2009 Gay Pride Observations

This weekend was the annual GLBT Pride festival in Minneapolis. Although I do have some issues, both politically and personally, with the Minneapolis Gay Pride Festival, I decided to attend this year. While walking around Loring Park and it's surrounding areas, I made a few shocking observations, some of which I wanted to post on here.

One observation I made was that the younger crowd (perhaps ages 18-30) were very tame this year. In past years, I feel like the younger crowd has donned the more traditional Pride garb of brightly colored short-shorts, flip-flops, and perhaps a pooka shell necklace. This year, I noticed the younger crowd was not nearly as sexually provocative in their dress. While there were men walking around with the shirts hanging out of their pockets instead of on their persons, it did not seem to be for sexual arousal. Rather, it was just because they were hot (It was rather warm during the mid afternoon). Even with that, their bottoms were mostly baggy cargo shorts and not the tight "booty" shorts that are usually worn. Most of the younger crowd was dressed normally, dragging along their puppies and dogs.

The older crowd was drastically different. My friend and I were in the beer garden and she and I both commented on how so many "older" men were dressed provocatively and with the purpose of expressing sexuality (that's actually being polite, the actual statement I recall was "Why are there so many old, half-naked, fat men?"). One man, my guess would be he was in his early forties, was running around in a super-hero get up, complete with gold tights, some wretchedly tight, pink tank top, and a cape. If he was wearing under garments, their purpose was lost on me; the tights left little to the imagination. Another older gentleman (most definitely in his late 50s, early 60s) was wearing nothing but a kilt. These were the most shocking examples, but I noticed a great deal of older men who were wearing things that we'd all prefer to see on younger, more physically fit men.

Now I must admit, this was shocking to me. Usually, it's the younger gay men, with their well benched chests, running around in clothing that would make conservatives gasp. This year, there were way more older gay men publicly displaying themselves in "inappropriate" garb. In fact, my friend and I both jokingly (somewhat) remarked at how disappointed we were that there were so few "hot, half-naked guys."

Another observation I made was that there was way less public inebriation among the younger crowd this year. I was in the Beer Garden for a few hours and I did not see anyone who was being inappropriate or obviously too intoxicated. Also, my friends and I stopped by Nick and Eddie's in the Loring block to have some lunch. Next door, Cafe Lurcat was hosting a very loud, expressive gathering in honor of the Pride Celebration. Although things were very loud and people were celebrating, I did not notice one incident of improper, drunken behavior such as vomiting in the street. Although Cafe Lurcat was a bit more boisterous (their party beat the one at N&E's by far), it was very well contained and within the boundaries of the bar.

Let me be clear that I am only commenting on the behavior of the GLBT crowd in the public arena of the park. Of course, in the evening the gay bars became a complete mess. Mens' shirts came off, people were "trashed," and there was a lot of "sexy" going on. Now of course, this is not something with which I have a major problem. People go to clubs to get drunk, to meet people, sometimes with the intent of finding a torrid affair with a duration that lasts shorter than a bald man's haircut. This happens at both gay and straight bars. It's a part of our young culture. As long as that stays in the clubs and out of the Starbucks and Targets, I see no problem with people doing those things.

Further, this posting is not meant to say that there was no improper behavior going on publicly at all. I am sure there were some younger guys running around in undergarments, vomiting up Bacardi in the waste receptacles. I just never saw it and anything I did see was not what I'd consider terribly improper behavior. Also, I did not attend the parade this year. So who knows what happened during that.

Generally, I was pleased with my overall impression. I realize that attributing this lack of indecent behavior to any cause is a shot in the dark. Maybe the vast majority of promiscuous, younger gay men were just too hungover from Saturday night's events to make it to the park that day. Maybe it was something else. Personally, I like to think that it has something to do with a changing disposition in the younger gay community.

As a member of what I consider to be the younger gay community, the past few years have changed my behavior. With gay marriage nascent in Minnesota's and other states' legislatures, and its arrival in many other states, I have tried to put forth my very best behavior. I have encouraged other homosexual people to do the same. I think it is a very dangerous time to have gay men prancing down Hennepin in their bedroom attire and lesbian women walking around publicly with only conveniently-placed rainbow stickers. The gay community needs to show greater Minnesota that we, as a culture, are the type of men and women that can and should be married with children of our own and leading a publicly respectable life as such.

