Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 31, 2010 in Randomness
The drive home from the tre-fo was a little crazy, but I’m finally back in the Bull City
It was a little strange driving down the interstate unable to see lane lines or the curb or anything else but the solid snow+ice on the road around you. The interesting thing is how courteous and cooperative folks become when they’re in an equally precarious situation alongside you.
I’m wondering if there’s a comparison to be made there with law school…
Fortunately the DOT did a lot of road-clearing work on I-40 from Greensboro to Durham, so after escaping Forsyth County it was a relatively smooth ride. Now hoping MDG will cancel CivPro tomorrow
But reading anyway just in case. Have Why Do Fools Fall In Love playing in the background — I forgot how thoroughly ridiculous / amusing this movie is…
[Update @ 8:30pm — All classes canceled until noon… meaning no class at all for me ]
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 30, 2010 in Student Government
We got enough folks here for quorum — they just happened to be accompanied by 8″+ of snow… with more still falling
Both the UNCSA campus and the WSSU campus are closed, so we had to improvise and go with our contingency plan: main meeting in the hotel’s conference room, and committee meetings in our officers’ hotel rooms Everything seems to be going well so far — committee meetings are wrapping up, and Pizza Hut was kind enough to deliver lunch so I’m typing while munching
And today’s Stat of the Day isn’t even the snowfall quantity: we’ve already got over 15,000 students who have signed the UNCASG tuition petition, and still have a month to go
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 29, 2010 in Technology
Let me preface this post by stipulating 1) Steve Jobs is one of my role models, and 2) I really do Apple and its products — I used to work for the company in undergrad, only buy Macs, swear by Keynote for my job, and will snap up an iPhone if they ever come to Verizon Wireless.
But why get an iPad?
I finally got around to watching the Quicktime stream of the iPad unveiling, after intentionally avoiding all non-weather-related media since Wednesday afternoon so I wouldn’t learn about any details before seeing the video.
The positives seem compelling. The technology in the iPad is impressive, especially given its size. The price point is lower than I think any rational person would expect with the components packed into it. Being able to seamlessly run iPhone apps is a perk to everyone with an iPhone. And there’s plenty of potential for gaming.
How many of those are compelling enough to justify adding another gadget to your technology ecosystem though? My reflexes are too slow for gaming, I don’t have an iPhone so no already-purchased apps, and as much fun as reading the news looked in their demo I’d just as soon pull out my MacBook Pro or read it on my BlackBerry.
I’m sure it will eat into the Amazon Kindle market, and there will undoubtedly be niche markets for the gaming folks or the type of people who use the MacBook Air. But (at the moment) I don’t see the hook into the broader market. It basically reminds me of the G4 Cube, which was a huge flop until Apple tweaked the idea into the Mac mini.
History favors Steve though — after all, while he’s making $$$ reinventing entire markets, I’m shelling out $$$ to join one of the slowest-evolving professions in the world
Time will tell I guess Have a great night folks!
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 28, 2010 in Student Government
Remember back during winter break, when I was looking forward to enjoying some wintry precipitation only to get cheated by Mother Nature?
Well apparently she’s deciding not to tease me this time, with what looks like a fairly decent snowstorm (at least by central North Carolina standards) barreling down on the state starting tomorrow.
The catch? Our monthly business meeting of the UNC Association of Student Governments is this weekend
We can’t reschedule, because of the time-consuming bureaucratic red tape we have to go through to meet in the first place. We can’t cancel, because we need to have some votes on tuition/fee-related items before our University system’s Board of Governors votes on them in 2 weeks. So we’re gathering ~80 folks from 17 institutions throughout the state to converge in a city (Winston-Salem) right in the middle of the winter storm warnings, with the non-trivial possibility of having to meet in our hotel rooms if we can’t reach the host campus.
I dang well better get to enjoy some snow this weekend at the very least
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 27, 2010 in The 1L Life
After classes today, I’m starting to wonder if that’s what is happening to my faith in people since starting law school
But before rehashing today’s material, I have to confess it’s not an entirely recent phenomenon.
