Friday, August 31, 2007
Because I have no connection to Iowa or have much of a sense of the judiciary there, I cannot predict what will happen to the case as it inevitably makes its way through the appeals process. For at least a minute, though, Iowan gay couples get the same civil benefits as straight married couples. The fact that this is accomplished by calling the union a "marriage" is just gravy.
Aside: On the Federal side, I think the only thing the government needs to do is recognize gay couples as equal to straight ones. So far as I can tell, the department that needs to do so most urgently is the Department of the Treasury. Especially once the estate tax comes back. Yes, once again, it all comes down to money for me.
UPDATE: Kip has a much more detailed analysis of the court decision than I will ever do here. First off, the decision is 63 pages long. I'm now a third year law student with a job (read: coasting), so I'm only going to read the decision if I'm paid to.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
I was in the restroom today and I saw an associate in the stall next to me wiggle his fingers under the partition between stalls. I ignored it, like I do whenever associates do anything besides work. He did it again. I thought maybe he was holding his hand out for an assignment, thinking perhaps I'd brought one with me to the bathroom. It turns out I had. I took the papers from my pocket and put them in his wiggling fingers. Then his foot crept under the stall and rubbed against mine. He wanted more. So I reached into my other pocket and pulled out a credit agreement. I scrawled at the top, "Proofread this," and slipped it under the partition. He took it. Forty minutes later, the completed assignment and proofread credit agreement arrived on my desk. Well done. Associates bold enough to ask for assignments in the bathroom are acceptable in my book.
But not everyone sees it that way. See, this associate was already working for another partner. And it's not entirely within the normal protocol for an associate committed to one partner to be looking to engage with other partners, especially in the bathroom. And especially from a completely different practice group. There are rumors he's done this before. There are a number of different bathrooms in the office designated as "work bathrooms," where there are outlets in each stall for laptop computers, fully functioning wireless, a printer, and a secretary on duty at all times. While these bathrooms function as normal bathrooms throughout the day, everyone is aware that work does go on there, especially in the corner stall. So an especially eager associate can cruise these bathrooms throughout the day and, if he's lucky, find an extra assignment or two. These may not be the best assignments the firm has to offer, but they allow some exposure to new partners and perhaps enable connections that will help the associates down the line. Most associates don't talk about their secret bathroom rendezvous. Somehow the bathroom assignments are considered dirty, illegitimate, cheating. And some associates, over time, get a reputation.
What ends up complicating matters is that most associates don't like it when one of their own is begging too hard for these bathroom opportunities. They don't like to see someone stand out, meet new partners, and put themselves in a position to move ahead. So once an associate gets a reputation for cruising the bathrooms, he puts himself at risk for vigilante justice. Associates who aren't into the bathroom scene corner their colleagues, rough them up a little bit, steal their copies of the tax code. It can be an ugly scene. But it's not my job to police the associates. In a way, I like to see associates take matters into their own hands. And I like that it means that associates who want the bathroom assignments know they're taking a risk, but they do it anyway. Their impulse to do as much work as they can, their impulse to impress as many partners as possible, their raw biological impulses are so strong that they're willing to put their bodies (and tax codes) at risk for it. That's the kind of dedication I like to see. The kind of commitment that makes me proud to work at a place like this, and proud to see an associate's fingers wiggling under the bathroom partition and give him exactly what he deserves. To put that thick, hot-off-the-printer lease agreement right in his hands. Makes me proud to be a lawyer.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
I found an interesting set of statistics in the book Non-Profit Organizations: Cases and Materials (3d ed. 2006) by James J. Fishman and Stephen Schwartz (I'm using this book for a school project; an online version doesn't seem to be available, sorry). Health care is the single largest sub-sector in the service providing non-profit sector (service providing excludes religious organizations), absorbing 60 percent of non-profit revenues and 25 percent of charitable contributions. Fishman & Schwartz at 22. Further, hospital care represents the single largest component of health care in the United States. Id. at 24.
Now here comes the interesting part: the break down of Hospital Care. Non-profit hospitals comprise about half of all hospitals. Id. Non-profit does not mean not profitable, but rather tax exempt and prohibited from distributing profits. Id. at 3. So for those non-profit hospitals that do earn a profit (not all do!) those revenues must be reinvested into the provision of services rather than distributed to owners. There is no investment incentive in a non-profit; revenues must come from fees for services, government grants or charitable contributions. Id. at 18.
