I Has Foodz Issues: Part II

I've been on this diet for 2 weeks now. So far I've lost 8 lbs and the cravings have gone away for the moment; but I've been irritable and cranky. Then I happened to be reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting and it mentioned irritability as a symptom of dieting.

So today I just feel like doing nothing, and just vegging out in my bed, watching movies. Blah. I have articles to write, and a batch of other projects I'd love to get going on, but every time I start to do them, I just feel repelled.

It seems pretty clear it's the diet. But I doubt it has anything to do with any particular vitamin deficiency. I'm getting all the nutrition I need, and then some; but my caloric intake has really gone down. So wherever this bad mood is coming from, I'm guessing it's related to calories alone.

On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure the bad mood will clear up in time. It's probably the result of the sudden change, not to mention all the withdrawal I must be experiencing, from grease, salt, and sugar. I'd be amazed if I did this sudden dietary change, and just felt great right away. I have to pay my dues.

This reminds me of when I gave up caffeine recently. I felt awful for quite awhile, but then I was free. This has to be the same exact thing. It's amazing how nonfunctional I feel. As I write, the words seem very poorly thought out.

So yeah, this is clearly one of the early tests, where my strength of resolve has to be equal to the challenge of losing the ability to reason. And through it all, I have to remember the massive temptation that lies probably months in the future, and not get lost in any sort of "hey, I'm losing so much weight" euphoria.

Still though - blah.

I Has Foodz Issues

I've changed my diet. In fact, I've really only decided to eat healthy foods, i.e. mainly vegetables, but also some fish. The idea of a 'diet' as a special new understanding of what's healthy seems like the result of so many fad diets being on the market, like the one saying you should eat mainly meat and fat. Ugh.

Science pretty well knows what a good diet is. We may not have a perfect picture of the nutrients required for optimal health, but the picture is still pretty clear by now, and we know which foods will give us those nutrients, and which foods will include too much of various things like salt and sugar.

The problem isn't identifying the good stuff to eat anymore. The problem is that people have all kind of crazy ideas about the ways we need to eat; and people have all kinds of crazy issues like cravings and an inability to control hunger.

The cornerstone of my new diet is essentially the idea that if I can't find anything to eat that fits my diet, I'm going to go without. That doesn't sound very radical to me; it just means that I'll wait until I find healthy food somewhere, rather than just eat the unhealthy food that's put in front of me.

This has provoked universal consternation from everyone I talk to. Immediately they're conjuring images of a hunger strike. Zack has gone insane! He's not eating! Is this a syndrome? How could this happen???

All I'm saying is, if a big plate of pasta and mashed potatoes comes my way, I'm not going to eat it, but instead wait until I can find some nice vegetables.

It seems perfectly sensible to me, but it really has produced a huge uproar whenever I tell someone new about my dietary changes.

Another thing that seems almost universal is this idea that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day." When I tell people that I don't eat breakfast, they completely wig out. But not one of them can actually justify this idea. The argument in favor of breakfast basically is, it jumpstarts your metabolism.

Why would I want my metabolism jumpstarted? Well, they answer, it will cause you to burn calories.

But does my metabolism really burn so many calories that the whole breakfast I've just eaten will be burned off before lunch?

No one really has an answer to this. I think it's because people mainly just accept that theory without question because they then have an excuse to eat a big breakfast. They don't want to lose the whole "most important meal" theory, because they wouldn't be able to have their flap jacks and bacon.

As far as I can see, the difference in the number of calories my metabolism burns just on its own, versus the number of calories I burn on an empty stomach in the morning, can't be such a large number. Maybe in the double digits? A breakfast with a double digit number of calories might be a container of yogurt or a glass of orange juice. That's the kind of breakfast that must be advocated if someone insists on the whole "most important meal" concept. But that's not the breakfast I hear people advocating.

Getting back to my specific approach though; I'm attempting to deal with the cravings and other eating urges that have been overwhelming me. If I'll just eat whatever's in front of me, I'll never be eating healthy. I'm surrounded almost all day by very unhealthy choices. And my job serves free, very tasty, yet also largely unhealthy, breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. If I try to make a small change, as I've tried in the past, it might proceed for awhile, but eventually I just drift right back to eating too much of the wrong stuff again.