When I first moved to North Carolina over a decade ago, I was a doe-eyed teenager who knew some individuals could be a bit unsavory but firmly believed that most people were good, upstanding folks — and the bad ones probably just had bad parents or something. I was a strident opponent of the death penalty back then too, not because of any amorality to state-sanctioned killing (I was also a big “separation of church/state” kid), but because no crime could be sufficiently heinous to merit the ultimate punishment in light of the non-zero chance the person being executed was actually innocent. And so on and so forth.
Then reality smacked me around a little bit.
Back in 2003 I started working for the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court in Wake County as its first “Director of Special Projects” — code for having carte blanche to work on various Courthouse problems with minimal red tape.
One of those problems was figuring out a way to consolidate 3 separate Courthouse evidence rooms. I’ll forgo mentioning the actual floors since I’m not sure if they’re considered confidential anymore, but for the sake of description the bottom room held seized cash and small drugs, the middle room was for small weapons and miscellany, and the top room held everything relating to the major felonies: dozens of weapons (including some wrapped in biohazard tape with dried blood still on them), luggage full of weed, various exotic implements of death… and the tri-fold picture displays frequently used by prosecutors to make a point with the jury.
One afternoon I walked through the top evidence room with a deputy from the Sheriff’s Department, just to get an idea of the scope of the storage problem I was working on. I pulled out one of the tri-fold displays and nearly puked at the crime scene photos: this particular victim was lying facedown in a pool of blood, and after reading the text I learned it was the mother of the accused… a mother who had been beaten, raped and sodomized by her own son before he slit her throat and left her to die.
There were a string of displays featuring dead prostitutes, dead drug dealers, dead gang members, and various other dead people participating in illegal activities.
But then it went back to the totally innocent victims. One particular display that got seared into my brain was a two-fold instead of a three-fold, on the left side containing a photo of an attractive Hispanic female in her early 20s smiling for the camera. The right side? That same woman, on the floor, no longer smiling, brutally shot 43 times by her then-boyfriend who claimed she was cheating on him.
43 shots. Now I’m no expert, but I do know my way around the occasional firearm enough to know the Glock 21’s standard magazine is only 13 rounds. Try pulling an imaginary trigger as quickly as you can 13 times. Then pause to reload. Then do it 13 times again. Then pause to reload. Then do it 13 times again. Then pause to reload. Then do it 4 more times.
I timed how long it would take in my head, and started crying in the middle of the evidence room. I took the rest of the day off.
You can pretty much pinpoint that day as the one where I stopped caring quite so much about the Eighth Amendment.
Fast forward back to today in class.
We’re having an engaging discussion in CrimLaw about Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), and the fairness of Cali’s “three strikes” habitual felon statute. And I tell you folks, I didn’t care. At all. A guy stole $1K+ worth of golf clubs to add to his burgeoning criminal record, he was going to prison for the rest of his natural life… and I felt no sympathy. “Don’t want to get sentenced to life in prison as a habitual felon? STOP BREAKING THE @#$%ING LAW.” That was pretty much the only thing that went through my mind.
Then there was Contracts, discussing the doctrine of unconscionability and Higgins v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 4th 1238 (2006). Essentially 5 siblings lost both of their parents, moved in with a family they knew through church, got approached by Extreme Makeover: Home Edition to build a new 9-bedroom house for all of them (the siblings plus the family they moved in with)… and then once the house was built, the quasi-foster family threw out the siblings.
Since this was a Ks case it centered on an arbitration clause when the Higgins brothers pursued ABC, but what really got me was the family that ejected them. Kids lose their parents, move in with you after meeting you at church, you exploit them to get a new mini-mansion… then throw them out to enjoy the gains you unjustly got at their expense. We need to throw these people in prison with the golf club thief.
I was accustomed to the crazy @#$% we’ve already seen in Torts, but stuff like today caught me off-guard. And makes me dislike people. Grrr.
Sorry for the rambling-ish post tonight everybody, it was just one of those days. I hope all of you have an amazing night, and I’ll try to post something more chipper tomorrow
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 26, 2010 in NotFail
An anthropomorphic analysis of 1L Fall
If I had to pick 1 word to describe my 1L Fall semester, that’d be the one
Even though NCCU Law takes pride in sticking with its strict-C curve, I figured things couldn’t get that bad. Between midterms going well and studying my socks off for finals, surely the 3.0 GPA I want wasn’t unrealistic, right?
So with several of my law school colleagues last week posting their own tales of joy, not-quite-joy, and not-quite-anything-yet, here’s my own report card for the 1L fall semester.
