot under the collar. Brussels is reeling from the French let-down, and is praying for a 50.000000001% approval on 29 May, when the referendum is at hand. When did it come to this? When did it come to "any ol' slim majority will be our mandate"?

Perhaps, instead of ramming the EU Constitution down an obviously sceptic European throat (hell, if FRANCE is having second thoughts, what about more aggressive Eurosceptic circles?), how's about we all take a nice step back, draw a few deep breaths, settle down with our favorite comfort foods (I haven't decided yet between the coffee ice cream, a Snickers Cruncher, or a root beer float), and talk about what may really be unfolding here.

Is the EU ready for a constitution? France may tell us no. And even if they don't, others may, even national parliaments (who may be bolstered to speak their minds more after the French public opinion tipped the first domino). And why say "NO"? Fears of Turkish entry? Post-addition blues? Stagnant economies? Inability to agree on a common foreign policy? The continuing failure of Iranian negotiations? UN-reform hysteria blues?

All of the above. The very fact that EU Constituion arguments (and indeed, many other EU policy arguments) still still still often boil down to nationalist pride, stereotypes, old rivalries, and blind sovereignty speaks volumes about the lack-of-progress that has been made in the public arena. Perhaps a united Europe will have to first convince the EU to let go of the older concerns, and address the vast economic worries of a diverse group. French unemployment rates top 10%. In Germany, their unemployment figures topped 5 million this year. How easy is it for an unemployed Parisian, who lost his job in an already stagnant, cash-strapped French economy (and hit even harder after EU expansion last May), to keep his eye on the EU Ball and go vote "YES" on May 29th because "It will help to further the cause for a united Europe which will hopefully act as a strong, streamlined economic bloc, bringing prosperity to all, not just France"? Not bloody likely. The EU has not addressed national concerns adequately. More shamefully, national governments have often entirely failed to address these concerns. They say that the French and Dutch fear Turkish entry (even though it is years away) will lead to a flood of economic refugees from Anatolia, putting dire strain on already dire financial infrastructures, and diluting unique cultures with a flood of immigration. Have governments sought to address these fears in any way? Sadly, no. Grievances with national governments will also fuel the Eurosceptic cause, as an anti-Chirac movement has done so far in France. Is it a referendum on Chirac or the EU? They say the former, when it's unfortunately the latter.

The persistence of national issues trumping European identity is one matter. But, there are plenty of other lose ends that should probably, at this point, trump the Constitution question. Last year's enlargement went respectably well, but there were some blunders that pointed out significant flaws in the system. The most glaring example is Cyprus, which officially joined as a unified island, but in practice has been divided for decades north vs. south between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (which is recognized only by Turkey, an EU candidate) and a Greek-Cypriot run government in the south. The Greek Cypriots are now full European citizens, enjoying a standard of living that their northern counterparts could only dream of (and often defect for). As Greece often grumbles, Turkey doesn't even officially recognize the Greek Cypriot government, but says it will eventually. Eventually? Turkey is an EU applicant, yet they do not currently recognize an EU member. Does this even raise ONE eyebrow in Brussels?! The Cypriot question should have been resolved in its entirety prior to Cyprus' accession, and must definitely be addressed before Turkey gets to close to joining. Of course, this will require getting the EU, the UN, Cyprus, the TRNC, and Turkey to all sit down together again. Good luck.

There were other blunders. Take, for example, the continuing border disputes between Slovenia, a new member, and Croatia, a current candidate. They all point to a surprising (and nasty) habit the EU has developed: ignoring lose ends. Sure, they start out as small problems. But, they accumulate over time. The Stability and Growth Pact for the Eurozone, for example, began with a few minor violations, and now is all but ignored by Germany, France, and many other nations. I think the EU Constitution question may just be the straw that broke the camel's back. Alas, my fear is that a resounding "NO" vote from France, or any other country, won't plunge the EU into the kind of transcendental introspection it desperately needs (you know, where we all sit down with root beer floats and talk about the above problems, and more). Instead, the spattings, heated debates, and accusations may tear the EU apart, or at least render it pitiful for a few decades.

If "NO" (or "NON," if I know my French) happens, I don't think the EU can move forward without the countries that opted out of the Constitution. An EU sans France, the UK, or even Denmark is not an option. If they go for it, they all go together. United they stand, divided they fall. Last week's issue of the Economist referred to it as "the Great Unravelling." And if the "NO" does happen, it should be a time for renewed reform, treaty-by-treaty and problem-by-problem, if necessary. Europe must step back and say, "How do we want to do this?" Settle the Cyprus question, resolve Croatia-Slovenia border disputes, help Lithuania's Russian-speaking minority, help the destitute Roma diaspora, warm Greece-Turkey relations, resolve the UN Security Council issue with Germany (and establish a single European seat, in my opinion), and, let the French accept the failure of pan-Francophone, and let them slowly discover what sort of productive, nurturing role they could indeed play in the Great European Project. A Constitution can come later, much much later, after all have calmed down, and issues have settled.