Another problem is, if I go a little further, and make a larger change, like cutting out the bad foods, and trying to set up some kind of regimen where I always eat well, then I start getting cravings. Hoo boy will I start getting cravings. After a few weeks, it can become intolerable. And then, if anything happens to disrupt my carefully planned regimen, I can become completely overwhelmed and just pig out, and fall totally off the wagon.

Hence my current diet plan, which I chose specifically to deal with those hard cases. It does me no good to set up a very fragile, brittle approach to eating, if that approach is just going to break at the first shock. What I need is an approach that can withstand the exceptional circumstances as well as my daily life.

So, by design, my intention to "do without" if I can't get what I want, is an attempt to address cravings, and situations where my routine has been disrupted. My focus is on those inevitable events, because those are the events that always beat me. My plan has to address the real problem.

So, some people have said I should carry healthy snacks around with me, so I never run into a situation where I have to "do without".

Bad idea. First of all, I'd eat all the snacks right away, and then what? I'm stuck with no snacks again, facing cravings and temptation.

But the main thing is, if I try to rely on keeping snacks with me, and creating an environment where I never experience being deprived of food, then I'll be all the more likely to fail when I am one day confronted with that situation. I wouldn't be solving anything, just making myself weaker and more vulnerable.

So, my experience with my current new diet so far has been very difficult. I'm eating well. I have a large, vegetable-heavy salad for lunch every day, which gives me a lot of everything except a few vitamins that I can pick up elsewhere. For dinner I have a larger meal, typically with fish, or at least a larger quantity of stuff than what I had for lunch. And I'm losing weight at a healthy and not too aggressive rate. I'm not starving myself, I'm doing OK.

BUT.

The cravings are so powerful, it's a nightmare. Each time I try to control my eating, the cravings and temptations get worse. If I'm with someone who's eating something, I crave whatever they're eating.

The cool thing is, because of my simple protocol of "doing without", I don't feel any actual compulsion to act on these cravings. I experience them merely as a symptom, something that triggers my "do without" protocol.

Still though, it's extremely distracting. I really hope that the cravings start to subside in the next couple months.

Also, if the diet follows the same path as quitting smoking (which it really does seem to), the cravings will subside, and then will come back somewhere down the road in a sudden massive attack that will be extremely difficult to resist.

So that's my plan. Weather the current cravings, keep my guard up even as those cravings subside, and be prepared to resist the larger wave of cravings that will hit me once I do finally start to relax my guard.

I'm kind of hoping it's like cigarettes. I quit those, and got a lot of practice trying and failing, before I managed it. Now I have a lot of practice trying and failing to get my eating under control. If the addiction is similar, I may be able to use my cigarette experience to advantage here.

Anyway, wish me luck.

Crumble Rules

I've been playing crumble for a couple of years now, and the rules are no longer changing. I think the game is done. Every once in awhile I consider ditching one or more rules that seem difficult to explain to new players; but I always decide that those rules make the game much better than it would otherwise be.

Take joins. They typically never happen in the early part of the game, and you can definitely get some good play without resorting to them. But having the option to do a join is a very powerful weapon that forces the opponent to take your pieces seriously, even your pieces are smaller than theirs. Without the threat of a join, a player could simply ignore the smaller pieces on the board, until the entire position became completely immobile.

Even relatively obscure elements of joins, such as the ability to join many pieces into one, seem essential. Not only do they allow sudden interaction with much larger pieces, but they also make it possible to create regions of the board that are completely distinct from other regions, like a world within a world.

Long splits are another feature that sometimes gets criticism, though it's used much more frequently than joins. But long splits are one of the major ways that multiple simultaneous attacks can be launched. This is something that is so difficult to set up in a game like chess. In crumble, multiple attacks are much more common, and they add an element of force to games of even relative beginners, that you'd almost never see in chess.

It's the same right down the line. People criticize captures on the same grounds - takes up time to explain how it works. But capturing is important because it forces players to maintain cohesion between their pieces. In general, the entire game position is always very significant in crumble. Without captures, you'd end up with little pockets of pieces everywhere, not really doing anything, but just hanging out, waiting. With the possibility of captures, most of the pieces on the board have to remain focused on protecting one another.

