Awesome.

And that's all there is to say.

Procrastination

For a long time now, I have been convinced that I would make an absolutely terrible attorney. Aside from issues like my inability to argue convincingly for positions in which I do not believe, my lack of concern for what law is over what law should be, and my severe dislike of many aspects of the American legal system, I face one more serious problem that would make being a practicing lawyer very difficult. I am a habitual procrastinator.

I know I can’t claim to be unique in this personality flaw, but I think that I take it a little farther than some people, at least. Tomorrow, I have the first third of a paper due in my tax policy class. The 1/3 of the paper to be handed in tomorrow needs to be 8-10 pages of quality material with decent research to back up what I report. Here’s the problem: I haven’t started yet.

I have my Tuesdays off from class, so can devote an entire day to preparing for my classes for the rest of the week. Thus far, I have absolutely failed to do anything school-related during any of my Tuesdays since the semester began. I should have done a good part of the work on the paper in the past two weeks, but, barring that (as there is no way I would be THAT on top of the assignment), I should have spent a decent portion of the day today working on this paper and doing research.

Instead, I woke up early and spent a few hours playing video games while listening to mp3 files of standup comedians doing their routines. Following that, I took a short nap, got a haircut, did my laundry, read a book I’ve read before (that I didn’t even like all that well the first time around), and took another short nap. I woke with a renewed purpose and resolved that I should start work on my paper. I became immediately distracted and spent the next 2 hours downloading and listening to songs by Jackson Browne (I’m still in love with “The Barricades of Heaven”). I spent another 2 hours trying to figure out whether standing requirements and the ‘Cases and Controversies’ requirements for U.S. courts are a good thing or a bad thing. Right now, it is after 11:00 pm, and I have been reading comics online and taking various online quizzes and tests for the past hour without yet doing anything toward starting my paper.

Good thing it isn’t due until 2:00 pm tomorrow afternoon. Of course, between then and now, I have to prepare for 2 more classes and attend a class as well. Maybe I’ll just get up at like 3:00 am to start work on the paper.

I used to say positive law... Am I now a follower of natural law?

For a long time, I have worried about the loss of my integrity and fidelity to concepts that I once held dear.

I have long believed that no person can have more than one sovereign. A sovereign is someone or something whose judgment is substituted for your own. For some people, their sovereign might be their boss at a workplace. For some, it might be a concept of racial identity or purity. For some, it might be adherence to a moral code or religious precept. Some people (crazy people) might yield their own choices to voices that they hear in their head. Yet others will place their sovereign in the realm of government.

In reality, people will claim to have many sovereigns. We will obey our bosses while on the job, and our government when deciding whether to engage in stealing. The 1935 Nazi in Germany might do what the Fuhrer commands in the name of racial purity. The zealous religionist who slays an abortion doctor will claim that they are doing the will of God, not their own.

In the end, though, we must choose a single sovereign to place above all others, since the wills of the various institutions, people, or ideas that compete for the place of being our sovereign can conflict with each other. Just as the religionist who slays the abortion doctor, we must decide whether to follow one potential sovereign (the government which commands that we not kill other citizens) or another potential sovereign (the religionists view of a religion which demands that he kill someone who is evil to prevent them from further committing gravely evil deeds).

This was all brought up by a recent viewing of the fantastic 1966 movie, “A Man for all Seasons.” I’d seen it before as an undergraduate, but had largely forgotten much of the central messages of the film. For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, it is a thrilling morality play concerning a man who faces precisely the type of choice I have outlined above: whose orders is he supposed to follow?

The story takes place in England during the reign of Henry VIII (I may be off by a King or two since my grasp on English history isn’t very strong). Thomas More is a friend of the King and privy to much of the King’s thoughts and experiences. When the King decides to prevent a foreseeable civil war for succession upon his death (due to a lack of a male heir) by divorcing his current wife (who is barren) for another who can bear him a male heir, the Catholic Church in Rome opposes the action (no divorces are allowed). King Henry VIII then declares himself the head of the new Church of England and seizes title to being the spiritual leader for all Englishmen, and to legitimize his position, he asks all of his nobles to swear an oath recognizing him as the head of the church.