The second largest group of Hospitals in the U.S. are government hospitals at 31 percent. Id. at 25. Government hospitals mean run by a governmental authority, mostly at the state and local level. Id.
Then for-profit hospitals are only 19 percent of all hospitals. Id. And they seem to be smaller as the account for only 14 percent of hospital beds. Id.
What does this all mean for this debate? On the one hand you might look at the numbers and say, "See, Pink, the market doesn't need to regulate health care; as you said quality is great. Such great quality is delivered without a significant market incentive for investment! Let's socialize that pesky 19 percent!"
On the other hand, you can just as easily say (as I will, predictably), "Perhaps many of the ills in our health care system, such as lack of access, are created by the lack of market incentives for the majority of hospitals."
Why bring this up, it's just another scandal, and a relatively small one at that? He paid a $500 fine and his 10 day jail sentence was stayed. In the course of human events no one really cares.
Well, some people might care, since Craig has a predictably dismal voting record with regards to gay and lesbian issues (according at least to the HRC, the be all and end all of gay and lesbian policy positions--thank God we have them to tell us what to think). So it's easy to get smug and shout "hypocrite." That's a rather appropriate reaction, but that's not what I want to talk about.
Over at Sully's blog a guest blogger expressed some guarded sympathy for deeply closeted gays and lesbians. The blogger then noted that his sympathy does not extend far enough to accommodate those closeted gays and lesbians who, in order to protect their "shameful secret," are openly hostile to other gays and lesbians. Particularly those who are in a position to influence national policy. Fair enough. When I hear these kinds of stories I sort of feel something similar, a mix between pity and disappointment.
Don't get me wrong I am trying to defend his record at all. Instead, I am just noting that it must be awful to be someone like that. Really, all I can say is that thanks to some close friends and this blog, I'm grateful that in 40 years I will not be another Senator Craig.
Monday, August 27, 2007
So first Rove, and now Gonzales. I am starting to get a feeling of And Then There Were None.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Anyway, I am bringing it up because right now I am reading my first assignment for that class and my eyes are rolling out of their sockets. I'm reading about the dark years (as far as I am concerned) of 1965-1980 when the regulatory state started gaining real momentum. Siiiiigh.
PS sorry about my delinquency in blogging. I've been getting settled in at school.
Update: The class got off to a great start. In the first few minutes the professor picked on me a bit for being the "cold, economic type." Then she contrasted me with other students who may be of the radical "trees have feelings" variety. It's fairly clear that I can be relied upon to voice a viewpoint that few others interested in environmental law might hold.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Chris is a "paramedical esthetician," which I think means "pretend plastic surgeon." He works for a real surgeon, and I get the impression Chris can use needles and lasers, just not a scalpel. Botox but not breast implants, and so forth. Of course I have no idea. Nonetheless, he seems to do well for himself [[I didn't have to pay!!]]. Chris is slightly nellier than I tend to prefer, but since he has a professional (mildly?) job, I was able to overlook that. I think I am becoming something of a career queen (surely there is such a thing?). Did I mention he paid [[I'm two steps away from being a prostitute, boy toy, second husband]]?
I arrive at his condo (he has equity! Swoon!) and I call to tell him I'm in the lobby. Turns out he's not ready yet, but buzzes me up anyway. Turns out his view is gorgeous, and I spent time out on his balcony as he finished getting dressed (nothing scandalous here--he did so in his bath and bedroom). Shortly thereafter, (though still after a surprisingly long time) we are on our way to a Vodka Bar [[not really a gay bar, but practically one]].
He has a Cosmo; I have a Vodka Tonic [[I am the more butch of our pair]]. We both eat Salads. Eat drink talk eat drink talk. Learning my lesson I do not disclose that I hunt the poor and minorities for sport [[am a Republican]]. We talk about work and theater and other such stuff. Eventually I learn that Chris considers himself a movie buff [[he follows the Oscars closely but has probably never heard of, say, The Seventh Seal. Not that I judge him for that, I mean, who likes Swedish cinema?]]. Chris was quite surprised that I had not seen The Queen yet. Several drinks later we decide to go to his condo to watch that film.