LEGAL REASONING & ANALYSIS
My grades were erratic, my distaste emphatic, and my mood post-completion? Ecstatic.
The only positive thing I can say about this class is that it’s over.
Grade at midterm: C+
Expected grade pre-memo: C
Actual grade post-memo: C
Synopsis: No surprises here. I hated this class and thought the material we were taught was completely useless… a point publicly echoed by at least one of the other professors. Hopefully Legal Research & Persuasion will be better.
CIVIL PROCEDURE I
This was hands-down my best class of the semester, and the grade still hurt.
After thinking I nearly failed the final, the curve boosted my exam grade by 22 points. Combining that with the midterm grade I ended up with a B+ overall… an unfortunate (and painful) 0.5 points away from an A-
I jokingly emailed MDG asking if I could successfully argue for that half-point. His 2-word response: “LOL. no.”
Midterm exam: A
Final exam: B
Expected grade pre-final: A
Actual grade post-final: B+ (0.5 points away from an A- )
Synopsis: Still kicking myself a month later for being so close and blowing it. This is still my favorite class, and I’m determined to do better this semester.
Ever heard the phrase “like an albatross around your neck”? Instead of thinking about the Mariner and an actual albatross, think more like my GPA and good ol’ Contracts
I got the grade for this class a few days before the final exams were returned, and even though I figured I got thoroughly mauled minutes after finishing… I didn’t think it would turn out as bad as it did. I went to talk with the Professor about the exam, and the conversation went something like this:
TDot: Professor Ks, I was wondering if I could talk with you about my exam.
Prof. Ks: Sure TDot. What’s your exam number?
Prof. Ks: ::flipping through Scantron report:: Hmmm. You did better than the class average on the multiples, so that must mean your essay…
TDot: (in unison) …must have been really bad…
Prof. Ks: (in unison) …must have been really bad.
At this point Prof. Ks starts flipping through a stack of essays.
He goes through the 70s… and keeps going.
Goes through 60s… and keeps going.
Goes through 50s… and keeps going.
Finally he pulls one from a stack of 40s, flips through it, pulls up his Excel gradesheet, and goes “Ohhhhh yeah I remember this one”… not a good sign
Prof. Ks: So this spreadsheet is my rubric where I break everything down, so we’re going to go through it section by section and hopefully you’ll see what you missed.
Prof. Ks: ::points at essay:: You mention here that you’re going to talk about promissory estoppel. Show me where you actually talked about promissory estoppel.
TDot: ::flips pages:: ::blank stare::
Prof. Ks: Exactly. OK so here ::points:: you mention that you’re going to talk about fraud in the inducement of the contract. Show me where you actually talked about fraud in the inducement.
TDot: ::flips pages:: ::blank stare::
Prof. Ks: Yep. And then ::points:: here you mention needing to analyze which meaning of [term in contract] should apply. Show me where…
The conversation shifted to ways I could improve this upcoming semester, but basically I totally FUBAR’d the essay by not re-reading my material closer before turning it in. Maybe it’s time I start overanalyzing after all…
Midterm exam: B
Final exam: D+
Expected grade pre-final: B
Actual grade post-final: C-
Nothing much to say here. I came in needing a strong final exam to counteract a disastrous midterm and I got it.
Torts Final Exam Scores
Just like the Contracts final though, there were some really obvious blunders that I should have noticed — for example, detailing the differences between the local, same-or-similar, and national standards of care without ever discussing which standard would apply in the jurisdiction contained in the hypo
But after coming off that C+ on the midterm, I’m more than happy with what I got.
On an unrelated note, one of the cool things about Professor Torts is that she provides statistics for her exam scores. Her essays are “auto-curved” (she picks the best one and grades all the others against that top essay) but the multiples are raw, so graphing the final scores you can tell by the trendline that folks really stepped up their studying between midterms and finals — compare the chart at the right to the graph from midterms.
Midterm exam: C+
Final exam: B+
Expected grade pre-final: B
Actual grade post-final: B
Synopsis: Recovered nicely from the midterm, now getting ready to (hopefully) breeze through Round 2.
Basically the same thing that happened with Civil Procedure happened with Property.