Other rules come under criticism for more legitimate reasons. Why is it necessary to be able to divide the pieces down into other, arbitrarily smaller pieces? Why not have a reasonable limit?

That's something I have to answer on more abstract terms. For one thing, imposing a limit would mean that at a certain level of recursion, the very strategy and nature of the game would completely change, in order to accommodate that limit. For another thing, that limit would put an inherent limit on the ultimate complexity of the game. And one of my goals when I first started thinking about designing a game, was to create something that didn't suffer from having a finite game tree. I wanted something whose complexity would grow to match the needs of its players. The game of checkers has already been solved, and chess is not far behind. Unless an entirely new approach to game analysis is discovered, that fate will never befall crumble.

It can be frustrating to introduce someone new to crumble, and see them shake their head sadly at the 'obvious' mistakes I've made in its design. But without exception, those people are looking at the game in terms of irrelevancies. They have no clue of the justifications behind each rule of crumble, they only think in terms of how well it could be packaged or marketed.

My idea is, first you get the good idea, then you get other good ideas that solve the packaging and marketing problems that may stand in its way. But you don't cripple your good idea just because it would be easier to fit it in a box.

For example, I've had consistent problems writing down the rules. I've written them down a number of different times in a number of different ways, but each attempt has been unsatisfactory. The problem is that the rules do require a lot of explanation. But another problem is that the more explanation I give, the more likely it is that a newcomer will miss something I've clearly explained.

So, this is an example of needing to have more good ideas in order to solve the problems surrounding the good ideas I've already had. There has to be a way to express these rules clearly and concisely, so that people find it easy to get started.

One reason I know there has to be a way is because once a player learns the rules and gets comfortable with them, oftentimes they'll remark that the rules are actually extremely simple, once you know them. In other words, they're clear, intuitive, and result in easy-to-follow moves by both players. I just need to find a way to express them, so that all the details are just obvious. Maybe there's a natural analogy somewhere, or a set of natural analogies, that would make a lot of the nuance of the rules seem obvious to all concerned.

That's what I'm thinking about lately. I'm trying to write the rules down again, in yet another way that will hopefully be easy to read. So far, though, the new text is still relatively long. I have to keep working on it.

The Friending Problem

I just unfriended about 20 people on facebook. It's not that I wouldn't like to be friends with those people, it's that I'd like my online social network to bear some resemblance to reality. But I feel guilty about unfriending them. It's as though I explicitly told them all that I really didn't want to be friends; which isn't true at all.

This is a tough feature to get right on any social network. On the one hand, if you keep friend lists secret, then how do you implement the 'networking' features on your flashy social networking site? On the other hand, letting users see their friend lists makes it a big deal to unfriend anybody. So everyone ends up with a fairly large percentage of their friend lists consisting of people they don't really know or haven't yet formed a real connection with.

Someone should figure out a way for unfriending to not be a negative thing. Because it's really not. The negativity is just a function of the way the network is presented, so that unfriending someone is interpreted negatively by the person being unfriended. For starters, the term "unfriending" is negative in itself.

But also, the whole concept of the handshaking process involved in friending in the first place, creates an implicit rejection if one person later chooses to unfriend, because the other person is still in mid-handshake. Every time we add a new friend, we engage in a permanent handshake that just goes on and on and on, because the first person to release hands will offend the other. The only people who typically ever unfriend are people who stop dating each other.

One improvement would be to not create tight social networking links between people in the first place. For example, my gmail contact list automatically includes everyone I've emailed. No one would mistake their own appearance on my gmail contact list as proof of our friendship (though we might very well be friends). But it's possible that we could IM together, just because we've emailed each other. And I could configure my chat client to either show, or not show, or decide on its own whether to show, that person in my chat list. And no one would know whether they appear or not, so they wouldn't be offended by my selection.

If they also have a gmail account, I might be able to view their Google profile, and check out their Google Reader shared items, or any blogs they write, and they might do the same with me; all without ever undergoing this awful online handshaking process that's so hard to unshake.

There are other ways Google allows social networking and closeness without insisting on a 'friending' experience. But there are also ways in which a kind of implicit 'friending' does take place under Google. If I follow someone on Buzz, for example, the other person knows I'm following them. And if I stop following them, the other person knows I've stopped.