For, I see the EU's potential future as something much more important than a 300-something page document. With the addition of nations from the former Soviet bloc, and the former Yugoslavia, the EU is showing the world that democracy can hold and take root, if nourished properly and thoroughly. The candidacy of Croatia (even if on hold), and the recent opening of economic talks with Serbia and Montenegro, and the EU support of peaceful revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine show that there's much work left to be done. Bosnia, Macedonia, and even Albania could join, if given help. Romania is stumbling, and needs a good example to follow. Turkey should join: Europe need not fear its vast territory, overwhelming population, past ethnic strife, or large Muslim majority; and Turkey should not fear itself. Given plenty of time (decades, I say), it will join, and Ankara will never regret it. The Caucasus republics need money, advice, and encouragement. The Ukraine is looking hopefully to Brussels, while next door Moldova suffers from near civil war that the EU would do well to take note of. Even Belarus and Russia, as anti-Europe as Europeans can get, aren't opposed to a hearty handshake and a good cigar. Perhaps even Norway, Iceland, and Swizterland, prosperous and proud though they've kept a respectful distance from the Great European Project, will someday wish to take a seat at the table.

I hear there's plenty of room.

Macrocosm

Many of you unlucky folks out there have already heard my take on the latest failure of a "gay civil rights" bill to pass through the Washington State Legislature.

Zach, however, being much more politically savvy and in-the-know, has had more poignant points to emphasize on this divisive issue.

Paul, a dear friend of ours, was in town this past weekend and, upon hearing Zach's take on things, suggested, "Why don't you write some of this down?"

And so he did.

I could preface this with some dry, offensive wit. Something like: "The little woman's opinionated again. Hear her rant."

But, I'm not one to do that. Not with gold like this.

Instead, consider this: a wise man (or woman) once said, "Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone's got one." But, some a**holes are more relevant, more significant, than others.

Here then, is a grand dish. Significance sprinkled with context, à la Zach:

"A few weeks ago, HB1515, a measure that would have added sexual orientation to the state civil rights code, failed to pass the Washington Senate. Even more heartbreaking, the Senate failed to pass the measure by a mere one vote.

"Since the vote, HB 1515 has been a popular topic in political circles. First, supporters of HB 1515 pointed their venom at Senator Finkbeinier. Finkbeinier is a Kirkland native, moderate Republican, Minority Leader in the Senate, and former Democrat. When the Senator served in the Washington House, he supported earlier incarnations of the same bill. Perhaps assuming too much, the lobby assumed Finkbeinier would vote for the measure if it ever made it to a vote of the full Senate.

"Recently, attention has turned from Finbeinier and is now focused on Microsoft. Microsoft, the global software giant everyone loves to hate, is a model corporate citizen. Microsoft has one of the most forward looking and inclusive employee benefits programs in the country. Microsoft was an early pioneer of partner benefits and has an active, queer employees association. Microsoft gives millions of dollars every year to queer organizations and AIDS related organizations. Without question, Microsoft's business practices regarding queer employees should be THE model other corporations aspire to emulate.

"In earlier incarnations of HB 1515, Microsoft registered a position of support. It was the first "social" issue the company ever registered on. This year, Microsoft didn't register in support of the bill, it registered a neutral position. Rather than choosing to register in opposition or not even register at all, Microsoft rendered
neither a positive nor negative position. Microsoft's neutral position should be read as meaning the corporation is indifferent. It has no vested in interest in the success or failure of the bill's outcome.

"As the story unfolded, it was revealed top Microsoft executives met with Reverend Hutcherson. Rev. Hutcherson's mega-church, neighbors Microsoft's Redmond campus. Hutcherson allegedly told executives he would organize a national, Christian boycott of Microsoft unless they abandoned their support of HB 1515 and measures like it. Microsoft says it decided to register a neutral position because the company wanted to focus its legislative efforts elsewhere and HB 1515 wasn't part of the new focus.

"If this news wasn't bad enough for the company, it was also discovered that Microsoft has been paying Ralph Reed's consulting firm $20,000 a month to push its economic agenda to Congressional Republicans and the White House. As everyone knows Ralph Reed is a candidate for Georgia Lt. Governor, lobbyist, Bush operative, and former leader of the Christian Coalition.

"Suddenly, instead of being the corporation everyone loves to hate, Microsoft has been on the defensive, parrying criticism about its decision to hire Reed's consulting firm, its neutral position on HB 1515, and the impression that Microsoft caved to the Christian right. Equal Rights Washington, the queer advocacy group with the most invested in HB 1515 has even suggested Microsoft's neutral position on the bill was the reason it failed to pass out of the Senate.

"As a gay male, living in Washington, I was interested in whether HB 1515 would pass. The measure has been presented to the Legislature on an almost annual basis for the last thirty years. Since 1999, incarnations of the bill have been introduced in both the House and Senate and assigned to a committee. In 2003 and 2004 a civil rights bill was passed in the House only to be shelved in the Senate Judiciary and Children and Health Services Committees. This year was
supposed to be different. This year, for the first time in a number of years, Democrats were in control of all three branches of government. The House and Senate were supposed to pass the bill and Governor Gregoire would sign the measure into law. The bill failed and the scape-goating began.