Same issues on the essay too, e.g. detailing the factors affecting a Statute of Limitations calculation without actually analyzing what the SOL would ultimately be for that particular segment of the hypo.
So after nailing the midterm, I ended up with a mid-range B on the final — and keeping the A’s out of reach as a final grade.
Midterm exam: A (and in Top 3)
Final exam: B
Expected grade pre-final: A-
Actual grade post-final: B+
Synopsis: This one hurt, though not as bad as CivPro. I’m already lost in Property II with all the concurrent estates discussion but hopefully I’ll be back on track by midterms.
FINAL SCORE: FALL 2009
Expected Fall GPA: 3.071
Actual Fall GPA: 2.619
T1-inflation-adjusted Fall GPA: 3.833
So that’s the rundown
I know it could be much worse and I’m not in a position to complain — after all, I already know at least 1 classmate who’s dropped out as a result of their midterm grades, and another 3 who are on their way out at the end of the year without a miraculous turnaround.
But even with my good fortune, it’s frustrating having to explain to Nan that even though my undergraduate and professional GPAs are only a few hundredths of a point apart, the former meant I was in the bottom third of my class while the latter means I’m safely in the top third.
And it’s almost equally difficult to accept that I can’t really freak out about my grades and overhaul my study habits, because I objectively learned+recalled the material. Yet at the same time I can’t not freak out about them, because had I done comparably sloppy work in actual practice I’d likely be facing a malpractice claim and a grievance filed with my former employer.
Here’s hoping 1L Spring brings some improvement… along with warmer weather
Off to bed so I can be up for Ks on time in the morning. Have a great night folks!
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 23, 2010 in Student Government
Good morning everybody!
I know we all just got back from a long winter break, and I’ve actually got about a half-dozen posts in various stages of draft-ness… but I figured I’d forewarn you now that I’m taking the weekend off from law:/dev/null
In about 20 minutes the UNC Association of Student Governments will be running its 3rd Annual Conference on Student Government Elections, where we spend the day trying to help election officials at the 17 UNC institutions improve their electoral processes. Then after that I’ll be spending the weekend in various stages of cleaning my disaster of an apartment and catching up on my reading
Hopefully I’ll be back Monday — we’ll see. Until then have a great weekend!
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 22, 2010 in Unsolicited Commentary
New 1L trend I never experienced before: having your Facebook mini-feed loaded with status updates from your peers griping about a Supreme Court decision
I’m assuming by now all of you have heard about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the free speech case involving a group wanting to run an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary on cable TV during the ’08 presidential primary. If you’ve been on vacation or living under a rock or something similar, you can download a copy of the slip opinion at the Supreme Court’s website.
Despite the risk of being accused of lacking a social life, I’ll confess two things up front: (i) I’ve been reading Supreme Court opinions just for the fun of it since high school, and (ii) I spent most of yesterday and today reading through all 180ish pages of the Citizens United case instead of studying (although it’s really only like 80 pages of text since the Court uses pages margins that would get a law student a failing grade ).
I agreed with the Court’s decision, and thought the dissent was particularly unpersuasive — both points that are probably not surprising given my political leanings. The concurrence from Justice Scalia provided an appreciated historical context, and the concurrence from Justice Thomas provided an interesting perspective on disclosure (even though I’m not convinced of his viewpoint).
But what really blew my mind were the Facebook status updates.
“omg this is the end of democracy in America! MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!” was one of them, with the caps added for dramatic flair. “[N]ow corporations can give unlimited $$ to candidates while the common man is getting screwed” was another. And so on it went almost universally among my 1L colleagues at NCCU Law, UNCCH Law and Duke Law.
So in typical TDot fashion I updated my own status to declare my love for the Supremes and this decision in particular
A flame war ensued. At one point my mother — who’s politically about as polar opposite to me as one can get — decided to join the debate, so I figured I needed to take the discussion here to the blog where she’s less likely to read it and blow up everyone’s mini-feed with her responses
Some gratuitous thoughts on this particular case:
- McCain-Feingold was shamelessly unconstitutional from Day 1. Anyone who wasn’t alarmed by its prohibition against running ads 30/60 days before an election should surrender their voter registration card immediately. Every single incumbent who voted for it knew they were doing so to insulate themselves from outside criticism, not to “reform the system.” It plainly violated the First Amendment, which the Court was kind enough to lay bare for those who still didn’t know.