That's sort of a 'lesser friending' situation, because it doesn't require a handshake, it's simply a configuration option. I can follow, unfollow, and follow again on Buzz, without inconveniencing anybody or asking them to confirm that I'm allowed to do that. They can block me if they want, which I guess you could consider a form of unfriending; but it's a form of unfriending that doesn't require a previous friending, and is used more to avoid spammers and scammers, than to indicate any particular relationship between two users.

But the other user does know when I've followed and unfollowed them on Buzz. So it's a lesser friending, in the sense that there's a lesser implicit rejection than if we had first agreed to be 'friends', and then I revoked that agreement. If I simply stop following them, it could be that I'm just trying to cut down on the information torrent, or that I've chosen to subscribe to their public Google Reader feed instead, or their blog. There are plenty of uncomplicated reasons to not follow someone on Buzz, that don't imply dislike.

The okcupid dating site has an interesting 'favoriting' feature. A dating site has a harder time letting people friend and unfriend each other, because a lot of times one's friends don't really want to know the ins and outs of each other's sexual and dating preferences. Trying to provide that kind of feature on okcupid would be a little weird.

So, that site has a number of other methods of creating a social network. One is to have a lot of life-related multiple-choice questions, and then create match scores between you and other people. When you view your match list, the highest-ranked matches form a kind of social network of people who are more or less similar to you in certain ways, even though you may not be acquainted with each other.

Another technique is the one I just mentioned, the ability to 'favorite' someone. Doing this in okcupid just makes that person appear in your navigation bar whenever they're online. This way when you're both online together, they appear to you as being online, and you can IM them if you want, using the okcupid chat app.

Users don't necessarily know that they've been favorited. The only visible change for the one being favorited, could be that certain other users are just more likely to chat with them. And if they are later unfavorited, they might never know it, and so they'd never have a chance to be offended by it.

When you favorite someone on okcupid, you can also choose to let the automated system tell them they've been favorited by someone. So by choosing that option, you're essentially waving at them and saying "hi, I'm interested in you, check out my profile, favorite me too if you want." But if either of you later unfavorite the other, neither of you would be informed of that. So this is another 'lesser friending' that avoids the friending problem.

For me, one of the most valuable features of a social network is one that isn't even implemented on any of them anymore. And it seems like a feature that might potentially justify the explicit friending handshake. Friendster had it in the old days, and then removed it, presumably because they didn't understand its tremendous value. And no other site has yet implemented it.

The feature involved the chain of friendships that are created when two people explicitly friend each other. If person A friends person B, and person B friends person C, then A and C are two hops away from each other. In other words, A and C are actually in the same circle of friends, even if they don't know each other - the circle of friends defined by person B.

Let's extend this outwards a bit. If person C friends person D, then A's friends and C's friends, are actually friends with each other. This is because B and C are the link between A and D, and B and C are friends. If we're considering the value of these connections in building trust between people who are otherwise strangers (A and D), then clearly A and D have a fairly solid reason to trust each other in this situation. People who are friends with each of them, are also friends with each other. It's very unlikely that if A were a safe person to know, that D would be a psycho ax murderer. So A and D can feel comfortable contacting each other for no particular reason and saying, "hi! I like your profile. Want to hang out?"

Let's go one more hop out, and say that person D friend person E. What is E's relationship to A now? Well, A is friends with B, and E is friends with D. Meanwhile, B and D are both friends with C.

So A's friends and E's friends (B and D), have friends in common (C). So, people in A's circle of friends, and people in E's circle of friends, are actually in the same circle of friends as each other.

That's a more tenuous, but still quite tenable, reason for A and E to trust each other. Their circles of friends virtually intersect. And when you take all the people who are likewise four hops away from A, you will tend to end up with a very large pool of people, maybe in the hundreds of thousands or millions. That large pool gives people some cover, so that if A makes a bit of a fool of themselves with E, news of this is less likely to trickle back to A's friends. So on the one hand you have a bit of trust with people who are four hops away, and on the other hand, you have a bit of freedom to take some risks and get to know someone.

It was a great feature. I have no idea why it went away, or why no other site implemented it. I met a lot of people who were four hops away from me, with no more initial trust than what that feature gave us.