Thomas More is troubled by this and refuses to say the oath. He is chastised, loses his friends and property, is thrown in prison, and eventually executed, all while knowing full well that his family will continue to pay the cost for his refusal to say the oath, paying maybe even with their lives as well.

Through all of the film, More must decide whether he is to follow the laws of his King, and simply say the oath (he does not even have to mean it when he says the words), or follow the laws of his God (and refuse to recognize any but the holder of the papacy in Rome). Even though he chooses the path which dooms him in life, he prepares for his death by proclaiming in Parliament that he is the King’s loyal servant… but God’s first.

Thomas More exhibits a kind of grim and absolute integrity that is fascinating in its sheer level of fidelity. He holds to his principles, and no threats, inducements, or blandishments will sway him to sacrifice the only thing that truly matters: his honor.

We all have many potential sovereigns which make claims upon us. The real question that I, and every person, needs to seriously ask themselves is who they are willing to follow.

Myers-Briggs doesn't seem too far off, I guess.

INTJ

Insomnia isn't the right term. I think the right word is 'weird.'

I’m starting to wonder about whether my sleep schedules will ever conform to those of normal people. Most people seem to get tired around 10:00 at night and drift off to sleep within an hour or two thereafter.

I have never been like that. My parents can attest that when I was a baby, I slept through mornings and afternoons, but stayed awake for hours and hours after midnight. I’m still like that now.

No matter how much I force myself to conform to the standard sleep schedule of most people (I’ll go whole semesters where I’m sleeping by midnight and up by 7:00 am), when I am not forced into that pattern, I revert to my standard system which involves me getting sleepy closer to 5:00 am. When I force myself to conform to everyone else's sleep patterns, I never really feel 'right.' When I was at KU, I spent an entire semester going to sleep by 10:00 each night and waking for an 8:00 class every single day (well, actually two classes since one met every MWF, and the other every TR). Every single day, I had to drag myself out of bed after having had a full 9 hours of sleep, and spent most of the morning listless and distracted in classes. The closer I got to late afternoon/evening, the more lively and animated I became. Even close friends today can attest to the fact that I'll not appear tired in the late evening. There have been times when I've been talking to a friend when he comes over to my apartment where he'll have to excuse himself so he can drive home to sleep at 1:00 am, but I'm still alert and feeling perfectly fine.

I'm fairly convinced that my circadian rhythm is offset from the standard one, and I don't really know why.

Just look at the majority of my recent blog postings’ time-stamps: 2:27 AM, 10:26 PM, 3:01 AM, 3:57 AM, 10:26 PM, 10:25 PM, 10:23 PM, 1:08 AM, 5:11 PM, 12:57 PM, 1:02 AM, 2:11 AM, 12:19 AM, 12:00 AM, 11:27 PM, 1:24 AM.

With only two exceptions (5:11 PM and 12:57 PM), my previous 16 posts were all brought online around or after 10:30 at night. That’s right… I do my productive work during a period of the day when (if I had a normal sleep cycle) I should be asleep.

There needs to be a line of work for professionals that can accommodate people whose circadian rhythms are significantly out of synchronization with everyone else’s.

How about some steamed broccoli and rice?

No, I haven't started making money from my blog by adding advertisements. To the right is something that caught my eye.

Just a few moments ago, I was reading some news when the advertisement printed just to the right here appeared on the sidebar to the article I was perusing.

If ever there was an ad that made me desire to stay far away from food cooked at a restaurant, this is it. I've known people to eat their steak when it is still pink on the inside (which is a no-no according to food safety experts and my own knowledge of microbiology and parasitology). The steak pictured to the right isn't just pink, though. It is positively red.

It is nauseating just to look at it. Ugh. I think this advertisement just pushed me into another week-long vegetarian diet.