I still have not seen The Queen [[ ;-) ]].
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Hillary has geared her campaign towards caring about those poor unfortunate souls that remain "invisible" to the Republicans. Accordingly, Hillary has chosen a new campaign song. Click below to see her sing it.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
- Democrats pledge to reverse unions' decline: No kidding. How altruistic of them to protect the power of a group that consistently delivers votes to the the other party. Oh wait, scratch that, reverse.
- I am aware that Rove has resigned. I just don't have anything to say about it.
- I was not invited. I wouldn't have gone, though.
- I am against the Real ID Act. Do I have to explain this? The next step is just to station an American soldier in every household in order to catch terrorists. Sure that's unconstitutional, but only for now.
- I bet I scared you a little by having a link in that last line :-)
- And yet, this doesn't bother me all that much.
- An interesting comparison of Health Care proposals among the candidates of both parties. I like most of what the Republicans have to say (SHOCKER!). Tax Deduction are two of my favorite words--but only when right next to each other. Tancredo's attempt to bring Health Care back to his pet issue looks a little forced, but hey, who can blame him? The Blurb about Romney makes him look a tad, well, untrustworthy--dare I say, Kerry-esque. Sadly I can't really blame that on that particular "liberal" medium. But boy has Romney got hair.
- On the lighter side, like it does most gay men, the first minutes of The Nines...er...excites me. Especially around minute 4:45.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Mike Gravel states, in part:
By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. Throughout our nation's history, every time national public opinion turns against oppression, opponents of progress use states rights to present themselves as defenders of liberty in the face of federal power.
States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots. Now Hillary has given rhetorical cover to the homophobes. If she wins the Democratic nomination, opponents of gay marriage will cite her statement to justify their opposition to national marriage equality over the next decade.
Now I much beg Senator Gravel's pardon, but it seems a little dangerous to put all our eggs in the Federal basket. Why, isn't DOMA federal legislation? Didn't the FMA start in federal government (and admittedly die there)? Or the Federal Estate Tax that will hit gay couples quite significantly once it is reinstated? Has the Senator from Alaska noticed that at least 16 states plus the District of Columbia have workplace protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation while ENDA continues to languish in a Democrat controlled Congress?
PS, I NEVER thought I would be defending Hills on this blog. That Sen. Gravel made me do that is the most irritating thing of all.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Where I am:
I have been out all summer. I was out at work (I rather expect I will return to the same firm after graduation--assuming I get an offer. I find out next week!). It really was great to learn to get comfortable with myself. I think that was an important step. Had I not taken it, I am certain I would be seriously considering staying in the closet for ages.
I have been able to date some, as well as just have fun. A lot has become clear to me this summer. For instance, I always hated kissing, until I started kissing guys. Now I actually really like it--a bit too much perhaps given my inability to remain appropriate after a drink or two. I suppose that means I actually am gay.
Where I need to be:
I really need to start thinking seriously about telling my family. So far, I have trying to build up to them, but Matt suggested it might be easier to go the other way: family first then friends. Otherwise i have worse worry for longer (let's face it, most of us are more concerned about how our family reacts than our friends, however close they may be).
Now, I have decided to wait about a year. Before you get too concerned that I am still stalling, let me tell you why. A year from now I will have graduated and finished taking the bar. I will have made, at least in my own mind, the transition into bona fide adulthood. As an adult I should be honest with my parents about who I am. But at the same time I will be in a position to take care of myself, should it come to that ( I don't expect it to, but it just seems prudent to have this option).
Further, assuming I get the job I hope to, I will be working rather long hours over 500 miles from where they live. That will give them a sort of buffer of time and space to deal with it on their own terms (and honestly, it will give me some means to forget about the discomfort my sexuality will cause them while they do deal with it).
Finally, it will give me time to prepare how to do it. Should I tell my sister first, or my parents first? I'll probably do it while they are visiting me here rather than at their home. I feel like I need to read up more. Perhaps plan out exactly the things I want to say. This is not the kind of thing I think I should jump into cavalierly. It wouldn't be fair to them.
PS: I regularly re-link to it, but once again I want to go over Nick's Mom's advice. She's awesome.