I wonder if this year's demure Pride was the result of such a phenomenon. To be sure, Minneapolis' Gay Pride event tends to be more family oriented than other cities. One of my friends from law school and his wife were super excited for their son's first Pride. They took him to the parade and carried him around the Loring Park festival. Thus, the multitude of children probably has a taming effect on the celebrants. However, there have been many Pride festivals where that has not been the case. There were certain parts of past Prides that I would never want my young child to observe. However, I can honestly say that I would have had no problem exposing my child to anything that occurred the day I spent in the park (with the exception of Old Kilt Man and Super Gay, I wouldn't want my child to go blind).

Another thing I've been thinking about is why there were so many older gay men exhibiting what I would consider to be inappropriate behavior and dress and so fewer younger men this year. The only explanation I can come up with is that there might be a cultural difference between younger and older gay men.

For older gay men who grew up in the 60s and 70s, I think the American gay community is currently dealing with a different set of problems than those with which older gay men and women dealt in their younger years. I think much of the 60s, 70s and 80s were about getting the greater public to realize that gay men and women existed. The "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" mantra was more relevant then than it is now. In the recent 90s and now in the early millennium, the mantra seems to have shifted to "Now that you know we're here, what are you going to do about it?" I think a lot of older gay men and women, in trying to get people to notice their existence maybe used devices of inappropriate dress and sexually provocative behavior to get the full attention of the predominant heterosexual community. The older gay men and women might still be stuck in their attempts to get noticed. I believe that now, since the gay community is far more prevalent in today's metropolitan and political communities, there is not as a great a need for shock value for purposes of getting attention. Thus, I like to think the younger gay crowds are adjusting themselves and their behavior to the new mantra.

Sadly, I have no statistics or studies on which to base my ideas. However, this year's Pride Festival was really quite lovely. I was very impressed by the vast majority of celebrants' behavior and dress. I like to think that my observations are due to a shift in the mindsets and attitudes of the gay community, specifically in the younger crowd. I think young gay men and women are beginning to see the possibilities for the general gay community and are starting to subdue and prepare themselves for leading a "normal" American life, something that a lot of gay men and women desperately need right now. I know I am and I am definitely looking to the future with high hopes.

Sweet Comment to Emma's Below

Hey, one more.

So there is this Jean woman who also follows the "gay" Catholic Online articles. She seems like a good gal. She had this to say about Emma's comment and I thought I would post that also.

"Emma: First of all we love you. Second of all we all live a life hampered by the "original sin" no one has escaped it. 
We all struggle with all of this. 
No one is persecuting you in the Church. 
If they are then they know not about Christ. 
Please go to the Courage Apostolate and seek guidance here on the web. 
Emma we accept the fact that were all struggling with something and you are no different. 
Also if you can find a Holy Hour then I recommend you go if you can. 
Ask Him the Lord help you but seek guidance. He comes first. 
I dont know who is persecuting you but they shouldnt be doing that and we pray for you. 
Love in Christ brothers and sisters."

-Jean

It is good to see Catholics out there like Jean. I don't agree with her, but I like her. 

FYI, the Courage Apostolate Jean references is a Catholic organization that helps Catholic gay men and women, not to change their sexuality, but live a celibate life. I have not researched it extensively, but I think it is a nice change to the whole gay-to-straight thing. In the words of Karen Walker, "They're turning gay men straight? Good Lord, don't they know what that'll do to the fall line?"

Amazing Comments from Catholic Online

Good morning,

So I just went through about 10 days worth of e-mails from my online subscription to Catholic Online. Although I love the articles, my favorite part is reading the comments. As I've said before, the reader of Catholic Online tends to be the more devout Catholic. Once in a while, I come across some really great comments that dare to counter what the usual readers write. The following paragraphs show my favorites from what I read this morning. Just so you know, I copied and pasted the comments from the website, so all spelling and grammar mistakes are original.

The first comment I read was from a person identified as Schuyler. The article he or she commented on was one that raved about this new therapist who claims he can "change" gay men and women. I put the word "change" in parentheses because the article never actually said anything about regaining heterosexuality. It just said the patient would no longer be gay. I feel like a lot of these psychologists and therapists spouting these words are being over-general. Here is the article, if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33842

Now as most of you know, I think the whole changing gay people to straight is ridiculous, an utter pipe dream. In all honesty, I can't believe there are doctors and scientists making such statements. Also what I find very strange is that I thought doctors were no longer able to treat homosexuality as a disease due to definitional changes. Granted, this thought comes from a comment I read on the IMDB "Prayers for Bobby" page, so I don't actually know for sure. Perhaps, if a patient comes willingly to a doctor and asks him or her to treat his homosexuality, then it is OK? Regardless, it's weird. Anyhow, here's the comment I read that touched my heart.