But it's a good counter-example to my point about the friending problem. It's harder to implement a feature like that one (call it trust-in-chain), if you don't have an explicit friending between two people. Person A and person E can both feel confident that B, C, and D are all vouching for the connections they've made in the network. Their confidence in those connections is the only reason A and E can raise the trust between them in this example. Take away the explicit friending, and A and E have much less of a basis for trust.

To make that clearer, let's go back to Google Buzz. If A follows B, and B follows C, and C follows D, and D follows E, that's a very poor reason for A and E to trust each other. Maybe A could trust E somewhat, since that's the direction of the following, but since E isn't following D, and D isn't following C, and C isn't following B, and B isn't following A, and since there could be very good reasons why those things are true, there's really no reason for  E to feel any particular trust towards A in this situation.

I'm not sure if friendster's trust-in-the-chain feature could be implemented using 'lesser friending'; and if not, it definitely is an argument in favor of full-on friending on these social networking sites. But the friending problem still diminishes the value of the trust-in-the-chain feature, even if explicit friending is necessary for it. If A has friended B, but doesn't really have much connection with B, and is only leaving the connection in place because it would be awkward to unfriend B, then that makes the connection between A and E more tenuous. So the trust-in-the-chain feature would also benefit from solving the friending problem.

I'm not sure what, if any, solution there might be to the friending problem. But it seems like a real problem with social networks, and something that ultimately undermines the whole point of the network. I think it's a problem that, if a solution could be found, would dramatically increase the value of the social Internet.

Earplugs And Airplanes

Here's why earplugs are so great. When you go in an airplane, there's this constant horrifying noise, and painful pressure changes. These make everyone miserable.

There's a type of earplug that's sort of a porous 'memory foam' material. Aside from blocking the noise, these can really help with the pressure changes. What you do is, you roll one tightly between your thumb and finger, into a slender stalk. It'll keep this shape for a few moments, so with one hand you can tug your ear gently back, opening the canal, and with the other you can send the earplug into that canal - but not far enough to hurt. Do this before the airplane doors close, so you're not fighting cabin pressure to open your ear canal. Then do the same with the other ear.

What this does is, aside from blocking sound, it keeps the canal open, and keeps air passing through the porous material of the earplug. So as the cabin pressure changes, the sinus pressure in your head adjusts with it. You don't have the uncomfortable feeling of your ears simply closing up or releasing in extreme ways, because the earplug keeps that passageway open for the air to pass through as needed.

Here's a simple experiment you can do from home. When your friend is about to go on a trip, give them some of these ear plugs and ask them to use them on the flight. When they get home, you can test the results of your experiment by asking your friend if they had any pressure problems on the flight.

A slightly more expensive experiment is also possible. Buy a plane ticket and some earplugs. Use the earplugs on the flight and see if they behave as I've said. This version of the experiment is much more reliable than the other version, because it doesn't rely on second hand information.

Travel Checklist

I've gradually developed a spreadsheet listing the things I want to take with me when I travel. It's got about 40 things on it by now, and I keep adding to it. There are several categories of items, such as clothes, gadgets, and toiletries, and I really like having it around. It pretty much guarantees I won't be smacking my head at the airport, realizing how much worse the whole trip is going to be because I forgot to bring underwear or my kindle.

At the same time, there's absolutely no spontaneity to my travel. I never just throw stuff in a bag and take off. And there's no variety in what I take with me anymore. In the old days, I used to bring about 10 books wherever I went; now there's just the kindle. In the old days, I had no idea how many of each article of clothing to bring; now I know I need one per day of most things, and also some pants. In the old days, the airplane was randomly more or less comfortable based on whatever accidental materials happened to be in my pocket; now I always have earplugs, ibuprofen, lip balm, a nail file, and a sleep mask.

Sometimes I feel extremely proud of my little travel checklist, and I want to share it with others, and share the miracle of easy travel. In fact, really that's most of the time; but I also have to acknowledge that there's a whole aspect of adventure that's simply gone from my travel plans, possibly never to return.

Lena has stories about her family in which a momentous travel decision is made by her mother at the last possible moment, and the entire family has a completely unplanned adventure for days and weeks.

That's the opposite of my travel checklist.

So sometimes I feel like I want to make a momentous travel decision! Poof! Where'd Zack go? Oh, he's out on walkabout, you know, just felt like leaving one day, I expect he'll be back with more of those amazing adventure stories of his.....