Nonetheless, I still get bothered by the encroachment on civil liberties in the name of security. I'd like to expand on the old saying about liberty and security. What liberty (excluding religious or existential "liberation") is there in death, or fear of death. But then what good is life without liberty? It's not either/or, its a balancing act (law professors LOVE balancing things). The problem is I keep going back and forth on how to balance them.
I'm pretty well comfortable with allowing my government to protect me from foreign threats, but when does protection become oppressive? Honestly I'm not all that concerned about feds listening in on international calls, but I am troubled by increasing executive power--especially in the name of something so ill-defined as a War on Terror (It might as well be called a War on Sadness, or a War on Aerial Strikes). But if these measures help save the lives of Americans, could they be worth it? How do we keep security from infringing liberty without making ourselves vulnerable? I don't have answers here, only questions (how annoying, right?). Your thoughts?
I woke up the first morning not in Karen's apartment like I should have, but instead in the hallway on the floor above.
I learned that I will make out for a drink. Sometimes for less. (I'm a little embarrassed about that one).
I saw some great theater.
I had one of the best steaks in living memory.
I got to meet Karen's friend Kim. She lives in a charming porno district.
I spent more money than I care to think about.
On the plane trip back I read Harry Potter 7.
Good times, good times.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Since I am neither as famous as nor have the vast readership of Andrew Sullivan, I have not attempted to get substitute bloggers for when I am away.
You have a couple of options for the next few days:
First, you could turn off your computer and go interact with real people.
I'm sure there's some housework you need to get to.
Why not start learning a foreign language? Arabic is in high demand (unless you are gay).
Finally, you can always check out the links on the right (in particular, this one).
Now, to finish things off, I am going to embed a few movies that I found rather amusing. It's a two parter about how to know if we are ready for marriage. So before you run up to MA, you might want to give this a watch:
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Okay, so it's easy to dispel the Moore favored single-payer system:
Assume that the government is now paying for same total amount of health care--however, because health care consumers experience no out of pocket cost for additional health care (what economists call a zero marginal cost to the consumer), they will demand a quantity of health care greater than they demand now. Boom Shortages. Problem not solved.
You've still got rationing, except now it's done by government instead of insurance companies. You really think that will be better? A quick (if only) trip to the DMV should disabuse you of that notion. You may think it's tough arguing with insurance companies about coverage, but have you ever tried arguing with an administrative bureaucracy [IRS]? Think about how politics can get involved: "why are my good Christian tax dollars going to help treat that homosexual with the gay plague?" [The excellent politics point respectfully stolen from Kip Esquire].
Oh but we're not finished, let's look at the producer side: We all know that the incredible quality (not including access) of our health care comes from profit motivated innovation. An egalitarian single payer system is going to ruin that. People are not going to be able to pay more for better, so why make anything better? Certainly there are some who would like to cure diseases for the humanitarian good, but that research still costs money and that money is going to be harder to come by when investors looking for profit are no longer going to provide any of it.
Woe is us. What can we do? Well, some, try have their cake and eat it too, with a dual system. The free health care for everyone, but still allow people to pay for private health care if they want it (Paging John Edwards). That sounds nice at first blush: you solve the access problem, but you don't damage the profit motive for innovation! Except that you do.
Providing health care to everyone using tax dollars will mean providing health care to those who do not pay any taxes, as well as to those who don't pay enough taxes to cover their consumption of the government provided good. The free system is going to be strained from day one. Then there will be those who will use the free health care even though they could afford private (hey, it's free!) Of course there will be those super rich who will prefer paying the higher cost for private health care, because it will be a) better in quality (of course you are paying for it) and b) fewer other people will be using it, so there will be shorter lines! Problem here comes with b. Fewer people paying, means they will be paying more to retain the quality of the good. Otherwise the income from providing the private health care won't be enough to pay for the innovation that makes it better. So either the quality differential will evaporate or the price will keep going up.
Consider the following analogy: Education. We have free public schools as well as not free private schools. Most won't deny that the quality of private education is by and large better than what we find in public schools. However, the cost of private schools is prohibitively high for most, and is going up for those who can still afford it (still paging John Edwards). So we want to import this model into our health care? (One important difference: even private schools are non-profit. They don't need profit to provide higher quality education, but the quality of health care depends on innovation that needs to be paid for by profit, so I think the differences between public and private health care cost will be even starker than the difference in the education).