"Even though the bill failed, I don't fault Microsoft, I don't fault the Senate Minority Leader, and I certainly don't fault the conservative Democrats who voted against the legislation. The response by the alternative press and Equal Rights Washington has the smell of the classic, queer martyr complex. Instead of assuming accountability for its own inability to get the measure through three
"friendly" branches of Washington government, they found other targets. Ironically, by fanning the anti-Microsoft fires, the queer community may end up hurting itself more than Microsoft would have helped. Alienating Microsoft may make it less likely for the company to support queer causes in the future. You can't attack your allies and expect them to keep supporting you.

"As I mentioned, past years, Microsoft registered in support of bills adding sexual orientation to the state civil rights code. However, even with Microsoft's registered support, the proposed legislation couldn't generate enough movement to make out of committee. Hell, in most years committees never even took up the legislation. Year after year the bills sat in the committee they were assigned.

"In 2003 and 2004, though passing in the Washington House, the bill wasn't even considered by the Senate. Without Microsoft's support, anti-discrimination legislation was voted on by both the House and the Senate. HB 1515 made it further along in the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law process than ever before. Seemingly, Microsoft's support isn't all its cracked up to be.

"If Microsoft's lack of support this year was so instrumental in the bill's failure why then, in earlier years, when Microsoft supported a similar bill, did the bill fare even worse? The answer is simple: merely registering a negative, neutral, or positive position on a bill means nothing. Registering in support or opposition of a bill doesn't mean you will actively lobby for its passage. When I lobbied at the Iowa General Assembly, I would routinely register my organization's support for bills that I would end up ignoring. Registering on a bill was usually a formality, designed to give legislators a lay of the lobby land.. HB 1515's longer than average life seems to have more to do with Democrats controlling both chambers of the legislature than with Microsoft's legislative priorities.

"Two items are apparent to me. First, civil rights always evolve over time. It has been true with women, people of color, and the disabled. Queer civil rights are no different.

"Second, if Equal Rights Washington, the HRC, and other queer advocacy groups ever hope to pass something like HB 1515, a civil union bill, state domestic partner statute, or *gasp* marriage legislation they MUST do a better job organizing, educating legislators, and educating the queer community. Queer advocacy groups can't wait passively for society to catch-up. Queer organizations need to challenge the stereotypes and norms many apply to the queer community.

"Equal Rights Washington can't focus their organizing efforts on lefty Unitarian and 'Christian' churches in Capitol Hill and the queers who populate Broadway. Equal Rights Washington needs to move beyond Seattle and beyond Seattle's gay ghetto. Renton, Kirkland, Spokane, Ellensbrg, Enumclaw, Auburn, Everett, Bothell, Bellevue et al should be where the struggle occurs. In order for there to be a struggle you must have someone and something to struggle against. Just because its hard and these cities tend to be conservative to moderate shouldn't be reasons for Equal Rights Washington to abandon them. The fact these
places are conservative to moderate is reason for Equal Rights Washington to focus its advocacy energy.

"If queers aren't active in Senate, House, and municipal campaigns legislators will never carry the civil rights mantle. If people don't see the normalcy of gay, lesbian, bi and trans people, how we aren't a mortal threat to the fabric of society, social norms and stereotypes will persist. Queers must be visible.

"Equal Rights Washington cannot expect corporate powers like Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, Coors, etc to carry their legislative agenda. Practically speaking, corporations in Washington have more important issues to worry about than whether HB 1515 passes. Late last year, not even Ohio's corporate titans could reverse the statewide referendum defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Equal Rights Washington shouldn't only focus their efforts on the Washington Legislature. The group should also move aggressively to pass anti-discrimination in counties and cities who don't already include sexual orientation in their municipal and county civil rights code. Incrementally passing ordinances in Washington's cities and counties will build support for state-wide legislation and build the organizational might of far-flung supporters. It will also allow queer activists to identify supportive, local elected officials. City councils and County Councils tend to be the breeding grounds for future legislators.

"I don't like that HB 1515 failed. I don't like that for another year Washington will be one of the MANY states without civil rights legislation that includes sexual orientation. But, the reaction of the alternative press and queer advocacy groups has been irresponsible and misdirected. Implying Microsoft is no aligning itself with Rev. Hutcherson and the Christian Right flies in the face of decades of
previous pro-queer initiatives by the company. Scape-goating Microsoft might be easy, but it isn't accurate, nor is it productive. Queers shouldn't let Equal Rights Washington get away with this spin. It insults our intelligence and is distracting. I am tired of organizations who lobby in my name, shifting blame when they fail. Attacking Christians, Microsoft, a Republican who has his caucus to look out for, renders us impotent and threatens to make the queer community a permanent martyr. Its time Equal Rights Washington grow-up, accept accountability for its failure, and go back to work.

"After all, there is always next year."

--Zach

Healing Light

The questions to ask are not

Who?
What?
When?
or even
How?

Instead, wonder WHY?
Why, oh why, didn't anyone EVER tell me that the cornstarch packing peanuts dissolve in water?

(Or that they're made of cornstarch, for that matter.)

First off, do you know the number of years I've been throwing those things away?

Second off, do you know how much FUN it is to watch them dissolve in water?