"I have trouble with this article. It seems to me that both sides make assumptions and expect homosexual person to act on them. I do have same sex attraction and I have suffered much emotionally from both sides of the argument. I do not know why I have same sex attraction and it kills me when both sides of the argument make these statements that almost always lack credibility from my own personal knowledge. This mystery of sexuality I assume has to do primarily with love and my attraction to the same sex does not deny that love, even though it may not meet its logical end. Even life ends in death because of original sin. I can just hope as jesus saves us from death he can save us from all our futile actions. I just hope and pray people on both sides will remember they are messing around in the dark at the core of sexual persons and that they have a little more humility and compassion and stop going from a bias to a conclusion. All these men who want to fix us should look to themselves and see that i am still a brother. This is a political issue in america. A culture war and I get the feeling that I and other homosexuals are just a trophy fought over. I am a catholic fully believe all the church teaches but I wish people would stop biting and devouring one another and feed, help, a brother whos smallest problem is his predominant attraction."

-Schuyler

I think the part that touches me the most is the "I can just hope as jesus saves us from death he can save us from all our futile actions." Whoever this person is, they are my hero. He touches perfectly on the futility of making the homosexual-to-heterosexual change. He, of course, does not say anything extraordinary. However, the simplicity with which he says it makes the message come across as very poignant. It feels good to embody the person you are meant to be. Jesus doesn't hate us because we are gay. No. Even if he deems it a sin, he knows gay men and women are doing their best. I know many Catholics repeat, over and over again, the "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin" mantra. To a certain extent, I think that is true. But when the so-called sin is something so personal and challenging . . . ? I just don't think God would put people in THAT difficult a position.

I also very much like when he says that so much of what is said on both sides of the argument is so out of line with general common sense. It sometimes feels like that. People who say homosexuals choose to be homosexual are, flat-out, rejecting common sense. It's old and it's cliched, but no one chooses to be gay in a world where so many people see being gay as weak, strange, despicable, etc.

The Trophy Comment . . . Gold. So true.

The Next comment came from a woman named Emma. Like Schuyler's, it was also very simple, and with some grammar issues. This one actually brought tears to my eyes. I just love it when people think God loves them regardless of our problems. Darn right! Emma commented on an op-ed article, written by a lay-member of the Catholic Church. The article warned its readers to beware of the new morality that requests accepting homosexuality as normal. To read, click below:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33803

I've read articles by this particular writer before. She's a good writer, I will give her that. However, her articles are extremely biased and have shaky support. Thus, I only read her articles specifically to trash-talk them in my comments. Anyhow, here is the comment I read after this particular article.

"iam gay and i have a lot of trouble living as gay and expressing my sexuality because iam not accepted as being gay by my family or some other people not that iam very open about it because fear of persecution not just in society but within the church. i find it very hard to go to church and i find it hard to date.i think god accepts me as iam i have felt his great love.that is what is important salvation i have brought many to the lord just as iam. just wish my life was a lot easier . love is the key."

-Emma.

Again, this comment does not bring anything new to the table. However, what I like about Emma's comment is that it demonstrates the self-acceptance that many Christian homosexuals need in order to function as a good and moral person.

Much like Emma, I too have ultimately realized that God loves me as a gay man. I know so many people, mostly men, who are gay (some I know they are for sure gay and some I just suspect they are gay) and have such horrible struggles with their sexuality. Often times, it isn't even a struggle with God, but a struggle with one's own wish to be "normal." Indeed, I think the vast majority of closeted gay men and women aren't saying to themselves "If I am gay God will hate me." Rather, it's probably something like "I don't wanna be gay, no one will like me." However, something quelling comes from the realization that God loves the gay men and women, even if the bible tells us homosexuality is wrong. I just feel so bad for this woman because, even though she's accepted her homosexuality, she does not seem comfortable living as a gay woman. Poor thing, bless her heart.

