Update on Crushing *Sigh*

So. In typical DLS life fashion my crush ended far too quickly after beginning. But it's totally not my fault. It's his.

I looked cute on Wednesday night (if I do say so myself) and thanks to a nice sale in Ann Taylor that I stumbled upon that afternoon after a MAJOR clothes crisis hit at school, I snapped up two pairs of delightful shoes (both of which were super cute) and a couple of pairs of pants. JB had sent the bat signal out to him so I was totally hopeful an appearance would be made.

The event was great--tons of people, some major surprises of people who I had not seen for ages and was thrilled to reconnect with. And i kept glancing around for CICB. Until JB came over and told me she had just gotten a text from him and that he had his "own" "Intelligence Ctte" event that night.

Didn't he know I was there? That I looked super cute? I was disappointed for, about, .6 seconds and then got over it. People to mingle with and wine to be drunk!

Later that evening after the event and in the cab on the way to Poste with CB and the former Good Press Secretary, I got some more intel on CICB. Apparently, the man is SUPER flirty with everyone and has, *gasp*, commitment issues. OH! And, the gf I thought he had been dating for a few months, it turns out they've been together over a year!

So I'm over it. Crushes are fun while they last, but it's never fun to fall for the unavailable men (though I'm beginning to think they're ALL unavailable) with commitment problems. Oh well, I guess the game of world domination will stay packed up on my shelf a little bit longer.

Revival

I have not posted anything on here since...July. I started this blog as a way to continue communication with so many people back in the U.S. while I was in a far more remote part of the world this past summer. What I am realizing is that law school provides a similar solitude--I am in front of my computer 18 hours a day but never really in a position to catch up with people. Thus, I decided to continue these postings for the few, the dedicated, the people who actually find my life somewhat entertaining.

This semester, however, has brought the interesting project of being able to do a lot of research on something I find remarkably interesting: the international legal policy of not sending refugees back to countries of persecution (the policy known as "non-refoulement"), as embedded in not only the 1951 convention as relating to the status of refugees, but also the Convention Against Torture. There are 132 countries who have signed and ratified the 1951 Convention. And I dare say a similar number that have refouled refugees consistently over the years. Admittedly, it's not like this is gravely different from any other international legal norm dealing with human rights issues--lots of treaties, lots of people standing up on significant days of the year, shaking their fists and crying out against the atrocities that are occurring all over the place, only to get back on the plane and return to drafting laws and memos that will absolve themselves for following the very acts that would put an end to all that they decried just the day before. But I digress. I am interested to continue researching and see how I can weave a compelling argument, and possibly be ballsy enough to suggest a reform or two...we'll see what develops.

I am reading a remarkable book that I implore people to check out: What is the What, by Dave Eggers. It's a poetic, sad, true account of the Lost Boys of Sudan, told by one man, living in Georgia. The narrative is remarkable, and Mr. Eggers has done a superb job of weaving the tale in a very compelling manner. I have not yet finished it, but it is completely enthralling, and the narrator's true recollection of being interviewed for resettlement in the Kakuma camps in Kenya add a different perspective from the throne that I occupied this summer.

So there you have it. First post in a long time. Maybe compelling enough to keep coming back, and maybe not...but cathartic for me once again.