Granted, significant foam formation can be a nasty by-product of placing-a-sizable-pile-in-the-sink-and-turning-on-the-water. But still... what fun!

Almost as entertaining as Duck Tales. Definitely more distracting than Mighty Mouse. What a misguided cartoon.

Drat. There goes my productivity for the next sixty years.

Hymn of Praise

Sit down, folks. I have news.

I've been religious lately.

Well, not really. But, with two events of organized religion in less than a week, what else do I call it?

The recent election of Pope Benedict XVI left me, a poor, nearly-agnostic, Protestant-raised heathen, with a lot of general "Catholic" questions for Zach.

Zach, it turns out, isn't a very good Catholic. Most of my entirely reasonable questions ("Why do you cross yourself? Why are there so many saints? How do you know when to cross yourself? Why do you go left-to-right? Why do you go to confession?") were met with, "I don't know."

So, Zach, tiring of my interrogations, thought that a trip to a sure-fire Catholic church would answer some of my questions. We chose a small chapel, St. Ignatius on the Seattle University campus. First off, the architecture itself was stunning. This building is gorgeous.

But, right in the door, the questions began:
What are those candles for?
Why do you have to kneel to pray?
Did they always put a soft pad for you to kneel on?
Why do you pray to saints, and not to God?
Why do you have to use holy water as you make the sign of the cross when you enter?
Do you know how many germs are probably in that big bowl of water?
What makes it holy?
Why does blessing it make it holy?
Why aren't there any bibles in the pews?
Who's on that shrine/in that painting?
Why must you light a candle before praying?
Why do you have to pray for so much specifically? Why can't God just look into your soul and see what you're asking for?

Of course, like a good brought-up-Protestant, I've this nagging feeling that I can't very well ask an actual priest (or other Roman Catholic official) any of this because:
1. I'm gay and am therefore hellbound.
2. I'm still officially a part of a Protestant denomination and am therefore hellbound.

Whether or not a priest would actually attempt to either expel me from the church or perform an exorcism right then and there remains to be seen. Quite frankly, I've obviously avoided any such confrontation as much as possible.

But, standing in St. Ignatius on Saturday, I somehow let Zach convince me to go to Mass with him at sunset. He doesn't go regularly, but was interested in hearing what the priest at St. James Cathedral on First Hill had to say about the recent selection of Pope Benedict XVI. And, I'm sure Zach figured actual participation in a Roman Catholic Mass would shut me up.

Oh, here's the part where I have to direct you my Spiel on James-Spirituality. There'll be a quiz on it later. Plus, I don't want anyone here thinking I've gone off my rocker. Or Zach, for that matter.

Anyway, if St. Ignatius was gorgeous for its small scale, St. James was breathtaking for its large scale. We got there about a half hour early for Mass, entering an innocent-looking side door. As soon as we entered, we were facing the altar, with a small candle-lit shrine to Mary off to one side. My internal "Organized Religion" alarm went off, and I had to resist the urge to hide, fetal position and all, in the candle-lit Virgin Mary room (which was, I should note, filled with the devout praying). Instead, I ran clear out of the building.

Zach, obliging and patient, followed and said, "Let's try the main entrance. We'll take it slow." He tried to hold my hand, but I'd already gotten into the this-is-Church-so-we-can't-touch-'cause-we're-gay-and-will-be-beaten-or-otherwise-harmed mindset (which Evangelical Protestantism is so good at hammering into young folks).

I calmed down when we reached the intricately-carved front doors, and I took a few minutes to gawk at them. We went in, step-by-step, though I took three gigantic steps back when Zach approached the holy water and crossed himself, grinning at my best-actress wtf? face. I swear, every insecure fiber of my insecure being was cringing and crying out. Seeing folks kneeling at shrines, kneeling in pews, crossing themselves, rocking back-and-forth in prayer, clutching rosaries... it all just made me tense up even more. I wanted to run up to the altar (which I later learned was a no-no), stand on a rather comfortable-looking chair (which is especially a no-no since it's the Archbishop of Seattle's chair), and yell, with my best Presbyterian voice, "Shouldn't we just vote, recite the Lord's prayer, and go have punch and cookies in the anteroom?"

I calmed down, though, before the service started. As my singing voice doesn't exist, I believe the folks around me suffered permanent hearing damage. I also made about 1,001 procedural mistakes, especially in the fine art of crossing oneself. I declined communion, obviously, and tried to avoid shaking anyone's hand ("They'll know I'm not Catholic! I'll be chased out!"), though one lady was persistent and cheerfully declared, "Peace, young man!" I chose the wrong week, apparently, since much of the homily dealt with "What it means to be Catholic." Zach squeezed my hand reassuringly.

I spent much of the Mass just looking around. At people, what they did, how they bowed at the altar. I tried to figure out the rules: when to bow, when to cross oneself, when to sing instead of chant, when to chant instead of sing, how they say the Lord's Prayer. I took plenty of time to drool over the cathedral's gorgeous windows, alterpieces, statues, and carvings.