One thing more I'd like to add is that I often forget about the struggles of so many gay men and women in this world. I have a very easy life as a gay man compared to so many others, even many others with whom I am close. I have a supportive family, many years of education, including a legal education that is a killer mechanism, and great friends. Even though I am a Catholic, born and bred, I've really learned (and in some ways been empowered) to scoff at much of what has been taught to me in my Catholic education. Indeed, there is a lot of stuff in the bible that's utterly incredible.

I remember riding the bus in Arizona one day, and there was a woman and her daughter (maybe grand daughter). The woman was literally yelling at the child, no more than 5 or 6 years old, to read her scripture passages out-loud and memorize them. The little girl would finish, and then ask her mother if she could read her secular book about dogs, or princesses, or whatever. The wretched woman would not let her read her favorite book, but instead kept screaming at the child to read over and over again the same bible passages. It seriously reminded me of that scene from Carrie when the mother is beating her daughter and demanding she repeat the scriptures the mother was reciting (" . . . and Eve was weak"). I remember almost crying at my observation, this sweet little girl being badgered by her homely mother. I hope that little girl isn't gay. Isn't it sad that I even think that?

The Conservative Catholic's Scriptural Stance Against the Cultural Advance of Gay Men and the Validity of Those Arguments

I am an avid follower of the Catholic Online. While most people close to me know that I am not a devout Catholic, I do like knowing what is going on in the Catholic Church and the positions it holds on certain political issues. Further, the vast majority of my education has taken place in Catholic institutions and I did have a modestly religious upbringing in my parents' household. Thus, Catholic thought has a great deal of influence on my thinking and my views.

Having followed the Catholic Online articles for over a year now, I have been exposed to many different opinions from Catholics, ranging from devoutly conservative to progressive. Catholic Online, from what I have seen, tends to attract the more devout Catholic. I often will see, in the member comments below the articles, phrases like "Praise be God" or people praising the words of anti-gay opinions. What tends to bother me the most with these types of comments is that they are shamefully unsupported with any kind of authority. If I've learned anything in law school, it's that an opinion or argument is bogus without any support. Worse, these people are creating a gap between Catholic homosexuals and the Church that they revere and adore. Indeed, many of these men and women, like me, have grown up in the Catholic Church and have grown to love its guidance. Now we have people telling us that our sin is so great that we are doomed. This creates a great tension that I feel ultimately drives homosexuals from the Catholic Church. I ask those people, by what authority do you suggest my sin to be so much greater than yours? 

I think most homosexual Catholics have felt the tension with the Church regarding issues of gay marriage and the questionable, if not utterly incomprehensible, arguments asserted against gay marriage. For gay men like myself who grew up in the Catholic faith going to mass, going through the rites of passage in the Church (i.e. baptism, first communion, first reconciliation and confirmation) and also participating in the mass as cantors and choir singers, alter servers, gift bearers and other functions lay people serve as members of the Catholic Church, the realization that one is gay brings about a great deal of concern and doom for one's faith. What makes it even worse is that a large part of the Catholic Church is not concerned with making their homosexual members comfortable with being gay and being Catholic. Actually, the leaders of the Catholic Church make statements condemning and damning the homosexual; basically, if you are gay, you cannot be a Catholic. 

We all know where this comes from and it is common and stable in Catholic minds. The bible proscribes homosexual conduct. I realize there are a lot of people, good people, who use semantics to try and override those biblical passages they claim only allegedly condemn homosexual behavior. I personally believe the does-the-bible-really-demand-heterosexuality argument useless and unconvincing. I personally believe, for purposes of scriptural analysis, that arguments of human bias and outdated mentalities are more convincing in the debate. However, this is not what this entry is really about. For many devout Catholics the bible says what it says and the meaning behind its words is timeless. Thus, when the bible says men shouldn't lie with other men as they do with women, it's basically saying acting on homosexual sexual urges is against God's command.

I do not dispute that. For Catholics, the words of the Lord are law. When we break those commands we sin. This includes men lying with men the way a man lies with a woman. However, the words of Jesus condemn a great deal of behavior besides acting on homosexual urges. The bible states that we are all born sinners and Jesus died so that our sins may be forgiven. Even though we sin, it is not a sentence to hell. This is something that devout Catholics conveniently forget when raising their scriptural arguments against gay marriage and homosexual conduct. 