Earplugs, ibuprofen, lip balm, a nail file, and a sleep mask.

So there's a bit of yin-yang tension in my travel checklist; highly appreciated, even interesting, but also quite clearly the wardrobe is just a wardrobe, and does not lead to Narnia.

When I was little, the possibility of Narnia existing in my wardrobe was utterly real to me. Unicorns and fairies were just around every corner, and psychic ability was an awesome possibility! I practiced frequently with decks of cards, or with a candle flame. Could I blow it out with just my mind? How many cards could I guess? Traveling on an airplane meant hurtling through the sky to an utterly unknown land of different customs and languages. What folly to think I could conceive the mysteries that awaited.

Earplugs, ibuprofen, lip balm, a nail file, and a sleep mask.

Together with "The Designated Mourner", "My Dinner With Andre" is my favorite film. At one point in the film, Wally tells Andre that he and his girlfriend recently got an electric blanket, and it's so great, and "such a marvelous advance over our old way of life," but he also wonders, "what is it doing to me?" He sleeps different, his dreams are different, and he's a little concerned. And Andre wholeheartedly agrees, saying he'd never use an electric blanket, it "separates people from reality in a very direct way."

And Wally replies, "I know, but... I would never give up my electric blanket, Andre, because New York is cold in the winter! Our apartment is cold!"

Now, the part of me that wins the argument is the part that says, "I'll have adventures anyway." And it's true! I always have wonderful adventures on my travels. Like this time, for instance. I'm heading out to Illinois to visit my oldest friend, Jesse. We've known each other all our lives, and nowadays we see each other every year. And in addition to my travel checklist, my visits with Jesse nearly always involve an activity checklist as well! This year we discussed our possible activities from time to time, for months before the visit, and then created a spreadsheet for them, with notes, and everything.

And yet, when I get there, everything will be completely spontaneous. It's very strange, but it's true. We have no idea how all of these items are going to pan out, or even if we'll get to all of them. And in almost all cases, each item is itself a big adventure. For example, this time around we're going to knock down the wall dividing his kitchen from the dining room, and put in a counter-type structure, so the two rooms will merge and have better lighting. He's been rendering 3D images of all the possible end results for the past year, and considering what materials to use, and I've weighed in on the various selections; but when it comes down to it, it's just going to be a huge adventure with an unknown outcome.

And I think my travel checklist is just the same. It might eliminate certain aspects of adventure, like having to sit through five hours of headache and noise before I get where I'm going; but with my earplugs and ibuprofen I typically arrive at my destination all set to embark on whatever madcap ideas the people I'm visiting and I can come up with.

Today, my flight leaves JFK airport at 3:05 PM, and the web site says it's still on schedule. If I take an hour leeway, that's 2:05; if it takes an hour to go through security, that's 1:05; if it takes an hour to get there by subway, that's 12:05; if it takes an hour to shower, dry off, and dress, that's 11:05. It's 7:47 now (no pun intended), so I've got over three hours to relax and have fun before I have to think about leaving.

Time to go relax and have fun! Wish me happy adventures!

Officier, Ordre des Palmes Académiques

Yesterday I got to go to the French Embassy to see my aunt Marie-Hélène Huet be honored by the French government.

It was very moving. She and my uncle Jay were there, and a lot of other people. It was actually a dual ceremony. The other recipient was Anne de Louvigny Stone, so about half the people were there to see her, and half to see my aunt. It was strange to mingle before and after the event, because I never knew if the person next to me was part of my circle or a complete stranger.

Everyone was dressed up in various stages of elegance. Some of the men wore a simple jacket and button down shirt; others, like me, wore a formal suit and tie. And some of the women wore elegant gowns, while others wore suits, and still others wore the nicest informal outfit they could put together.

As we gathered before the ceremony, the embassy staff weaved in and out of the crowd, with trays of wine and very well-put-together finger foods. There was a lot of drinking going on, and some folks were clearly well on their way. It was cute, and seemed very modern. A formal occasion that didn't take itself too seriously. Just a way for all of us to take the time to acknowledge the extraordinary people in our lives.