At the service's conclusion, feeling a bit more brave, I asked Zach if we could stay and look around the vast interior. Again, the questions:
Which saint is this?
Which saint is that?
Is one of these Jesus?
Why is there an Archbishop buried under the floor?
Why do they say "trespasses" instead of "debts"?
What's that big pool of water for over there?
Do you guys ever get to vote on anything?

"I don't know."

Zach's solution, thus far, has been to encourage me to become Catholic. He reasons that, first off, it will relieve him of the constant burden of saying, "I don't know." I can get my many questions answered, and I can tell him as well. It will also, he says, appeal to my love/desire/craving-above-all-cravings/second calling of history, particularly European history. Finally, he'd want to become my sponsor. I can see it now:

"Father, my gay lover wants to sponsor me to become a Roman Catholic. What saint is that up there?"

On an entirely different note, Zach and I attended a Seder last night for Passover. Granted, Passover was this past weekend, but our hosts (Connie and Jake) do several each year for friends and co-workers. We were on the Monday night shift. We made charoset, and I learned that it is NOT pronounced "Chah-row-sett." My Old-Testament-loving self resisted the urge to have a field day when we went around the table discussing the story of Passover, and its origins. Especially since I'd embarrassed myself last year by doing just that.

I love matzah ball soup, by the way.

I also can't speak Hebrew to save my life.

But, at least I did better than Zach.

It was very relaxing, and a lot of fun. I'm not sure how "traditional" this Seder was compared to others, as it was only my second. Both years that we've been invited, Connie and Jake have used a feminist Haggadah as a guide. I wouldn't trade these experiences for the world, though. The atmosphere was so warm and accepting, the people friendly and active through the entire meal, our hosts kind and generous (and their infant son adorable beyond belief), and... again... the matzah ball soup was to die for.

So, perhaps I should consider Judaism instead. Choices, choices, choices.

Consumption

Almost two weeks ago, I described House Bill 1515 as "nearly dead."

Unfortunately, now it is "really, most sincerely dead."

Time and again, over the past thirty years, a bill similar (if not identical) to HB 1515 has been introduced into the Washington State Legislature. It would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of employment, public accommodations, real estate transactions, insurance, and commerce. And, it's never made it through both houses of the state legislature.

This year, for those of you just tuning in, could have been the year to pass it. Democrats held both chambers, and the governor's office. In the State House of Representatives, six Republicans joined Democrats in passing the bill. In the State Senate (split 26-23, Democrats-Republicans), two conservative Democrats two weeks ago joined the Republicans to stuff it in an unwelcoming committee to avoid a floor vote. Hence my proclamation that HB 1515 was "nearly dead." The chances of getting back out onto the floor for a full vote were slim.

But, the Democrats pulled it off... they got HB 1515 back on the full State Senate floor today...

And watched the Republicans defeat it.

Two conservative Democrats sided with the Republican caucus, voting HB 1515 down by a vote of 25-24. One vote. One stinkin' vote.

The Republican Minority Leader in the State Senate, a former Democrat, hails from Redmond, a Puget Sound region suburb. Mr. Finkbeiner, in previous legislative sessions in the State House of Representatives, actually voted for past versions of the bill. But, he didn't this time. "To me, this isn't a rights issue."

I'll try to remember that. But, only - ONLY - if you, sir, will look me in the eye, and repeat - word-for-word - that commiserable, deplorable, pathetic excuse.

Instruction Manual, Page 32

How to Kill a Bee:

1. Open your window without lowering the screen. (Obviously, since you didn't let the bee in kindly when it knocked.)

2. Allow bee to fly in the room, and then collapse on the floor (Emperor-supplication style) in a fit of bee-induced panic.

3. Allow your mortal fear of being stung to consume you and obliterate all rational thought.

4. Crawl (still Emperor-supplication style) across the floor and grab an old issue of The Economist.

5. Scream a lot. Interjections of, "Oh sh*t!" make for shameful memories later.

6. Roll said magazine up, and make feeble swings no higher than two feet above the ground (still Emperor-supplication style, remember?), realizing with each swing that the bee is furiously buzzing seven feet above you near the ceiling.

7. Wait and see where the bee stops.

8. While waiting, contemplate crawling back across the room to call your boyfriend and ask him what to do.

9. Realize, halfway to the phone, that your boyfriend will laugh and say, "Emperor-supplicatoin style? Is that where you're flat on the floor, crawling with elbows up and pushing yourself along pathetically with your toes?! What a riot!" and then offer no comforting words of advice.

10. Notice that the bee has landed on a ceiling light fixture to laugh at you.

11. Commence throwing dirty clothes (by now you are by the hamper [which is a great two-syllable word, by the way]) up at the fixture to encourage the bee to take off again and get whacked.

12. Each time the bee is dislodged, commence waving the rolled-up issue of The Economist again, straining yourself to reach two-and-a-half feet above the floor.

13. When you run out of dirty clothes to throw, crawl around and collect them across the room, forming a new pile to throw.

14. Get mad, recalling that the bee is probably laughing at you, and throw your favorite pajama pants at it with all the strength of your soul.