- Money is speech. This really shouldn’t even be debatable because it reeks of common sense, but freedom of expression doesn’t count for much if it’s limited to you standing on a soapbox at the street corner — a point recognized by well over a majority of the country. For an analysis provided by the Supreme Court on the issue, go read the various opinions in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
- “Corporate” restrictions were arbitrary and predictably unconstitutional. Much consternation and gnashing of teeth has taken place by the left-wing denizens of the blogosphere because the Court upended limitations on corporations directly running their own “express advocacy” ads for/against a given candidate. Yet media organizations like newspapers (themselves almost all incorporated) have always been excluded from these restrictions solely because of the fact the product they sell is labeled “the press” (e.g. separately protected by the First Amendment). This arbitrary distinction between one corporation type from another made little sense on its own, and even less so when it applied to incorporated associations like labor unions, the Sierra Club, etc — why should I have more rights as an individual than I would if I can successfully convince other individuals to agree with me?
- The decision’s practical impact will be negligible. Contributing money or buying ads for a political campaign is fundamentally an economic decision — the contributor/purchaser decides the value of potentially influencing the election is worth more than the cash contributed/paid. In other words, a corporation is going to give the exact same dollar amount, regardless of the mechanics, if it decides that’s the money it wants to invest in a race. We saw this after McCain-Feingold was adopted with the sudden proliferation of 527s and their issue ads. The Supreme Court’s decision isn’t going to suddenly open a flood of corporate spending, it’s just going to make the spending more direct instead of forcing it to be routed through fake groups set up solely for campaigning purposes. This fundamental reality was highlighted in this piece at Politico.
- Want less $$ in elections? Abolish contribution limits… Following the campaign-contribution-as-economic-choice point, the fact contribution limits are in place at all artificially increases the amount of money in campaigns. Think of it like a garden hose: as you’re watering your garden, the water (campaign $$) flows out in a straight path. But put your thumb (contribution limits) over the nozzle, and the water splashes in all directions. That’s functionally what happens with the current system — Joe Citizen decides he’s willing to part with $12,000 for a given race, but instead of giving all $12K to his candidate, he gives only $4K to the candidate, then $4K to a 527 supporting his candidate, and then $4K to his candidate’s party. So now he’s got 3 agents in the political process instead of 1, and all 3 of whom will now be bidding for the same media space… artificially inflating demand, leading to higher prices, leading to the need to raise more money, and on in a spiral it goes.
- …or shrink the government. I know this will never happen, but the main reason so much money gets spent on political races is because the government has its hands in every cookie jar in the country. When new regulations would cost a given industry tens of millions of dollars, of course the players in that industry will spend a couple million apiece to avoid the regulations — it’s a huge economic incentive for them and their employees. Stop trying to regulate everything into nonexistence and suddenly you take away the incentive for amassing über-huge campaign war chests.
That’s my abridged rant on Citizens United v. FEC. My apologies to those of you who come to law:/dev/null for the normal chronicling of my 1L life instead of a political diatribe — hopefully you’ll still come back tomorrow
Have a good night folks!!
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 21, 2010 in Mail
After Torts today I let myself get convinced by Rico to stick with my exercise routine for the New Year and go for a run outside… even though it’s only around 37ºF and raining. I couldn’t feel my fingers after the first mile They’re still defrosting, so I figure today’s as good a day as any to answer some mail since there’s plenty of point-click-copy-paste involved
And yes I know it’s literally been months since I answered reader mail here at law:/dev/null… but that’s mostly due to the fact it’s literally been months since I got any reader mail
A few of the recent entries must have triggered some latent inquisitiveness from a handful of folks though, because the inbox got e-bombed over the last week I figured I need to answer them before folks lose faith in my responsiveness
So here are your questions… well… answered
Q: Liz asks in response to a post I linked off the Kilpatrick-Stockton update, where I mentioned disliking BigLaw:
What really made you dislike BigLaw? You seem to be a workaholic, so the workload argument seems like an excuse.
A: It’s no excuse, I promise you that Am I a workaholic? Maybe. But there’s 1 key difference between when I was a BigLaw paralegal and what I do now: I actually enjoy it
Law school has been an adventure and I’ve been privileged to meet some amazing people, and running UNCASG gives me an opportunity to improve the lives of 215K+ students here in North Carolina. Compare that to law firm life, which consisted mostly of attorneys giving me things a couple hours/days before deadline or the partner I worked for deciding he needed yet another weeklong vacation and wanted me chained to my desk in case anything happened in his absence.
