So today is the second day at the Bethesda office, and I have absolutely nothing to do. I mean, I am just sitting here, and its a little bit embarassing. I mean, I like to goof off as much as the next guy, but I usually like to do it in the context of looking like I am doing real work. As for other stuff, well, I am probably going to Hawaii later this month; at least, I hope I will be able to go then. Obviously, something such as that will take a huge bite out of my finances, but that is something I will just have to deal with. At the same time, I need to go to Gdub at some point and get my W-2s for the meager wages I earned at Ticketmaster.
Hmmm, anything else going on? Oh, yeah, Princeton! Ok, so here is a quick summary of all 5 rounds, all of which i think were eventful in their unique way. 1st rd., Penn, we run a case about alcohol on campus, MO claims personal experience, as he is from Penn and went to Andover, and our case was tight because all of the Ivy league schools already do it. That pissed me off. oh, he also claimed personal experience as he says he is a recovering alcoholic. 2nd round, another Penn team, they run a case calling for a Central Asian free trade area, I basically have 4 spec knowlege IPs as the LO, we harp on them, and I mention that I was an Int'l econ major to lend some cred, in the PMR the kid gets up and says I am obviously not an Int'l Economist because he is right, and he went to Wharton (oooooohhhh)! So elitism two rounds in a row, yet GW is 2-0.
3rd round, adam and beth, we are on gov with a case we definitely don't like. I had a horrible MG, we lost. I made Beth funny. I guess I should take some solace in that. 4th round, we had a VERY close round (or so i thought) with the oxford team. two really nice guys, they came to us afterwards and thanked us for running an IR case, which of course we were only too happy to do. It seemed that everyone thought it was a good round except for the judge, Anna Utgoff gave them a 27 and 26 (at a VERY low point tournament)denise a 25, and me a 23 with the reason for decision: "Opp kicked the bejeezus out of Gov". Besides the fact that that is a little rude for a person to say when they aren't familiar with at least one of the teams, she complained we didn't give a philosophy behind our case. It was a policy case, we gave reasons of self interest and benefits! The oxford people were good tho, and I certainly see how they won, so I am not bitching that we lost in general. Finally, 5th round, where Hopkins believed that a patients bill of rights is about only informing patients of all their options. I wasn't quite sure what to say in the LO, I mean, that's not very much of a case. anyway, we picked up, going 3-2. Sorry that one took so long to flesh out. Oh, and I was dragged to the party even though I really didn't want to go.
You know, I guess I try to skirt around issues and stuff, but in this case I just don't think I know quite exactly what I want to say, but I'm going to give it a whirl. My friend Mary, who I've told you a lot about, apparently is very involved in a campus baptist organization at Purdue now, and that got me thinking about religion and my friends, because there is a stark contrast between one group of my friends and another. A lot of my friends from O'Fallon, I would say, are religious people, in that they either consistently go to services and participate in religious fellowship groups or just maintain some sort of spirituality. My friends here, I would think not. And at first I always think about how the two groups are so different, in what they do and how they think. But the more I think about it, the more I think both groups have a lot of the same feelings and issues, one group just likes bowling more. This works for me, I like to bowl.