15. Cheer when you realize you've succeeded in dislodging the bee.

16. Yelp when you realize you've succeeded too well, for the bee is now barrelling towards you.

17. For the second time in your life, swing a makeshift bat with confidence.

18. For the first time in your life, hit the target with that makeshift bat.

19. Watch the bee hit your other window, momentarily stunning it against the glass.

20. Leap up, for victory is near!

21. Pause momentarily, as rising up too quickly has left you dizzy and disoriented. You're gettin' old, man.

22. Makeshift bat/The Economist in hand, deliver the death blow.

23. Examine the corpse. Realize it's really a yellowjacket. (Don't forget to puff up that chest, manly man.)

24. Fling the corpse out of the window.

25. Turn around and promptly trip over the pile of dirty clothes you'd previously formed for a second assault on the bee (see Step #13).

26. Buy a flyswatter.

(For the record, I've completed steps 1 through 25.)

Error Prone

Opun leter to Chadwick, Lola, Fabian, Mabella, 8and the rrest of t7e Gangg zpamming me:

HEEY GUYZZ

I tota77y dig yer mesages especially at werk yo!

&And iff I ever wan1t
1 hoot Roolex thisyear
2 or ROLLAX repliccas
3 vjagrra C1ALIS WALLIUM getsum man
4 wet babez h0t for me
5 models b8are alll
6 datteable wemen in my Area
7 to Acquire the new draggs i Dezirrre
8 Extandder!

i will kn00w Who to contact.7

Y0y0

--J

P.S. But, otherwise, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't stay out of my life and out of my Inbox, I shall have to sick Cerebus on you. Cerebus hasn't been fed for a few millennia.

Hindsight

I've always been bothered by the fact that I don't know any foreign languages. I had four years of German classes in high school... but I didn't get much out if it. Nothing, really. I know a few curse words, and I can conjugate a few verbs (I love conjugating verbs. I really do.). But, English-speaking-James just isn't as cool as more-than-English-speaking-James. True? Yeah.

Actually, it's also related to a deeper issue: my genuinely sh*tty vocabulary. While studying for the GRE, it became disturbingly clear: I don't know what lots of ordinary words mean! I have an idea... I'll get close... but I'll get the meaning not-quite-right. It's really quite embarrassing. Zach, and occasionally my mother, are the ones I field questions to: "What does [insert commonplace word] mean?" If they aren't around, I use a dictionary, and subsequently forget the definition.

Perhaps it's a mental block. My brain is already small-English-vocab wired. Perhaps I had a critical nutritional deficiency as a child that locked my brain in that sad, sad configuration. An English-only speaker in a world where some 5.5 billion people speak otherwise. How un-Renaissance Man.

But really, perhaps, psychologically, my unconscious has purposefully locked itself into an English-only mode for fear of speaking another language poorly. It doesn't take long, when speaking with me face-to-face, to know that English itself is a bit of a struggle for me. If this is how I "master" my native tongue, how can I hope to conquer another language? How shameful would it be to label myself as "James, bilingual," when my second-language skills are abysmal, at best?

Yet, I want to learn (Wow. I think we've just stumbled on my greatest weakness, here.) without shaming myself.

If you haven't caught on already, there is a solution... one that I thought of a year ago, but kept to myself...

Until...

I decided to go the University District yesterday afternoon for a haircut. While I was there, I stopped at several bookstores, including the UW Bookstore. I felt drawn there, for some reason... As soon as I walked in the door, I felt I had some purpose being there. I knew that, before I left the building, I'd do something new. Perhaps exciting. Perhaps wonderous.

And, as you should know by now, if I find something wonderous and exciting, it's going to be something stupid.

I wandered until I ended up in the foreign languages section. And then, there it was... what I'd been thinking about for the past year. The ability to fulfill my desire to learn another language, and perfect my language abilities in general, without the possibility of embarrassing myself.

When I showed Zach my purchase - a book to begin to teach myself Latin - he didn't exactly bow down and worship my cerebrum. He just kind of rolled his eyes and smiled. I think he was telling himself that he really shouldn't have been surprised by such a move. Then we ate teriyaki.

But, I've already learned to translate my personal credo into Latin: "Non sum, sed ero."

An American in Prague

As Zach and I were on our way to a film tonight, I decided to break the news to him... and let him know that I've found a most attractive politician.

But really, when you think about it - when you stop and really really really ponder it - there's no way to say "I think the Czech Prime Minister is attractive" without sounding foolish.

"Zach, have you ever seen a photograph of Stanislav Gross?! He's quite handsome!"

Yeah. Zach didn't exactly jump on the bandwagon with me on this one.

Corruption scandals aside, I think it's the slightly-messed-up-hair that does it for me.

Blast from the Past

Holy sh*t, Batman! There are three Village Inn Restaurants in Washington State! Two of them are in reasonable driving distances of Seattle!

*pauses*

You know, considering the countless hours I've spent wasted at VIs during high school and college (including the 8 months where I dated a VI waiter), perhaps I shouldn't be happy about this. Or, at least, I shouldn't post my glee so publicly on the internet.

But, at least Zach has shown more glee than me.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

My God... I really love Fresca!