Inherent in the scriptural arguments against homosexuality is this idea that sexual conduct between members of the same sex is some kind of super-sin, that it is way worse than any other sin. It is this idea with which I take issue. I will admit that I am not a biblical scholar or a theologian. I am not an expert on canonical law. However, in my many, many years of Catholic education and in my many years of being a "good Catholic boy" I have never come across this hierarchy that Catholics always seem to depend on when urging scriptural proscriptions of homosexuality. Devout Catholics seem to think that the practicing homosexual, who has led a good Catholic life despite acting on his or her homosexuality, is way worse off than the heterosexual who has led a moderately Catholic life. I just cannot fathom where this logic comes from. We are all sinners, we all are born with it, and we all commit it. No one is pure in the eyes of God. Although Catholics like to shout out that any amount of sin will lead to our eternity with the Devil, those people conveniently forget that they themselves sin too. Nowhere in the bible have I ever seen or heard a passage referenced that says if a man or woman lies with another person of the same gender they are doomed to hell.  Where does it say that active homosexuality is a deal breaker? Where does it say that the liar, the cheater, or the violent are safe as long as they don't sleep with a person of the same gender? Although I am not one hundred percent sure, I do not think it says anything of the sort. We all live with sin, committing it often, if not daily. For anyone to go around saying that another person's sins are greater than their own is truly not acting under proper authority. Indeed, in the story of Mary Magdalene, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Even the most non-religious people, with the poorest of religious backgrounds and upbringings have heard that passage referenced many times. If someone can point out to me some passage in the bible that says the good homosexual person is damned to hell because homosexuality is the kind of sin that is just utterly unforgivable and worse than the everyday sins we all commit, then I would be more inclined to believe scriptural arguments. I do not think I will ever come across the person that can find it. 

I do wonder if the Pope himself, described as God's human presence on earth, could change the Catholic views to support such an idea. I think he could. He probably could make some kind of papal decree that would support the sin hierarchy. However, he would have to admit that such a statement would ultimately be scripturally unsupported. If anything, the bible delineates a loose hierarchy to a certain extent. Catholics, and other Christians, are taught the Ten Great Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins (these are never explicitly mentioned in the bible in one single place, but rather compounded by scholars). Not one of those Great Commandments is "Guys should not nail other guys." Not one of the Seven Deadly Sins is "sex between two men." I suppose some could argue that the sin of "Lust" might encompass homosexuality. I do not know enough about it though to make an argument. However, I cannot say I have ever come across such an argument. 

Even if the Pope decided to make such a decree, it would most likely not come without difficulty. For sure, there would be tremendous scriptural debate, probably a debate as to whether the Pope can change scripture (unless higher authority states he is able to do so), and most likely a backlash against the Church by progressive members. At any rate, it would be foolish for the Church to ostracize members based on particular sins. 

Troubled Friends Lost

Today I had an interesting conversation with a friend. Among the many issues and questions posed in the discussion, one addressed was how much of your friends' drama must you endure before you can ultimately say "NO MORE." Put another way, how must you endure before you start feeling like you are an emotional dumping ground for your friends. 

As friends of people and as people who have friends, we all understand the unspoken, implied obligation to assist friends in difficult times. Everybody, at one time or another, has had a friend come to them seeking advice and counsel on some issue. Likewise, many of us have gone to our friends in the past for their advice on our various debacles. Indeed, most people would jump at the chance to be an adviser to a close friend; we become proud that our friends trust us enough to come to us with their problems seeking resolve. It gives us a chance to show off and bestow the wisdom gained through our own personal experiences. Even if the topic is beyond our mental or experiential reach, we can still sympathize and provide generic, friendly support. 

However, there is a point at which the friendly duty of being the sympathetic comrade turns into one of a counselor or therapist; where it starts feeling like more work than a friend should have to do. Thankfully, most of my friends, in my adult years, do not do this to me. They are very mindful of the limitations that are upon us as friends and they respect those limits and boundaries. There are those few people however, bless their hearts, that have no idea what the boundaries are, much less when they've crossed them. 

This may all seem like trivial, philosophical nonsense, but I have had some past friendships dissolve over these sorts of issues. Everyone has been around the person that loves to complain (and not the good, funny sort of complaining of the artful, comedic bitch). They are annoying, their friendship makes us itch and we don't like to be around them. Further, even though we may care about the person very much, their constant battle with their problems starts to deteriorate the foundational platonic bond. 