Now I am a big supporter of school choice. I truly believe that by letting the consumers direct where their educational dollars go, we will keep our super posh private schools affordable only to the elite; we will develop mid-range schools that are better than the bottom tier and are affordable to the middle class; as well as improve (eventually) the quality of schools for those who can only afford what the voucher is worth. I think this model might be the best choice for our health care problem, assuming we believe that the government should be subsidizing it (and it looks like more and more people believe that).
While we are at, PinkCare will make money paid beyond the health voucher tax deductible, return unused voucher dollars at the end of the year, and allow tax deferred IRA style Health Saving Accounts. I have full confidence that this will go a lot farther to fixing the problem than simply letting the government take over the whole operation.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Why so glorious? Well, when the government doesn't operate, it's not oppressing me. or you. or anyone. (Okay okay, so "essential services" including the military and U.S. Marshals were in full force, and conceivably they could still have rounded us up and put us in concentration camps for being Jews, or homosexuals, or intellectuals, or Libertarians, or Star Trek fans. But ours isn't a country where I think we have to worry too much about the hard "German Style" oppression. We go more for the soft "French Style" oppression--a slow but steady increase of state power.)
A government shutdown is better than a congressional recess because, I think most people don't realize that while Congress is the great enabler, it is the administrative state that does the actual thumb twisting of the citizenry. That said, I'll take a stalemate over a one-party government any day of the week and twice on Sundays! (Besides, stalemate is the first step to shutdown). We aren't there yet, but if we're lucky it wont be long:
I'm just giddy over the possibility of a spending showdown. They build character.
In the current era of divided government, Bush does the signing or the rejecting, confident so far that despite his poor approval ratings he has enough Republican support to avoid a veto override.
It's far from tidy, and not likely to get any prettier in September, with the president and Congress both pointing toward a spending showdown as well as a resumption of their struggle over Iraq.
Meanwhile, though the farm and energy bills are in dire straits, the one thing the Dems can get through is an INCREASE IN THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER TO EAVESDROP ON INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS WITHOUT A WARRANT? I thought you all got elected on the "Bush is delusional and the war on terror is out of control" platform. So while you are too busy squabbling about mommy issues like CO2 Emissions and farm subsidies, you just rubber stamp another increase in executive power in the name of war. Democrats, your voters would like to have a couple words with you--the second word being "you."
Monday, August 6, 2007
By now it should be clear to you that we are not "over;" we are a "never were." I really don't want to hear from you in the future. Let me tell you why.
1) I made it clear from the beginning that I am not looking for a relationship. I am only in town for the summer, so anything long term is out of the question. Also, you know I am only just barely out, and any dating I do is more about testing the waters than looking for a boyfriend. The expiration date of whatever we were has passed.
2) Despite my being clear about our having no future, you sure got possessive really quick. You flipped out when I mentioned I had a date with another boy. You tried to make me feel guilty, even though I WAS ALWAYS CLEAR THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE SERIOUS. You even got me to apologize just to shut you up. That was a big strike against you. When you asked later if I had seen 401(k) again, I lied when I said no. Shame on me, sure, but I was trying to avoid another scene.
3) Then the next time we went out, you got someone's phone number. Were you trying to get back at me, or are you just a hypocrite? Either way, strike two.
4) It might have been nice for you to have paid once. I know I made more money than you, but it's not like I took you to Bistro Vendre Trop Cher to flaunt it. I was careful only to take you to places that you could afford as well. Yet, never even a suggestion that you could pay this time. Classy. Strike Three. In baseball you would have been out at this point. Lucky for you, I don't follow sports.
5) The moment I decided not have any more to do with you came at Pride. HUGE red flags went up when you revealed your cavalier attitude towards HIV testing. Thank God this prude was always very careful.
6) When two weeks before my trip I said, "let's see what my schedule is like after my trip," that should have tipped you off that I am pulling away.
Oh, and while we're at it, here are some other things I don't like about you.
7) You smoke. [Note to blog readers, although I will fight for the smoker against the government, it is a disgusting habit, and it doesn't make me want to kiss you].