On my way into the embassy I'd seen Marie-Hélène and Jay at the front of the line, having their IDs checked. I was very happy to have made it. I'd been late getting ready, frantically overturning my apartment looking for some black socks, and then just by sheer chance finding an available cab at a time of day when cabs aren't usually available in my neighborhood. The driver was sympathetic to my plight, and got me to the place with a couple minutes to spare.

So I was especially happy to be arriving at the same time as the guest of honor - I hadn't missed anything, and I'd have no trouble finding them, since, there they were. I went up the very elegant staircase, and there was Jay. It was great to see him, and he greeted me really warmly. As a kid, I'd been to their wedding - the last of my mother's sisters to get married; and Jay was always this warm, wonderful guy. Sort of shy, but rising to social challenges, and always keeping a sense of irony about this kind of occasion.

But it turned out that on this day he was both happy and sad. His dog had just died a day or so before, and he was filled with grief. They've always had a dog, and I'm sure they will again. When I'd visited them, their dog had been big and playful, and a huge part of the family. We talked for a little while, but with so many friends and colleagues coming in, he had to continue greeting people.

Marie-Hélène was close by, wearing a great outfit with a red jacket, and looking perfect. She was like, "you wore a suit! I need a photo!" So Jay took a couple pictures of us - she said they needed proof to show the rest of the family. Traditionally I haven't worn suits much.

But, so, I got to congratulate her and tell her how proud I was of her, and how happy I was that she'd invited me. Aside from her husband Jay, I was the only member of our family to attend. So I felt very proud to represent all of us.

The pre-event mingling was slightly reminiscent of similar scenes on The West Wing. Strangers would meet, introduce themselves, identify their common connection or lack thereof, speak for a few minutes, and then mingle off in a different direction.

My style at this sort of event - when I'm not trying to act out - is still pretty forward. I went up to various people I had no connection to at all, and just started talking. Apparently the protocol is to first be introduced. So I made a couple of people slightly uncomfortable at first, until the conversation would get started and they'd relax a bit. It was a bit jarring for them, because they couldn't be sure if I was a complete nobody or a crown prince. They had to hedge their bets.

When it was time for the event, we all moved into another room that faced right onto the East edge of Central Park. The Sun was shining over the leaves and through the 20-foot high windows. I believe it was Kareen Rispal, the Cultural Counselor of the French Embassy, who addressed us. It was pretty amazing. She introduced my aunt first, with all sorts of anecdotes about her life, including a lot of stuff I hadn't known about her, like the fact that she'd taught at UC Berkeley once upon a time.

It's pretty amazing, the whole speechwriting profession. What kind of researchers had pulled together all this information and written it up into a really moving speech. I was sitting right in front, right next to Marie-Hélène, so I had a perfect view. Then everyone applauded for a really long time, and Marie-Hélène gave her acceptance speech, which I wish I could remember better, it was very beautiful and anecdotal. Later I asked her to send me a copy. Then after she spoke, everyone applauded again, and Kareen Rispal pinned the medal on her.

There followed another introduction for Anne de Louvigny Stone - a completely different story this time. While my aunt has been a professor and intellectual all her life, Anne de Louvigny Stone has been in business and finance, and a big success at Merrill Lynch now. Her award was the Chevalier, Ordre national du Merite. Another round of applause, and another acceptance speech and medal. Her speech was less poetic than my aunt's, but still heart-felt. Her husband and two kids were also in the front row across the central aisle, all dressed up and looking incredibly proud and moved. Her daughter was filming the whole event on her phone.

Afterwards there was more mingling. I got to talk with both Jay and Marie-Hélène again, and a few other people, including one of the friends of the other honoree who had himself been honored there years before. All the former honorees wore either the medal itself, or a small pin, or thread, in their lapel.

As I left, I was filled with a sense of pride in my aunt, and with sympathy for their dog dying, and also with a sense of accomplishment for myself. I hadn't spoiled the ceremony! I hadn't drawn a lot of attention to myself with crazy antics. I hadn't been late. I'd managed to dress appropriately.

I hopped in a cab down to Washington Square Park and walked home, enjoying wearing my formal attire in public. It was windy, so sometimes my legs would flap, and my tie would fly over my shoulder. No one took note of me or made comments. Part of me expected everyone I saw to know that I never usually dressed that way, but no one pointed it out to me. I stopped by Sacred Chow for some take-out, went home, and watched some TV while I ate.