It is at this point I feel it necessary and rightful to tell your friends they've crossed the line. To be clear, this should not be because you feel you've earned a right to yell at them, or that they had it coming because they were abusing your friendly graces. Rather, it should be stated strictly as a way to save the friendship from further deterioration. You're putting them on notice that their behavior is starting to cross a line that could have detrimental effects on the friendly dynamic. 

The above description should be saved for extreme circumstances. Obviously there are the stock categories of friendship drama that do not fall under this topic. When friends break-up with their significant other or they just need to vent because of their overbearing mother, it's probably something that we should just suck up and listen to no matter how tedious. 

However, even the generic stock drama that plagues every friendship can go on to become to something worthy of repulsion. For example, the friend who, after being dumped over a year ago, still comes to you sobbing and asking existential questions you can't answer; or the friend who loves to trash talk the same person over and over again: these would fall under the "unacceptable" category for me. 

Another way to look at it is this: there is a point at which you can no longer provide the guidance and help that your friends need to make them better. Indeed, you start worrying that your advice is actually not helping them at all (assuming they take your advice into account). There is a point at which you start feeling like your friend's therapist and you start thinking that maybe they actually do need specialized help. 

Part of why I decided to put this up on "Bored to Sobs" was because I've had a lot of friends in the past few months dealing with problems of this sort. Their friends were coming to them with the same problems that never seemed to get better. The friend I spoke to today regarding this issue is still friends with her troubling friend, which is very good. On the other hand, one girl I know cut off all contact with one of her best friends. To be sure, she had good reason to end the dynamic, but one does wonder if maybe things could have ended differently had there been more communication regarding limits and boundaries. It's really sad how these instances of drama can really grow into something worthy of ending an ultimately good relationship with a friend. I think the best way to alleviate this problem is to give our "problem" friends fair warning. We need to keep our friends on notice of how much we are willing to take before we might end up having to call it quits. Then, at least, if they don't change and still pull the same crap, it's not like you're abandoning them. 

Another reason I put this up here is because I hate to see friends fall into this kind of trap. I think of friendship as being something very important, probably more so than most people. As a gay man, I've realized how important my close friends are to me, especially in a community where the legal constraints of marriage do not apply and men can run off without even having to say goodbye. I've read articles on how platonic relationships are so much more important in the gay community specifically for that reason. Heterosexuals, upon getting married, often find their previous platonic relationships fizzling out. I think this is for two reasons: 1) because when you get married and start having children you have less and less social time and 2) because the marital contract (or whatever word one might use to describe the binding effect) essentially makes friendships obsolete. You have your husband or wife legally bound to you. They are always there to help you with your problems. In fact, they really have to help you. Realistically, they probably become the most important and trusted counselor of all, replacing the need for good advice-giving friends. Although gay rights are in a wonderful stage of transition, most of the gay community still does not have access to that legally-binding commitment. Even if a homosexual couple happens to live in a state granting recognition of their union, they still don't receive recognition on the federal level. Thus, gay men and women tend to take their friendships more seriously, especially with other gay men and women. 

As an aside, I am not necessarily saying that the heterosexual's loss of friendship after marriage is a negative or even that the homosexual's strong friendships are a positive. I think there are both negative and positive consequences to both. However, I will say that close friendships are difficult to come by, and even difficult to maintain as life goes on. I try very hard to keep very open communication with my friends specifically to avoid the above mentioned problems. Letting them know when they are crossing a line and subjecting you to unendurable torture is only just the start. 

Good night.

Welcome to my Blog (hopefully someone cares)

Hello to anyone interested.

So this is my first blogging experience (save the goofy MySpace blog I once had). This blog is mainly for my own personal therapy. As I have said elsewhere, I just graduated from law school. It was a wonderful experience overall. Although law school provided a great challenge to me, I now know that the law is one of my great passions (it would have to be to get through three long, humbling years of study). 

The last three years have been very interesting. A lot has happened to me since my matriculation; my academic experiences, but also several personal experiences, have ultimately shaped me into the person I now am. This new person has been a great shock to me, but provided me with a bit of amusement and humor. I've come across a lot of interesting people, some good and some not so great, who have assisted in this process. 

This blog, although I cannot say for sure, will probably have a political and legal tone to it. I plan on developing it as I go along, and I have no real aspirations for it at this point. What I can say with certainty is that a lot of my prominent thoughts and questions come from the political and legal arenas. However, there will probably be discussion of music, art, friends and practical life experiences. But we'll see, who knows?