8) You have no obvious goals or ambitions.
9) I have to explain my jokes to you.
10) You called me "honey." I never want to be called "honey." "Dear" is even worse. We weren't even close to point where you could try out pet names.
11) You reacted very badly when I mentioned that I am not a Democrat. I don't expect you to agree with me politically, but I do expect that you can at least allow me to have my own opinions.
So, David, I hate to be the bad guy, but you leave me no choice. We are not compatible at all. I wish you the best and hope you can grow up some. However, you will not be growing with me. Please lose my number.
PS: I've met someone else.
So, I have revised the links on the right. First you will find a list of the news sources I tend to check most frequently. Next are the political blogs that made up the bulk of my previous list. I also added a few more, including one that I frequently disagree with (can you guess which one?). Third, are the personal blogs I read as well as the ones that link to me (so far as I know). Finally, Divertissement offers my most frequent diversions from the serious or important. I chose to title that list in French to further convey how unimportant in the grand scheme of things those diversions are :)
Also, be aware that apart from the News and Political Blogs, some of my links might not always be safe for work. However, I won't link to sites that are mostly and typically pornographic. You can find your own porn.
If you buy the soundtrack to hairspray on iTunes it comes with a video of Zac (since we're secret [i.e. pretend, i.e. I'm delusional] boyfriends, I don't need to tell you his last name) performing Ladies' Choice.
Maybe it's on the actual CD too, but iTunes tends to be cheaper.
Now for the annoyance:
Yesterday, I went shopping and stopped in at Nieman Marcus. I never buy anything there, but I like to look at the mannequins to get ideas of things to buy at more reasonably priced stores or expensive stores on super-sale. (ALSO, I found this D&G cashmere and modal t-shirt priced at a ridiculous $200, but it is the softest thing I have ever touched in the whole world. If I were the son of a billionaire, I would be wearing it right now).
There was one retail queen salesman that gave me a sneered "if you need anything, let me know" in tone of voice that strongly conveyed a not-so-subtle "as if you in your Banana Republic jeans could afford anything here!"
Now, first I was carrying a Diesel bag (super-sale) and they freaking sell Diesel at NM! Second, it's not like I was in Wal-Mart sweatpants and a Hanes Pocket-T. And THIRD and this is the big one, just because he has the dream job of one out every ten boys (until he is discovered as a triple threat in the local production of A Chorus Line, that is), and has to max out his credit cards just to look presentable to his customers does not make him better than me! The fact that I won't buy a $200 t-shirt doesn't mean I can't afford it, it just means that I have other priorities (though I cannot stress enough how unbelievably soft and luxurious that t-shirt was). I am not Vivian from Pretty Woman, dammit!
Yes, I know am being judgmental too, but somehow it seems better to judge people on their irresponsible spending habits than their lack of unreasonably priced designer clothes. So, as we say down south, "Bless his heart" (Translation: I hope his Prada suit still fits him when he's eating ALPO in retirement).
Sunday, August 5, 2007
In this 1998 press release the World Health Organization stated:
The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers (emphasis original)
That's interesting. Considering this quote from the actual study [PDF]:
Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.
Translation: "Sure we found an increase, except that the increase was not greater than that which could attributed to statistical error. Okay, we didn't really find anything, but hopefully people will only read the press release."
Apparently, the WHO will not let a silly little thing like scientific and academic integrity get in the way of its mission to use the force of government to protect us from ourselves. In bars. While we drink poison.
(H/t: Penn Jillette)
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Today I saw Hairspray (really liked it), and just fell in love with Zac Efron. I watched the movie and the whole time was thinking "who is this man? I want to be cowboys with him" (a reference to The Best Little Boy in the World). Luckily, the credits to Hairspray are fun to watch so I didn't look like a weirdo staying in the theater long after the movie ended just to learn his name.
I get home, ready to do my internet "research" on this previously unknown (to me) dreamboat. Turns he's a freaking IT boy right now! I feel so behind the times. That's what I get for not seeing High School Musical when everybody else did.
P.S. Even though it's meant to be kitschy, I like him with the Hairspray hair better than the shaggy HSM do. If I liked long hair, I'd be straight. (yes, I am aware there is more than hair at issue here).