With law school and ASG, working during a holiday is something I do by choice; with BigLaw, it was a mandated part of my job. I’ll take the former over the latter 7 days a week
Q: Clarence wants insight into the Kilpatrick-Stockton post itself:
I thought it was interesting 2 of the top 4 K-S finalists were T4 schools. Any theories on that?
A: I’ve got plenty of theories, I just can’t guarantee any of them are valid
The first thing that comes to mind is the fact it’s a North Carolina-based competition, and a majority of the state’s law schools are in the lower ranks. In the latest edition of the US News rankings, Duke, UNC Chapel Hill and Wake Forest are all now in Tier 1; Campbell and NCCU Law are both Tier 4; while Elon and Charlotte both only have provisional accreditation and can therefore functionally be treated as Tier 4. So even though the bulk of teams came from UNCCH and Duke, the natural odds of the 4 finalists including a pair of T4 schools are non-trivial.
There’s probably a cultural aspect to it as well. At least here in North Carolina, NCCU Law and Campbell Law both have well-earned reputations for producing high-quality trial attorneys and judges, and that legacy is worked into things like the aggressiveness of the Socratic method in 1L classes. The T1s by contrast have a reputation geared more toward BigLaw, international affairs, research and teaching; anecdotal evidence from friends at those neighboring schools is that classes are a challenge, but not intensely so.
Running with the cultural theme — and at the risk of getting shot by my T1 colleagues — I wouldn’t be surprised if the curve plays an impact too. Both Duke’s median and UNCCH’s median are set at 3.33 (B+), while Wake Forest sets theirs at 3.00 (B). The T4 schools set their medians far lower, with Campbell’s median around 75 (C+) on their numeric system, and NCCU Law standing by its strict-C curve at 2.00 (and capping a course grade at A versus A+ elsewhere).
Most employers know that curves are set all over the place at different schools, which is why class rank is so important to landing a job rather than GPA. But for the chronic overachievers who go to law school, there is a fundamental shock to the psyche when a “good” semester is full of B-‘s or B’s compared to your fellow 1Ls at neighboring schools banking straight A’s.
Combine those latter two points — reputation and curves — and what you get are 1Ls who feel like underdogs compared to their peers, with a hunger to “show up and show out.” That’s basically what happened at the Kilpatrick-Stockton competition this year IMO (at least I know that’s what we did )
Q: Courtney expresses faux concern over the lack of structure we’ve had here since 1L Fall came to an end:
What happened to Tweet-sized Tuesdays and the Friday Drive-by??
A: The lack of structure that comes with winter break
Not sure what the future of Tweet-sized Tuesdays will be. They were created last semester because the schedule for my section looked like a camel hump, with 5 classes on Wednesdays — that meant Tuesday nights spent studying instead of blogging. This semester has the pain spread throughout the week. I’ll have a better idea as we get closer to midterms if I need to curtail the time spent writing here and bring Tweet-sized Tuesdays back
As for the Friday Drive-by, that’ll be resuming at some point here in the next few weeks
Q: Michelle wants the rest of this story:
How did that CivPro exam turn out?
A: There was a 22-point curve, so even though I almost failed I didn’t do too badly I’ll post a full rundown of my 1L Fall grades at some point over the next couple days.
That’s it for this edition If you have a question you want me to answer, send an email to tdot [at] lawdevnull.com or hit me up on Facebook!
Have a great night everybody!
Posted by T. Greg Doucette on Jan 20, 2010 in Wolfpack Athletics
Placeholder post today
I just got back from the N.C. State basketball game against Dook…
A blurry cameraphone shot of the final 88-74 score. Note the students totally swarming the court
…and we won!
By 14 points!!
And had the lead for all but the first 5 minutes of the game!!!
The last time we beat Duke was in the ACC tournament back in 2006, the first season since I had returned to NCSU.
We then got thoroughly demolished in pretty much every game for the next 2.5 years
So needless to say my voice is completely shot and it was a great experience to see in person
I’ll resume “for serious” posting tomorrow, promise Good night folks!