Civil Hands

Sometimes, I whole-heartedly believe that Seattlites roam the streets in droves, blissfully oblivious to the events that take place outside of the city limits. With their person-sized recycling towed out ever week next to dwarf-sized garbage containers; chains of organic grocery stores offering fifteen kinds of "chemical free" cheese; fleets of Jettas and Subarus still marked with "Impeach Bush" and "Kerry-Edwards: a Stronger America;" espresso shops at every corner; 22nd century public toilets; openly gay politicians; nude bicycling on the summer solstice; Socialist Party candidates holding rallies and petition-signings every other block... and I'll bet you my socks that over half of all Seattlites believe these events go on in every city in America. Hell, the world.

But, every now and then, we need a wake-up call. "Come back to reality, my children. I have much to tell you, for you've gone 'round the bend..."

In the WA State Legislature, House Bill 1515 is dead. Or nearly dead.

For those of you out there who don't speak Legislaturese, here is a clarification. Washington state law currently prohibits discrimination in matters of employment, public accommodations, real estate transactions, insurance, and commerce based the following factors: race, color, religion, national origin, gender, mental or physical disability, or use of a guide dog. House Bill 1515 would have extended this protection, prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This bill isn't new. It's been around, in one form or another, for the past 25 years. Always defeated. Always. Some years, it would actually make it through one house of the state legislature, but not another. Other years, it wouldn't even make it through one. But, this year, many of us thought the time had finally arrived. You see, though Democrats took a beating in the Federal Congress, they did okay in Washington. Democrats now control the State House of Representatives by a comfortable margin, and barely hold the State Senate (26-23) and the Governor's mansion (though former RepublicanState Senator Dino Rossi is still challenging the election of Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire).

The bill's supporters couldn't have asked for a better situation. The gay lobbying groups, in theory, should've been able to navigate the legislative waters without too much difficulty, right?

Whoops. I guess not.

House Bill 1515 passed the State House back in February by a margin of 61 to 37. In the Senate, however, the Republican minority recruited 2 conservative Democrats for a procedural vote that, when passed 25-24, shuffled House Bill 1515 from the floor to the conservative Judiciary Committee, where it will most likely die... again...

Of course, the shocked State Senate majority isn't giving up yet. But, since the only way to get the bill back onto the floor is to steal some Republicans away from the minority camp, I'm not holding my breath.

The Republican response to Democratic criticism is that the vote was merely procedural. The Republican leadership simply didn't approve of the committee that had previously approved House Bill 1515, so they shuffled it (with the help of 2 Dems) to the "appropriate" committee. Thus, no Republican has to go on record for lawful protection of gays and lesbians, which will certainly help Republicans from socially liberal Puget Sound suburbs, while keeping social conservatives satisfied that the anti-discrimination bill won't be enacted as a "gateway to gay marriage."

Of course, though, any fool knows that House Bill 1515 wasn't a marriage bill. Let me repeat that... it wasn't a marriage bill. Washington State has its own statutes defining marriage as "one man-one woman." Got that? I won't be lining up in Seattle to marry Zach anytime soon, folks! It was an anti-discrimination bill! Not backdoor gay marriage!! What's next? Requiring all gays to be observed by State Troopers, just in case we should try to seek equal rights in housing, employment, insurance, and property ownership (or... *gasp* civil unions) by lobbying, legal protest, and other such nefarious means? Yeah, we gays sure are sneaky.

Jesus, folks. Get a grip. You're starting to look a little paranoid.

Anyway, it's done... again. No State Senate Republican has to go on record supporting equal protection under the law for gays, and no gay has equal protection under the law. Some folks are mad. Others, like me, will be sad and bitter for a few more days, and then we'll crust over and ooze sarcasm. Most, I'm willing to bet, won't bat an eyelash.

State Representative Shirley Hankins, a Republican from Richland, voted in favor of House Bill 1515 in the State House. When she heard that the procedural vote had effectively killed HB1515 in the State Senate, due to the actions of her own party, she was heard saying, "Have they lost their minds? This is a civil rights bill!"

Ms. Hankins, I think that everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - knows... when you tear through the politics; the partisan divides; the red and blue states; the amendments, DOMAs, and statutes; the Vermonts, the Massachusettses, the Gavin Newsoms, the Multnomah Countys; the civil unions, the mock weddings; the homophobia; the state defences of marriage; the courts; the years of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and outright scare tactics; the arm-twisting, ankle-biting, back-stabbing, hand-shaking, and back-slapping; the fears of back-door gay marriage; the hopes of back-door gay marriage; the wills and living wills; the back-breaking attorney fees; the domestic partnerships (the Maines, the New Jerseys, the Californias)... when you wade through it all, and find yourself at the sole source of soul, thought, and rationality - when you get down to the core thought - EVERY PERSON with half a brain knows that House Bill 1515 was a civil rights issue.

And that's the scary part.

So go on, Washington... just try to deny us an apartment to rent this summer. I dare you.

Nomination

With the recent passing of Pope John Paul II, a co-worker of mine (R) and I have been discussing the history and procedures surrounding sede vacante and election of a new pope. Both brought up in Protestant households, we can't help but be excited (me probably more than her) over the many un-Protestant mysteries and colorful histories of the Papacy. I was most surprised today, however, to learn that the new pope need not come from the College of Cardinals. It was only after the election of Pope Urban VI (On a side note, why did such names like "Urban" and "Innocent" fall by the wayside? Such a tragedy...) in 1378 did the "tradition" begin that the pope arises from a current member of the College of Cardinals.

What are the criteria, then?

Simple. The pope must be a Roman Catholic male.

Roman Catholic, XY

Wow. Ignoring the obvious loopholes [*see below] large enough for any geneticist to drive a charter bus through, R and I came up with an interesting point. My boyfriend and her husband are both Roman Catholic. Either could be elected pope (perhaps with a good deal of conclave lobbying, of course). Since I imagine both R and I could lobby for our men with equal success, Zach and R's husband could effectively split the College of Cardinals into two camps. As I was about to propose that, in the event of this tie, R's husband and Zach would thumb wrestle for the papacy, I was struck by an even more brilliant plan:

R's husband will become the pope, while Zach resurrects a much-neglected unofficial office of the Roman Catholic church that hasn't been filled in centuries... the Antipope!

*my favorite loophole:
genetically male (XY), yet appearing female: Why?... four words - Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome! Show me a devout Catholic with C.A.I.S. and I'll show you a papal election for the history books.

Basketball

I have several online encyclopedias bookmarked in my web browser. If I had the space to store them and the money to purchase them, I would buy a new set of encyclopedias each year. And yes, I'd keep the old sets, too. Actually, I'd have to alternate which company I'd buy my encyclopedias from each year. For the first year of encyclopedia purchases, I'd pick whichever company has the most interesting and detailed maps in their volumes. After all, what good is a map of Liberia if you can't see the counties? Sheesh.

I'm pretty sure I can blame this little quirk, along with so much more of what-is-me, on ma and pa. While I can't recall the precise incident, I can imagine it unfolded thus:
1. Little James wonders something.
2. Little James asks ma and/or pa about the something he's wondering.
3. Ma and/or pa, either from lack of knowledge or preoccupation with other tasks, tells/tell Little James to "look it up."
4. Little James walks to the library down the street and looks it up in an encyclopedia.
5. Little James starts making regular trips to the library just to read encyclopedia entries and Garfield books.
6. Ma, one volume at a time, purchases an entire set of the 1989 edition of the Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge, complete with (nearly detailed) world atlas, guide to the U.S. Presidents, and a family medical guide, from a Jewel Osco in Moline, IL.

I beam with pride to think how many hours of my youth (and adulthood) I spent reading and re-reading those volumes rather than participating in organized sports (I had a gruesome childhood in that department). Of course, I stopped now and then to
A. play in orchestras, so I can complete the journey to the dark side and get my Nerd Badge,
B. read other things, and finally
C. be gay

But, other than that, it was basically the encyclopedias. How else would I gain an interest in Israeli politics, taxonomy, and the number of prostitutes Hector Berlioz allegedly slept with?

In my adult-like childhood, the internet has made this a vicious cycle. No longer must I gloss over the U.S.S.R. article in Grolier when a question comes up about the Russian Federation... now I have MIGHTY ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Every man's tool for the 21st century. It's become a bit of a vicious cycle. It begins with one of these two phrases popping up:
1. "I don't know [insert thing]..."
2. "I wonder why/how/who/what [insert thing]..."

Then, it's off to the computer to find out why/how/who/what. It's too bad I don't have this motivation all set for graduate school: I'd be halfway to a Nobel. Instead, I spend my evenings looking up Indian prime ministers, the origins of the names of Mexican states, and the cladistic relationships between simians and prosimians. But, I drink a beer at the same time so I feel cooler.

Finally, tonight, I broke the cycle. While talking on the phone with Zach, he said something that floored me:
"I'll be over later on... I want to watch the game first."

The game?!?!

Ignoring how unZach-like that phrase was, I kindly inquired what game he was referring to. I shouldn't have asked, since I got a five minute basketball lecture. Basically, Zach could be in the lead for his office basketball pool if IL beats UNC tonight. I've been getting calls or IMs every five minutes for the past hour with the "latest updates" on these weird things called "baskets" and "fouls" and "possessions." I finally became so confused that Zach said, "Why don't you look it up on Wikipedia or something?"

And then, it hit me: I'm not looking it up because I don't care about basketball. I don't want to learn about this. It finally happened... I broke the cycle! An "I don't know" without a quick trip to the encyclopedia!

Unfortunately, UNC beat IL, so prospects aren't good for Zach's office pool. He'll need some cheering up when he gets over here in about five minutes. I'm guessing the news that I wasn't motivated to use the online encyclopedia won't lift his spirits. Nor do I expect that the fact that I'm only half way through my second beer (so I'm still feelin' pretty cool) will perk him up.

I'm stretching here, but I may have to try a lecture on the similarities and differences between the Tasmanian Devil and the Tasmanian Tiger.

Decision

Yesterday, I rang up one graduate program and formally accepted their offer.

Today, I'll mail out three "Thanks, but no thanks" letters to the other graduate programs.

So, if you need to reach me sometime over the next 5-7 years, try this: