In a way, this is an obligatory New Years Eve post, but it's also something I've been thinking about a lot lately. As 2010 draws to end, I've been hearing a number of people talking about goals - and not just abstract goals that they hope to one day accomplish, but rather sitting down at the beginning of a new year and putting on paper what you want to do and/or how you want to feel a year from now.
Christmas is always a good benchmark for me. It's easy to think back to where I was last Christmas, what I was feeling, and whether this year is different at all. But I've never actually done the prospective goal-setting exercise, which is interesting for me because I'm very goal-oriented, and I love lists. So this year, I have committed to putting together a list of goals for 2011. One immediately comes to mind, and I don't anticipate many of my readers will be surprised to hear it: A diet... for my wallet.
I have struggled with being responsible with my money for pretty much my entire life. I think it's a sense of entitlement combined with how I always feel like "I can make it work." I am notorious for trying to get too much done in too little time (as we speak, it's 10 am, and I'm supposed to pick up a friend at 10:30. I'm in pajamas on the couch with my oatmeal, and there's a foot of snow on the ground, and the roads are terrible. I should be leaving right now, but instead, I tell myself that I have time to finish this blog post, and I'll just get ready really quickly). In a way, it's the same with money. If I need something (I'm aware that "need" is a pretty ridiculous word to use here, and part of my goal is going to be distinguishing between "need" and "want," as basic as that sounds...) I usually buy it and tell myself that I'll just skimp for the rest of the month.
This year, my goal is to STICK TO MY BUDGET. And friends, let me tell you... it's a very VERY tight budget, but I'm kind of excited by the challenge. I have never felt in control of my finances, and with my extreme type-A personality, it has always been difficult for me to admit that. So, this year I am going to work extremely hard to actually do it (which also takes into account a small... very small....savings program).
There are many parts of my personality that I'm going to have to be aware of and fight against in this endeavor: I am not going to do things I can't afford. I am going to learn to say no, even when I know it's going to disappoint people. I am going to stop being hostess extraordinaire and accept that people will be fine just drinking wine. And along with that "saying no" goal, I am not going to let people pay for me just so I can go with. This is because one of two things will happen: (1) I won't be able to repay it, and I will feel guilty about it until I do, or (2) I will get wherever we decided to go and insist on picking up the tab for drinks to combat my guiltiness over accepting "charity."
A lot of this is about accepting my circumstances... which, honestly, aren't too bad of circumstances. I love my house. I love my car. I love my dog. I love my friends. I love running. I love writing. I love SVU reruns. I love wine at home with the girls. I love finding great deals. I love hunting for treasures at thrift stores. It's going to be OK... I just need to get it all under control.
A second, more non-tangible, goal also comes to mind immediately. I need to get over myself. I have been feeling a pull to start giving back somehow - to commit to community involvement and recognize that I am part of something much greater. Because it really REALLY is time for me to get ready and pick up my friend, I am going to end here. But because I clearly can't NOT (yes, an obvious double-negative) tell you about how my goal-achieving process is going, anticipate a few blog posts about my (hopefully) progress in 2011.
Here's to a happy happy New Year! Cheers!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Crippling Effect
It's been awhile since I ranted about the student loan crisis, and I've been generally feeling more accepting and at peace with my current situation...
...Until last week when CNBC aired a special College Debt Crisis and compared the state of the student loan economy to the mortgage crisis. I thought it was really well done and highlighted a number of the comments I've been making for a year now. For example, the way people just shrugged when I said I was taking on A LOT of debt to go to a private law school and responded "yeah, but you'll be a lawyer, so who cares." Or how the financial aid office never once told me the actual dollar value of the money I was taking out or what my monthly payments would look like upon graduation, but rather told me to sign on the dotted line and the money was deposited in my account. The CNBC special also called out the universities that are simply adding law schools as a way to make money. Law schools don't require the infrastructure (translation: cost) of medical schools or nursing schools, yet they allow for exorbitant tuition, thereby making a nice little profit off those still wanting to become lawyers in a saturated market. Furthermore, class sizes are steadily increasing, churning out more lawyers than the world knows what to do with.
I do want to make one thing clear. I fully recognize that my financial situation is, in a lot of ways, my own fault. Much like people who took out mortgages their salaries could not support, I think students have a responsibility to "stay within their means." Convinced I wanted to be a lawyer, I, for one, should NOT have gone to PRIVATE school, but rather attended the University of Wisconsin - a public school where I had in-state tuition. For this reason, I can appreciate that many people respond to this student loan crisis (and MY student loan crisis) less than sympathetically.
I have read a number of comments to articles on this topic by angry people spewing how they refuse to feel sorry for lawyers who made their beds and now are forced to lie in them. However... there is (at least one) very big difference between borrowers who bite off mortgages that are more than they can chew, and students who opt to take on the debt associated with a professional degree: A degree comes with a certain promise of success - a promise of a financial future that is able to withstand the debt acquired. No mortgage broker (no matter HOW corrupt the whole industry may be) tells a borrower that by taking a leap of faith and committing to a huge mortgage now, it will put him in a position to be able to not only pay off his mortgage on THAT house, but also buy a much larger house in the future. With student loans, the borrower is trusting that the education associated with the cost will pay for itself. Put simply, the reason the mortgage crisis is so appalling is that mortgage brokers took a retrospective look at a person's history and at his current situation and advised him that he could take on a level of debt that was impossible to maintain. Student loans lenders, on the other hand, look prospectively at the education to be acquired and then loan a large amount of money. However, what in the past seemed like hedging a safe bet on both sides of the transaction has suddenly become an extremely risky investment. And frankly, the Higher Education Act of 1997 screwed us all.
It's funny - I started this blog post angry at law schools for charging ME such a high tuition and angry with the lenders for just giving me that money, but as I wrote this, I almost had myself convinced that I made, if not the "right" decision, then at least a justified one. I suppose what angers me the most at this point (given that I've acquired the debt, I've deferred the debt, and I've accepted the fact that I will be paying for it for the rest of my life), is that people keep going to law school... in an economy where the legal market is more than saturated, and the government (and private lenders) just keep shelling out the money for what has become a very risky investment.
The CNBC special discusses the inflated (deflated?) statistics on student loan defaults. Currently, the percentage of defaults seems pretty low. However, what the number fails to take into account is the amount of people (present company included) who have put their loans into deferment and/or forbearance instead of defaulting on them. As reported by Student Loan Justice, a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing awareness about the student loan crisis:
We are confident that the true default rate across all federal student loans is between 25 and 33 percent (perhaps even greater)- clearly higher than described in the Chronicle article, and higher even than the default rate for sub-prime home loans, payday loans, credit cards, or any other lending instrument in this country. Students and their parents deserve to know this before making college attendance and financing decisions. The failure of government to warn citizens about this alarming default rate over the past decade has caused immeasurable harm. We hope the media will continue to pursue this line of investigation.
On both the public and the private side, this is a very big deal, but given that the federal government allows students to defer their loans (while still accruing interest) for up to three years (and thank God they do, otherwise yours truly would be shacked up with Mom and Pops), there is no way the default percentage accurately portrays the realistic number of people who simply cannot make their monthly minimum payments. What's worse, is law schools rely on this deflated statistic as justification for increasing class sizes and tuition, with the mentality being "Very few people can't pay back their loans after they graduate, so you will be fine taking on $200,000 to become a lawyer..." ...in a saturated legal market that can't actually afford to pay you anywhere close to the amount to support your investment.
Along these same lines, universities are tricking new students into thinking they are essentially guaranteed jobs after law school. There has been a great deal of outcry on this particular topic, but for those who don't know about it, law schools are allowed to consider ANY employment when calculating its percentage of graduates who find jobs after graduation. This means I could drive a bus or work at Starbucks (which, for the record, were both options I seriously considered post-graduation from law school. Starbucks for the health benefits and driving a bus to be considered a "public employee" and have my loans forgiven after ten years of public service), and the University of Denver would mark me down in the "employed" category and include me in the inflated statistic presented to prospective students to show that their law school results in employment, thereby justifying the cost of tuition.
I encourage anyone in my boat ...Actually the boat sank, so I mean anyone else who is frantically trying to keep their heads above water) to look into Student Loan Justice. If nothing else, it helps to know we are not alone.
...Until last week when CNBC aired a special College Debt Crisis and compared the state of the student loan economy to the mortgage crisis. I thought it was really well done and highlighted a number of the comments I've been making for a year now. For example, the way people just shrugged when I said I was taking on A LOT of debt to go to a private law school and responded "yeah, but you'll be a lawyer, so who cares." Or how the financial aid office never once told me the actual dollar value of the money I was taking out or what my monthly payments would look like upon graduation, but rather told me to sign on the dotted line and the money was deposited in my account. The CNBC special also called out the universities that are simply adding law schools as a way to make money. Law schools don't require the infrastructure (translation: cost) of medical schools or nursing schools, yet they allow for exorbitant tuition, thereby making a nice little profit off those still wanting to become lawyers in a saturated market. Furthermore, class sizes are steadily increasing, churning out more lawyers than the world knows what to do with.
I do want to make one thing clear. I fully recognize that my financial situation is, in a lot of ways, my own fault. Much like people who took out mortgages their salaries could not support, I think students have a responsibility to "stay within their means." Convinced I wanted to be a lawyer, I, for one, should NOT have gone to PRIVATE school, but rather attended the University of Wisconsin - a public school where I had in-state tuition. For this reason, I can appreciate that many people respond to this student loan crisis (and MY student loan crisis) less than sympathetically.
I have read a number of comments to articles on this topic by angry people spewing how they refuse to feel sorry for lawyers who made their beds and now are forced to lie in them. However... there is (at least one) very big difference between borrowers who bite off mortgages that are more than they can chew, and students who opt to take on the debt associated with a professional degree: A degree comes with a certain promise of success - a promise of a financial future that is able to withstand the debt acquired. No mortgage broker (no matter HOW corrupt the whole industry may be) tells a borrower that by taking a leap of faith and committing to a huge mortgage now, it will put him in a position to be able to not only pay off his mortgage on THAT house, but also buy a much larger house in the future. With student loans, the borrower is trusting that the education associated with the cost will pay for itself. Put simply, the reason the mortgage crisis is so appalling is that mortgage brokers took a retrospective look at a person's history and at his current situation and advised him that he could take on a level of debt that was impossible to maintain. Student loans lenders, on the other hand, look prospectively at the education to be acquired and then loan a large amount of money. However, what in the past seemed like hedging a safe bet on both sides of the transaction has suddenly become an extremely risky investment. And frankly, the Higher Education Act of 1997 screwed us all.
It's funny - I started this blog post angry at law schools for charging ME such a high tuition and angry with the lenders for just giving me that money, but as I wrote this, I almost had myself convinced that I made, if not the "right" decision, then at least a justified one. I suppose what angers me the most at this point (given that I've acquired the debt, I've deferred the debt, and I've accepted the fact that I will be paying for it for the rest of my life), is that people keep going to law school... in an economy where the legal market is more than saturated, and the government (and private lenders) just keep shelling out the money for what has become a very risky investment.
The CNBC special discusses the inflated (deflated?) statistics on student loan defaults. Currently, the percentage of defaults seems pretty low. However, what the number fails to take into account is the amount of people (present company included) who have put their loans into deferment and/or forbearance instead of defaulting on them. As reported by Student Loan Justice, a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing awareness about the student loan crisis:
We are confident that the true default rate across all federal student loans is between 25 and 33 percent (perhaps even greater)- clearly higher than described in the Chronicle article, and higher even than the default rate for sub-prime home loans, payday loans, credit cards, or any other lending instrument in this country. Students and their parents deserve to know this before making college attendance and financing decisions. The failure of government to warn citizens about this alarming default rate over the past decade has caused immeasurable harm. We hope the media will continue to pursue this line of investigation.
On both the public and the private side, this is a very big deal, but given that the federal government allows students to defer their loans (while still accruing interest) for up to three years (and thank God they do, otherwise yours truly would be shacked up with Mom and Pops), there is no way the default percentage accurately portrays the realistic number of people who simply cannot make their monthly minimum payments. What's worse, is law schools rely on this deflated statistic as justification for increasing class sizes and tuition, with the mentality being "Very few people can't pay back their loans after they graduate, so you will be fine taking on $200,000 to become a lawyer..." ...in a saturated legal market that can't actually afford to pay you anywhere close to the amount to support your investment.
Along these same lines, universities are tricking new students into thinking they are essentially guaranteed jobs after law school. There has been a great deal of outcry on this particular topic, but for those who don't know about it, law schools are allowed to consider ANY employment when calculating its percentage of graduates who find jobs after graduation. This means I could drive a bus or work at Starbucks (which, for the record, were both options I seriously considered post-graduation from law school. Starbucks for the health benefits and driving a bus to be considered a "public employee" and have my loans forgiven after ten years of public service), and the University of Denver would mark me down in the "employed" category and include me in the inflated statistic presented to prospective students to show that their law school results in employment, thereby justifying the cost of tuition.
I encourage anyone in my boat ...Actually the boat sank, so I mean anyone else who is frantically trying to keep their heads above water) to look into Student Loan Justice. If nothing else, it helps to know we are not alone.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
there's a cafe for that...
 |
| Really? |
Toyko Cat Cafe (and no, it's not a band...).
I find it funny how much the cyberworld is obsessed with cats. Seems you can find a cat doing or saying just about anything on the internet these days. Why? Is it that cat people are inherently strange and the internet gives them a forum to express their strangeness? My parents have a cat. Actually, it's my sister's cat, and I got it for her (which those who know me would tell you was quite the feat of selflessness, as I generally can't stand cats). Emma is a decent cat - very fluffy and pretty. My dad really likes Emma... always talking to her and leaving milk out for her. I think you could say he's a cat person. But I would NEVER picture him hanging out in one of these cafes.
Maybe dog people will just never understand...
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
WTF
There have been some recent family jokes as a result of my extremely conservative aunt using "WTF" in a family-wide (grandparents included) email because she thought it meant "With The Family." Amazing in and of itself.
That back story makes the new CIA task force created to investigate the Wikileaks scandals that much funnier. Get the scoop here:
Wikileaks Task Force
I love that this has to be intentional. Like the parents who name their kids Chris Christenson or Paul Paulson (or in the case of a different aunt's PASTOR: Richard Dick)... I mean, how could you NOT know? ...which in this particular case makes it that much more awesome. Well done CIA.
That back story makes the new CIA task force created to investigate the Wikileaks scandals that much funnier. Get the scoop here: Wikileaks Task Force
I love that this has to be intentional. Like the parents who name their kids Chris Christenson or Paul Paulson (or in the case of a different aunt's PASTOR: Richard Dick)... I mean, how could you NOT know? ...which in this particular case makes it that much more awesome. Well done CIA.
Monday, December 27, 2010
i'm a runner
This video is almost as funny as the "So You Want To Go To Law School" clip. And, yes, I fully recognize that I skipped a Christmas post. This is only because I was having such a wonderful time with my family and friends, entertaining them with my wit and personality in person, that I did not have time to put together a holiday muse or a rant for my cyberspace audience.
I do have about five blog posts started, and I will make it my pre-New Year's Resolution to get those finished and posted before the end of 2010. On a related note, I genuinely wonder what the New Year's Eve glasses are going to look like this year... I imagine it's going to be pretty tough with three opaque numbers.
Anyway, I really hope I'm not this guy. And if I ever have been or I ever am in the future...someone slap me.
I do have about five blog posts started, and I will make it my pre-New Year's Resolution to get those finished and posted before the end of 2010. On a related note, I genuinely wonder what the New Year's Eve glasses are going to look like this year... I imagine it's going to be pretty tough with three opaque numbers.
Anyway, I really hope I'm not this guy. And if I ever have been or I ever am in the future...someone slap me.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
welcome to society
Last night, I finally watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Yes, "finally" and "No, I had never seen it before."Recently, a couple co-workers put into writing what I have known about myself for a very long time. I haven't seen ANY movies. No, but really... like, none. It was so appalling to my witty co-workers that they decided to make a list of the "classic" movies every human (especially funny humans) must see. The following is the list, which I have committed to work through over the next few years. And again, no, I promise, I have NOT seen any of the following movies, and no I do not have an explanation for how that is even possible.
Fast Times at RidgeMont High
Caddyshack
Stripes
Fletch
Fletch Lives
Singles
National Lampoons Vacation
Breakfast Club
St. Elmo's Fire
Pretty In Pink
Some Kind of Wonderful
About Last Night
Raising Arizona
Animal House
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Reservoir Dogs
Scarface
Godfather
Godfather II
Amadeus
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
Night Shift
Less Than Zero
The Sure Thing
Gross Pointe Blank
Beverly Hills Cop
The Untouchables
Running Scared
48 Hours
Midnight Run
Blues Brothers
Trading Places
Risky Business
The Outsiders
Monday, December 20, 2010
daily self-affirmations
I need to channel a little bit of this girl this month. What should have been a month filled with holiday season optimism was unfortunately filled with what seemed like a lot of failures. However, perception is everything. I absolutely adore this girl, and I am going to start doing a similar ritual in my bathroom mirror in the mornings.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
In-Justice, Part I: Scalia
I am beginning to think perhaps it's me. Like one of those dogs that just has a scent that makes other dogs attack him. I must give off an anti-Justice scent (note the capital "J"). Stay with me...
About three years ago, I was out to a late lunch with my now-boyfriend, whose parents own a couple restaurants in Denver. His dad called to tell us that Justice Scalia had come into one of the downtown restaurants for a late lunch and encouraged us to stop by. We grabbed our check and started making our way to the restaurant, talking quickly about what we could ask Scalia and desperately trying to remember some of his biggest (but not controversial) Supreme Court decisions.
As second year law students, the prospect of meeting a United States Supreme Court Justice was almost unfathomable. Needless to say, we were nervous.
We walked into the restaurant, which was almost empty given that it was 3 pm, and were immediately greeted by secret service agents standing at the bar. We explained we were second year law students and that my boyfriend's father was the owner of the restaurant, and we had heard from him that Justice Scalia was in for lunch (undoubtedly on his way to a fly fishing trip in the mountains). We asked if we could go over and introduce ourselves. The secret service officers had mixed opinions. One immediately said no while the other immediately said "of course." They looked at each other and each did a halfway nod, mulling it over. Finally one spoke, "You can go over there and introduce yourselves, but don't stay too long because he hasn't eaten yet, and he get very cranky when he's hungry." We laughed nervously in response, wondering what exactly they meant by "cranky."
He was reading a fly fishing book as we approached the table and lowered it only slightly in acknowledgment of our presence. Just as we began introducing ourselves, his waitress exited the kitchen with his burger and fries. We moved to try to get out of her way, as she moved to avoid us and Justice Scalia moved to put his book down and make room for his plate. As she reached the plate toward the table, Scalia knocked over his large beer with his book, drenching his lunch, his table, and his lap. His head snapped up and he glared at us with gritted teeth. I don't even remember if we told him our names.
The secret service agents were immediately on the scene, yelling at us to get away from the table. "WHO LET THOSE KIDS COME OVER HERE AND RUIN MY LUNCH?!?!" He barked at them, as we backed away from the table apologizing profusely to him, the agents, the waitress and anyone else who would listen.
We retreated to the bar, dumbfounded and shaking our heads at each other, asking over and over, How did that HAPPEN?!? After getting him set up at a clean table with a fresh beer and a new lunch on its way, the secret service agents came back to the bar. We couldn't apologize enough. They were nice and took pity on two terrified law students who had just witnessed first hand the wrath they dealt with every day. They took the blame (which I suppose they're paid to do), telling us it was their fault for letting us go over there in the first place. When we asked what we could do to fix it, they told us in no uncertain terms that the best thing we could do would be to leave and hope that his second attempt at a burger and fries goes more smoothly.
I decided that day to become a transactional attorney, thereby totally and completely eliminating any chance that I would ever have to argue in front of the United States Supreme Court.
About three years ago, I was out to a late lunch with my now-boyfriend, whose parents own a couple restaurants in Denver. His dad called to tell us that Justice Scalia had come into one of the downtown restaurants for a late lunch and encouraged us to stop by. We grabbed our check and started making our way to the restaurant, talking quickly about what we could ask Scalia and desperately trying to remember some of his biggest (but not controversial) Supreme Court decisions.
As second year law students, the prospect of meeting a United States Supreme Court Justice was almost unfathomable. Needless to say, we were nervous.
We walked into the restaurant, which was almost empty given that it was 3 pm, and were immediately greeted by secret service agents standing at the bar. We explained we were second year law students and that my boyfriend's father was the owner of the restaurant, and we had heard from him that Justice Scalia was in for lunch (undoubtedly on his way to a fly fishing trip in the mountains). We asked if we could go over and introduce ourselves. The secret service officers had mixed opinions. One immediately said no while the other immediately said "of course." They looked at each other and each did a halfway nod, mulling it over. Finally one spoke, "You can go over there and introduce yourselves, but don't stay too long because he hasn't eaten yet, and he get very cranky when he's hungry." We laughed nervously in response, wondering what exactly they meant by "cranky."
He was reading a fly fishing book as we approached the table and lowered it only slightly in acknowledgment of our presence. Just as we began introducing ourselves, his waitress exited the kitchen with his burger and fries. We moved to try to get out of her way, as she moved to avoid us and Justice Scalia moved to put his book down and make room for his plate. As she reached the plate toward the table, Scalia knocked over his large beer with his book, drenching his lunch, his table, and his lap. His head snapped up and he glared at us with gritted teeth. I don't even remember if we told him our names.
The secret service agents were immediately on the scene, yelling at us to get away from the table. "WHO LET THOSE KIDS COME OVER HERE AND RUIN MY LUNCH?!?!" He barked at them, as we backed away from the table apologizing profusely to him, the agents, the waitress and anyone else who would listen.
We retreated to the bar, dumbfounded and shaking our heads at each other, asking over and over, How did that HAPPEN?!? After getting him set up at a clean table with a fresh beer and a new lunch on its way, the secret service agents came back to the bar. We couldn't apologize enough. They were nice and took pity on two terrified law students who had just witnessed first hand the wrath they dealt with every day. They took the blame (which I suppose they're paid to do), telling us it was their fault for letting us go over there in the first place. When we asked what we could do to fix it, they told us in no uncertain terms that the best thing we could do would be to leave and hope that his second attempt at a burger and fries goes more smoothly.
I decided that day to become a transactional attorney, thereby totally and completely eliminating any chance that I would ever have to argue in front of the United States Supreme Court.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
my cake is confetti.
**Disclaimer: As much as I want it to be... this genius rant is not mine (although I did touch up the grammar a bit... I couldn't help myself). Credit: Caitlin, who would probably then credit yoga instructor, Scott. Regardless, I laughed so hard when I read this, I was sweating. Well done.
The other day I overheard two people talking and one said to the other, "She wants to have her cake and eat it too." As goofy colloquialisms go, this one... (ahem)... takes the cake.
[Brilliant. I love it already. See how he did that? Awesome!]
I don't mean to split hairs, but isn't the purpose of having a cake, in fact, to eat it? Are cakes commonly used for other purposes of which I am unaware? Have you ever bought a cake, or made one yourself just to have around? Maybe to keep on a shelf somewhere like a knick-knack, or put out in the yard instead of a garden gnome?
[Garden gnome!]
Cakes do not make good paperweights, bookends, or plant holders. They are made of sugar, flour, eggs, et cetera. And since this combination of ingredients is commonly found to be delicious, eating your cake seems like a pretty appropriate response when you have one.
The problem with the expression is the frequent implication that someone is being greedy. If the saying were, "having your cake and eating someone else's," I would tend to agree. Or maybe, "having your cake and buying another one." That would work too. That's greedy. But we are talking about YOUR cake here, and cake is also a metaphor for anything that is yours and brings you pleasure
Life isn't just for learning, it's for enjoying. What is the cake in your life, and are you enjoying it? It feels great to share our cake with friends, eating on plates with forks and napkins. But admit it. Sometimes we also eat it with our bare hands, alone, standing up in the kitchen, licking frosting off our fingers and celebrating the taste of something sweet.
Don't feel guilty about enjoying your cake. It's yours and you probably earned it.
The other day I overheard two people talking and one said to the other, "She wants to have her cake and eat it too." As goofy colloquialisms go, this one... (ahem)... takes the cake.
[Brilliant. I love it already. See how he did that? Awesome!]
I don't mean to split hairs, but isn't the purpose of having a cake, in fact, to eat it? Are cakes commonly used for other purposes of which I am unaware? Have you ever bought a cake, or made one yourself just to have around? Maybe to keep on a shelf somewhere like a knick-knack, or put out in the yard instead of a garden gnome?
[Garden gnome!]
Cakes do not make good paperweights, bookends, or plant holders. They are made of sugar, flour, eggs, et cetera. And since this combination of ingredients is commonly found to be delicious, eating your cake seems like a pretty appropriate response when you have one.
The problem with the expression is the frequent implication that someone is being greedy. If the saying were, "having your cake and eating someone else's," I would tend to agree. Or maybe, "having your cake and buying another one." That would work too. That's greedy. But we are talking about YOUR cake here, and cake is also a metaphor for anything that is yours and brings you pleasure
Life isn't just for learning, it's for enjoying. What is the cake in your life, and are you enjoying it? It feels great to share our cake with friends, eating on plates with forks and napkins. But admit it. Sometimes we also eat it with our bare hands, alone, standing up in the kitchen, licking frosting off our fingers and celebrating the taste of something sweet.
Don't feel guilty about enjoying your cake. It's yours and you probably earned it.
Esch, timing is everything.
So my tongue-in-cheek post yesterday about how Wisconsinites resort to guns to deal with tough times really (REALLY) came back to haunt me this morning when I heard the news story about the school hostage situation at a high school in Marinette, Wisconsin (near Green Bay, for reference). The sophomore, who was apparently well-liked and had a number of friends, held a classroom full of kids and a teacher, who had been watching a movie in class, hostage at gunpoint for over 5 hours. He shot the movie projector, a concept which all of a sudden doesn't seem so funny today. He let many of the kids go before turning the gun on himself, and he is now in critical condition. Read the full story here.
In light of this recent news, I considered taking down yesterday's post. I figured I had posted it late enough that not many people had read it yet, and maybe I could save some face by pretending I never made the comments that I did. Now obviously, a guy shooting his TV because he doesn't like the way Sarah Palin's daughter dances is a lot funnier than a school shooting. But there was more to the TV shooter story that I conveniently left out. The guy pointed the gun at his wife. Ugh.
I'm not proud of my post yesterday after all. In a vacuum, a guy shooting his TV or his lawn mower, or even a movie projector is funny... but when the "real life" aspect of it all gets thrown in the mix, it really is just sad.
I apologize to my readers and to the citizens of my home state for being so callous.
In light of this recent news, I considered taking down yesterday's post. I figured I had posted it late enough that not many people had read it yet, and maybe I could save some face by pretending I never made the comments that I did. Now obviously, a guy shooting his TV because he doesn't like the way Sarah Palin's daughter dances is a lot funnier than a school shooting. But there was more to the TV shooter story that I conveniently left out. The guy pointed the gun at his wife. Ugh.
I'm not proud of my post yesterday after all. In a vacuum, a guy shooting his TV or his lawn mower, or even a movie projector is funny... but when the "real life" aspect of it all gets thrown in the mix, it really is just sad.
I apologize to my readers and to the citizens of my home state for being so callous.
Monday, November 29, 2010
At Least You're Not This Guy
My apologies for not giving everyone something to peruse during the idle (digestive) moments of a holiday weekend. I hope that even the most bitter of folks found something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. And, for those Thanksgiving grinches who didn't think they had anything to be thankful for... I give you the first in a series dedicated to making you feel better about your life, called "At Least You're Not This Guy."
This article makes me cringe, despite my reluctant concurrence with the guy's motive (...or "trigger" if you will). The full complaint by the man's wife can be found on The Smoking Gun (it's three pages... so make sure you click through all of them...). I recognize that my brief blogging hiatus may translate to me relaying old news. So for those who already got their hands on Us Weekly and read anything other than the 5 page spread on Princess Catherine (I admire her name switch), my sincerest apologies.
As one who also gets fired up (ha) about politics and also often feels helpless when confronted with the mess we've made, I've often thrown up my hands and copped out with a response like "well, I guess I just have to trust that the system works." But this man... Steven Get Your Gun... has made quite a name for himself (and consequently, I bet this guy is pissed).
As if this all isn't weird enough, apparently this is not a strange reaction for Wisconsinites during frustrating times. Take, for another example, this guy. My favorite part about this particular article, is the note at the bottom that any warranty this guy might otherwise be entitled to, is void as a result of the incident. Fantastic.
So no matter how bad you think you might have it... no matter how bad you find the current political state of our country ... (say it with me) At Least You're Not This Guy.
This article makes me cringe, despite my reluctant concurrence with the guy's motive (...or "trigger" if you will). The full complaint by the man's wife can be found on The Smoking Gun (it's three pages... so make sure you click through all of them...). I recognize that my brief blogging hiatus may translate to me relaying old news. So for those who already got their hands on Us Weekly and read anything other than the 5 page spread on Princess Catherine (I admire her name switch), my sincerest apologies.
As one who also gets fired up (ha) about politics and also often feels helpless when confronted with the mess we've made, I've often thrown up my hands and copped out with a response like "well, I guess I just have to trust that the system works." But this man... Steven Get Your Gun... has made quite a name for himself (and consequently, I bet this guy is pissed).
As if this all isn't weird enough, apparently this is not a strange reaction for Wisconsinites during frustrating times. Take, for another example, this guy. My favorite part about this particular article, is the note at the bottom that any warranty this guy might otherwise be entitled to, is void as a result of the incident. Fantastic.
So no matter how bad you think you might have it... no matter how bad you find the current political state of our country ... (say it with me) At Least You're Not This Guy.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
the international itch
I have a large bulletin board above my desk in my office. It's filled with pictures of family and friends, cards I've received, race medals, a Wisconsin license plate, and my favorite poem in the world. I see people who enter my office for the first time display one of two reactions. The first is awe, as they scan the many places I've been and silently applaud me for putting all the pictures up in an office. The second reaction is disgust and disapproval, as they roll their eyes and think this isn't a dorm room. Regardless of the reaction, the pictures make me happy, and the poem makes me happier. Actually it makes me nod, smile and muse a little.
Its called "Where We Are," by Gerald Locklin, and it really summarizes... me:
I envy those
who live in two places:
new york, say, and london;
l.a. and paris;
hawaii and switzerland.
There is always the anticipation
of the change, the chance that what is wrong
is the result of where you are. I have
always loved both the freshness of
arriving and the relief of leaving. With
two homes every move would be a homecoming.
I am not even considering the weather, hot
or cold, dry or wet: I am talking about hope.
I love it. I can't say that enough. You know when you read something and you think "oh my gosh, that's me." That happened when I first read this poem. I immediately copied it down, cut it out and pasted it right above my computer. But, because I know it's there, I rarely take the time to actually read it. I read it this week... it was much needed.
It's funny to me how many of us still have the itch to go somewhere else for awhile. We didn't leave that behind in college. Last weekend I got to spend the day with my law school girl friends. We don't get to see each other very often, and it's downright rare when we can get (almost) everyone in the same place for more than an hour at a time. Shockingly, we all managed to have last Sunday free. We spent the day hiking with our dogs and then sitting around the kitchen table catching up. I was shocked at how many of us said the exact same thing, "I still want to go abroad for a little bit. Not long - maybe a year or so - but I feel like I need to do that soon. I want to come back to Colorado and be here for the rest of my life, but I just have this itch to go while I still can."
But then again, this poem rings true. We forget the homesick element. Do I like the idea of living internationally more than I actually like it? When I lived in Spain, one of my most homesick days ever was Thanksgiving. There are no pilgrims in Spain... and certainly no stuffing with gravy. Eat your heart out America.
Its called "Where We Are," by Gerald Locklin, and it really summarizes... me:
I envy those
who live in two places:
new york, say, and london;
l.a. and paris;
hawaii and switzerland.
There is always the anticipation
of the change, the chance that what is wrong
is the result of where you are. I have
always loved both the freshness of
arriving and the relief of leaving. With
two homes every move would be a homecoming.
I am not even considering the weather, hot
or cold, dry or wet: I am talking about hope.
I love it. I can't say that enough. You know when you read something and you think "oh my gosh, that's me." That happened when I first read this poem. I immediately copied it down, cut it out and pasted it right above my computer. But, because I know it's there, I rarely take the time to actually read it. I read it this week... it was much needed.
It's funny to me how many of us still have the itch to go somewhere else for awhile. We didn't leave that behind in college. Last weekend I got to spend the day with my law school girl friends. We don't get to see each other very often, and it's downright rare when we can get (almost) everyone in the same place for more than an hour at a time. Shockingly, we all managed to have last Sunday free. We spent the day hiking with our dogs and then sitting around the kitchen table catching up. I was shocked at how many of us said the exact same thing, "I still want to go abroad for a little bit. Not long - maybe a year or so - but I feel like I need to do that soon. I want to come back to Colorado and be here for the rest of my life, but I just have this itch to go while I still can."
But then again, this poem rings true. We forget the homesick element. Do I like the idea of living internationally more than I actually like it? When I lived in Spain, one of my most homesick days ever was Thanksgiving. There are no pilgrims in Spain... and certainly no stuffing with gravy. Eat your heart out America.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
words to the wise
Angst is the greatest catalyst for writer productivity. This technically "short" week has been dragging on, not because I'm really looking forward to turkey, but more because I'm really looking forward to writing. My life feels so up in the air lately that I'm really hoping that writing about someone else's, albeit fabricated, problems will be therapeutic.
I stumbled across this today, and it made me smile (which was pretty tough to do today), so I thought I would share it with y'all:
Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a
great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
De-accession euphemisms.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.
~William Safire, "Great Rules of Writing"
I stumbled across this today, and it made me smile (which was pretty tough to do today), so I thought I would share it with y'all:
Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a
great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
De-accession euphemisms.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.
~William Safire, "Great Rules of Writing"
Monday, November 22, 2010
short and sweet...
...like the Thanksgiving work week.
This article makes my blood boil.
This article makes my heart hurt.
... and the culmination of them makes me desperately want to move back to Argentina, even if there's no Thanksgiving in Argentina.
This article makes my blood boil.
This article makes my heart hurt.
... and the culmination of them makes me desperately want to move back to Argentina, even if there's no Thanksgiving in Argentina.
Friday, November 19, 2010
crown us kings and queens of self-righteousness
While I primarily practice corporate law, I have recently been branching out into litigation as a result of my love for writing. Before this recent switch in practice areas, I had fulfilled my passion for writing by editing other people's pleadings. I can appreciate how horrid that sounds to most people, but I actually enjoy it. And I don't just edit pleadings, I also edit emails... from professional to personal, pride-saving emails. I am sometimes referred to as the "Ghostwriter" for my friends.
My boyfriend is a lawyer. He is also Irish. And he is a litigator (a "good" litigator... both in the sense that he works for the good guys-defending doctors and lawyers, and in that he is good at what he does). Sometimes, however, his tone needs a little work. He asked me to look over one of his motions and "edit for tone." I chewed him out for coming across as pompous. He was surprised by my critique and said he had worked really hard to "tone" it down (pun intended). I chalked it up to the Irish in him.
This week, I received an assignment to draft my very own motion. This is big news for me, and I'm excited to have the opportunity to do some persuasive writing. As is very much my style, I waited until the last minute to start writing, getting all of the "little things" out of the way so I could really focus all of my attention on the task at hand. Naturally, my assignment was kind of a "stretch" argument (which is probably why it landed on my desk... Oh, let her give it a shot. It's not like we're going to win, but she can't really lose it for us either.). When the argument was first presented to me, I was worried about having to persuasively make an argument that I thought sucked. But... the more research I did and the more I thought about it, I found myself thinking that maybe we were in the right after all. The "maybe we were right" turned to "we're definitely right," which turned to "how dare they sue my client over this!!! How DARE they!!!" As the hours went on, case law flowed, and my arguments developed, I became more and more convinced that we were right... that I was right... and that this opposing attorney (who had such seemingly winning ideas when I initially read his brief) was ... well, nothing short of an idiot. I wrote and wrote and wrote, and by the end, I felt really good about my efforts. In my mind, we had obviously won and no reasonable judge could rule against us. I set my draft down and took a two hour break (to go buy myself something off the sale rack at Banana Republic because I. Had. Earned it.).
When I sat back down to begin the revisions process... I was blown away. I hardly recognized myself in that pleading. Who was this person?!?! I could hear the author rolling her eyes throughout the entire piece. I had broken all of my own cardinal sins of legal drafting... the same ones I had harped on my Irish boyfriend for only days earlier. Don't use words like "obviously" or "clearly" because you're over-selling it and it's not persuasive. Do not act like opposing counsel got his law degree yesterday because (well, first off, chances are he's way more experienced than you, and...) the court really doesn't like that. And the big overarching theme: Be nice. You can be nice and still be right. I could not believe that I was struggling with this...
I immediately emailed my boyfriend, who suddenly didn't seem so Irish, and apologized for making him out to be a mean ogre. We laughed about our stubbornness and self-righteousness... about how funny it is that what had seemed like a toilet-argument two days earlier had suddenly become the clearest, most common-sense thing I had ever heard. Maybe the self-righteousness derives from the fact that for two days, or ten days, or two months, or a year, that toilet-argument is our life. We eat, sleep and breath that argument. We defend that argument all the way to the end. And by that end, it doesn't even matter if the argument was right in the first place. By the end, we're so beyond the technicalities and the law school elements, that all that matters is whether we won or not.
I can see how litigious and self-serving that all sounded. But at the end of the day, I believe this is why the system (generally speaking) works. You take a bunch of self-righteous, stubborn and competitive people and you pit them against each other to solve other people's problems. The clients' problems become the lawyers' problems and when you combine that with the lawyers' pride... Fireworks. It really is genius in a way... the design of it all. But really, I do think we would further the profession so much more if all of us could just rein it in a little bit. We can still "zealously" represent our clients (I heard a rumor that they removed "zealously" from the ethics rules because lawyers were a little too "zealous"), but we can also be respectful about it.
Funny enough, above, I initially wrote "reign" it in, as opposed to "rein" it in. Obviously "reign" being associated with royalty (There's a 'g' in both reign and king). Oh the grammatical irony....
I will take this opportunity to conclude with a note that I don't think I have an ethical violation in disclosing my commentary on my experience in this case. Having said that, I also feel compelled to tell my readers that you won't find my pleading out there in legal cyberspace. Ghostwriter strikes again.
My boyfriend is a lawyer. He is also Irish. And he is a litigator (a "good" litigator... both in the sense that he works for the good guys-defending doctors and lawyers, and in that he is good at what he does). Sometimes, however, his tone needs a little work. He asked me to look over one of his motions and "edit for tone." I chewed him out for coming across as pompous. He was surprised by my critique and said he had worked really hard to "tone" it down (pun intended). I chalked it up to the Irish in him.
This week, I received an assignment to draft my very own motion. This is big news for me, and I'm excited to have the opportunity to do some persuasive writing. As is very much my style, I waited until the last minute to start writing, getting all of the "little things" out of the way so I could really focus all of my attention on the task at hand. Naturally, my assignment was kind of a "stretch" argument (which is probably why it landed on my desk... Oh, let her give it a shot. It's not like we're going to win, but she can't really lose it for us either.). When the argument was first presented to me, I was worried about having to persuasively make an argument that I thought sucked. But... the more research I did and the more I thought about it, I found myself thinking that maybe we were in the right after all. The "maybe we were right" turned to "we're definitely right," which turned to "how dare they sue my client over this!!! How DARE they!!!" As the hours went on, case law flowed, and my arguments developed, I became more and more convinced that we were right... that I was right... and that this opposing attorney (who had such seemingly winning ideas when I initially read his brief) was ... well, nothing short of an idiot. I wrote and wrote and wrote, and by the end, I felt really good about my efforts. In my mind, we had obviously won and no reasonable judge could rule against us. I set my draft down and took a two hour break (to go buy myself something off the sale rack at Banana Republic because I. Had. Earned it.).
When I sat back down to begin the revisions process... I was blown away. I hardly recognized myself in that pleading. Who was this person?!?! I could hear the author rolling her eyes throughout the entire piece. I had broken all of my own cardinal sins of legal drafting... the same ones I had harped on my Irish boyfriend for only days earlier. Don't use words like "obviously" or "clearly" because you're over-selling it and it's not persuasive. Do not act like opposing counsel got his law degree yesterday because (well, first off, chances are he's way more experienced than you, and...) the court really doesn't like that. And the big overarching theme: Be nice. You can be nice and still be right. I could not believe that I was struggling with this...
I immediately emailed my boyfriend, who suddenly didn't seem so Irish, and apologized for making him out to be a mean ogre. We laughed about our stubbornness and self-righteousness... about how funny it is that what had seemed like a toilet-argument two days earlier had suddenly become the clearest, most common-sense thing I had ever heard. Maybe the self-righteousness derives from the fact that for two days, or ten days, or two months, or a year, that toilet-argument is our life. We eat, sleep and breath that argument. We defend that argument all the way to the end. And by that end, it doesn't even matter if the argument was right in the first place. By the end, we're so beyond the technicalities and the law school elements, that all that matters is whether we won or not.
I can see how litigious and self-serving that all sounded. But at the end of the day, I believe this is why the system (generally speaking) works. You take a bunch of self-righteous, stubborn and competitive people and you pit them against each other to solve other people's problems. The clients' problems become the lawyers' problems and when you combine that with the lawyers' pride... Fireworks. It really is genius in a way... the design of it all. But really, I do think we would further the profession so much more if all of us could just rein it in a little bit. We can still "zealously" represent our clients (I heard a rumor that they removed "zealously" from the ethics rules because lawyers were a little too "zealous"), but we can also be respectful about it.
Funny enough, above, I initially wrote "reign" it in, as opposed to "rein" it in. Obviously "reign" being associated with royalty (There's a 'g' in both reign and king). Oh the grammatical irony....
I will take this opportunity to conclude with a note that I don't think I have an ethical violation in disclosing my commentary on my experience in this case. Having said that, I also feel compelled to tell my readers that you won't find my pleading out there in legal cyberspace. Ghostwriter strikes again.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
legal women: intimidation, inspiration and insidiation?
I'm flattered. My next Docket assignment is to write an article on the changes within the Colorado Supreme Court. The article involves interviewing retiring Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey. I love her story... and she's from Wisco. As a starting place for my article, one of the Docket editors referred me to this article: Two Harvard Women: 1965 to Today. I am blown away by CJ Mullarkey's story and the change of women in law in only 45 short years. It seems as women we came, we saw, we conquered, and now... for some of us... if we had it to do over again, we wouldn't choose the same route.
There is a great deal of social commentary I want to make on this subject, but I hesitate to do so. The thing about blogging is that it's the author's, and only the author's, thoughts and opinions... but this can be a double edge sword. On the one hand, you can say whatever you want to say because it's YOUR blog. On the other hand, you better really believe what you write because people are going to read it and form their own opinions about you (ok, fine... about me) as a person, a woman, and a lawyer.
I grew up as a total tomboy, with all the neighborhood boys including me in their games of football, soccer, World War II, cowboys and Indians, and kick the can. As a result, I had the attitude that "whatever boys could do, I could do too (and sometimes better)." I joined the boys' little league and played first base. Generally, it went smoothly, with the exception of the first game of my first season when I wore hot pink underwear underneath those see-through white baseball pants. When I got up to bat and attempted my best imitation of a proper baseball batting stance, sticking my butt as far out as possible, my entire team of boys started pointing and laughing. Fortunately, my quick-thinking Mom saved the day, loudly proclaiming to the other moms, "We just came from the pool and were in SUCH a hurry that Nicki had to put her baseball uniform on over her swimsuit!!" (Yikes. Thanks Mom).
This "created equal" attitude lasted me through high school and into college, where I always had a number of guy friends and would jump at any and every opportunity to prove that I was just as good as they were at whatever the sport (ahem, beer pong) might be. Not only do I love to win, but I always felt I had to prove that being a girl had nothing to do it.
Almost immediately into my legal career, I began meeting women who had struggled with being a female lawyers. Much like CJ Mullarkey, these women struck me as inspirational frontierswomen, blazing the path for the rest of us and proving that gender had nothing to do with being a good lawyer. Interestingly, however, these trailblazing women are the same people who tell law clerks that they need to wear pantyhose in the middle of summer if they want to earn the respect of their male counterparts. These are the women who, despite having proved themselves (and then some) in the legal field, still insist on signing their names with "Attorney at Law" or "Esq." after it, so that male attorneys won't think that they're legal secretaries. And don't misunderstand this commentary. I don't blame them in the least! It's hard to let your guard down when you've been on the defensive for your entire career, needing to prove yourself at every turn.
To a certain extent, these women are probably right to be guarded. Without a doubt, there are those male attorneys who probably think they're better lawyers and people, just because they're men. I know that at some point, I will be told that my legal opinion isn't as valuable as a man's... But for once in my life, that doesn't really bother me. I don't have that driving urge to keep up with the boys and prove that girl lawyers are just as good as boy lawyers. I don't feel like I'm staring across the beer pong table at two frat boys who think I'm a worthless contender just because I'm a woman. It's strange, and I can't figure out where that competitive edge went. Is it me? Is it the profession? ... or have I just not yet been subjected to the gender inequalities that I know still exist?
Surprisingly, I also find myself more and more envious of women who have decided to raise a family and adjusted their professional lives accordingly. While in no way should this comment be construed to mean that I am itching to start a family or I am quitting the practice of law, but I find that I stress about "womanly duties." I freak out if I don't get to the grocery store or if we run out of oatmeal. I like to have a clean house. I like cooking dinner at night. I like relaxing on the couch with a glass of wine. All of a sudden, I feel 40... and I'm surprisingly OK with it. My girl friends from law school are talking about babies and part-time jobs, and suddenly my former judgmental response to that kind of talk (i.e. "Why would ANYONE spend all that time and money to become a lawyer, and then quit to raise a family?? How stupid.") has turned into a response of respect mixed with a little bit of envy ("Wow, raising a family and working from home sounds really nice...Good for those women."). I don't know if this change in perspective makes me more or less of a feminist...
At this point, I just need to post this. I started writing this almost a week ago and have sat on it... debating whether or not to even post it. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I'm not positive if this is how I feel generally speaking... but it's definitely how I feel some days. Then there are nights like last night, where I attended a meeting for the Civic Center Conservancy at the unbelievable home of one of its board members and couldn't stop thinking to myself that the DINK (dual-income-no-kids) lifestyle isn't too shabby after all. I guess all of this is to say, I have a much more open mind about women lawyers who choose the family path. Not only is it an open mind, but it's respect... a lot of respect.
So I suppose in summary, I have two thoughts: (1) maybe a traditional female role isn't something to turn my nose up at... and some days, it sounds downright awesome; and (2) boys will be boys, and I don't know when the change happened, but recently, I'm totally ok with girls being girls.
There is a great deal of social commentary I want to make on this subject, but I hesitate to do so. The thing about blogging is that it's the author's, and only the author's, thoughts and opinions... but this can be a double edge sword. On the one hand, you can say whatever you want to say because it's YOUR blog. On the other hand, you better really believe what you write because people are going to read it and form their own opinions about you (ok, fine... about me) as a person, a woman, and a lawyer.
I grew up as a total tomboy, with all the neighborhood boys including me in their games of football, soccer, World War II, cowboys and Indians, and kick the can. As a result, I had the attitude that "whatever boys could do, I could do too (and sometimes better)." I joined the boys' little league and played first base. Generally, it went smoothly, with the exception of the first game of my first season when I wore hot pink underwear underneath those see-through white baseball pants. When I got up to bat and attempted my best imitation of a proper baseball batting stance, sticking my butt as far out as possible, my entire team of boys started pointing and laughing. Fortunately, my quick-thinking Mom saved the day, loudly proclaiming to the other moms, "We just came from the pool and were in SUCH a hurry that Nicki had to put her baseball uniform on over her swimsuit!!" (Yikes. Thanks Mom).This "created equal" attitude lasted me through high school and into college, where I always had a number of guy friends and would jump at any and every opportunity to prove that I was just as good as they were at whatever the sport (ahem, beer pong) might be. Not only do I love to win, but I always felt I had to prove that being a girl had nothing to do it.
Almost immediately into my legal career, I began meeting women who had struggled with being a female lawyers. Much like CJ Mullarkey, these women struck me as inspirational frontierswomen, blazing the path for the rest of us and proving that gender had nothing to do with being a good lawyer. Interestingly, however, these trailblazing women are the same people who tell law clerks that they need to wear pantyhose in the middle of summer if they want to earn the respect of their male counterparts. These are the women who, despite having proved themselves (and then some) in the legal field, still insist on signing their names with "Attorney at Law" or "Esq." after it, so that male attorneys won't think that they're legal secretaries. And don't misunderstand this commentary. I don't blame them in the least! It's hard to let your guard down when you've been on the defensive for your entire career, needing to prove yourself at every turn.
To a certain extent, these women are probably right to be guarded. Without a doubt, there are those male attorneys who probably think they're better lawyers and people, just because they're men. I know that at some point, I will be told that my legal opinion isn't as valuable as a man's... But for once in my life, that doesn't really bother me. I don't have that driving urge to keep up with the boys and prove that girl lawyers are just as good as boy lawyers. I don't feel like I'm staring across the beer pong table at two frat boys who think I'm a worthless contender just because I'm a woman. It's strange, and I can't figure out where that competitive edge went. Is it me? Is it the profession? ... or have I just not yet been subjected to the gender inequalities that I know still exist?
Surprisingly, I also find myself more and more envious of women who have decided to raise a family and adjusted their professional lives accordingly. While in no way should this comment be construed to mean that I am itching to start a family or I am quitting the practice of law, but I find that I stress about "womanly duties." I freak out if I don't get to the grocery store or if we run out of oatmeal. I like to have a clean house. I like cooking dinner at night. I like relaxing on the couch with a glass of wine. All of a sudden, I feel 40... and I'm surprisingly OK with it. My girl friends from law school are talking about babies and part-time jobs, and suddenly my former judgmental response to that kind of talk (i.e. "Why would ANYONE spend all that time and money to become a lawyer, and then quit to raise a family?? How stupid.") has turned into a response of respect mixed with a little bit of envy ("Wow, raising a family and working from home sounds really nice...Good for those women."). I don't know if this change in perspective makes me more or less of a feminist...
At this point, I just need to post this. I started writing this almost a week ago and have sat on it... debating whether or not to even post it. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I'm not positive if this is how I feel generally speaking... but it's definitely how I feel some days. Then there are nights like last night, where I attended a meeting for the Civic Center Conservancy at the unbelievable home of one of its board members and couldn't stop thinking to myself that the DINK (dual-income-no-kids) lifestyle isn't too shabby after all. I guess all of this is to say, I have a much more open mind about women lawyers who choose the family path. Not only is it an open mind, but it's respect... a lot of respect.
So I suppose in summary, I have two thoughts: (1) maybe a traditional female role isn't something to turn my nose up at... and some days, it sounds downright awesome; and (2) boys will be boys, and I don't know when the change happened, but recently, I'm totally ok with girls being girls.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
living the dream.
Credit goes out to Andres on this one. This website is great: Bitter Lawyer . I think it gives Above The Law a run for their money (and speaking of money, Bitter Lawyer is posting ads... That means they're making money off ranting about how much it sucks to be a lawyer. Amazing.).
Before you do anything else, watch the "Typo" video, and for those of you who wonder what it is exactly that I do (Mom...), this video pretty much sums it up. I don't know if it's because the lead character looks like Ron Livingston or because their due diligence review reminded me of TPS reports, but this short video clip is quite reminiscent of Office Space, minus the "flare," plus "BMWs." Awesome... just awesome.
Make sure you hit up their "About Us" section. When I read it, I immediately inhaled sharply and heard a voice in my head say, "It's like they know you..."
Well done Bitter Lawyers, well done.
Make sure you hit up their "About Us" section. When I read it, I immediately inhaled sharply and heard a voice in my head say, "It's like they know you..."
Well done Bitter Lawyers, well done.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Lamebook v. Facebook
Thanks to a tip from Above The Law, I stumbled on this little gem: Lamebook Sues Facebook. Here is a copy of the Complaint:
Lamebook sues Facebook
I have to say, I am impressed with the gumption of the little guy to go out and hire an attorney. I can imagine it would be scary to get a barrage of emails from the social media tycoon and its legal servants. Good for these guys for entering the pre-emptive strike.
I am really interested in the way in which the law will be forced to change to accommodate, not only the internet, but specifically, social media. Also, as much as I got rocked by the two Bar Exam essays on the First Amendment, I really do find it fascinating. It will also be very interested to see how the internet shapes future intellectual property law. My final exam question in my Copyright class was on a website's use of a youtube broadcast of a football game. It was copyright infringement within copyright infringement (think "case within a case")... Or maybe it wasn't (which would explain why I got a B in that class). Anyway, having spent a great deal of time working with both the Copyright Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office over the last couple years, I'm a bit concerned that the system might be too antiquated to deal with the IP legal issues raised by social media.
The long and short of it is social media has changed the way we do everything... including practice law. I recently heard a story (translation: this is total hearsay) about a civil theft case, where the plaintiff was seeking damages as a result of extreme emotional distress and the claim that she had become a hermit, afraid to leave her house, as a result of the incident. The defense attorney's legal assistant signed onto Facebook, searched the alleged victim, and pulled up her Facebook page, showing that she had been anything but a hermit since the incident. Not only had she had been out partying regularly, but she had posted all of the dirty details on Facebook for the whole world (and her opposing attorney to see). Ouch.
I can only imagine how Facebook is changing family law.
Back to the Lamebook/Facebook Complaint for a minute... I hope Lamebook wins on the assertion that their website is merely a parody of Facebook. I personally find that argument genius (and true).
Notably, I do recognize the issue of reproducing a Complaint on my blog. And I did ask myself if the Complaint constitutes protected information. Clearly, I concluded that it did not :)
Lamebook sues Facebook
I have to say, I am impressed with the gumption of the little guy to go out and hire an attorney. I can imagine it would be scary to get a barrage of emails from the social media tycoon and its legal servants. Good for these guys for entering the pre-emptive strike.
I am really interested in the way in which the law will be forced to change to accommodate, not only the internet, but specifically, social media. Also, as much as I got rocked by the two Bar Exam essays on the First Amendment, I really do find it fascinating. It will also be very interested to see how the internet shapes future intellectual property law. My final exam question in my Copyright class was on a website's use of a youtube broadcast of a football game. It was copyright infringement within copyright infringement (think "case within a case")... Or maybe it wasn't (which would explain why I got a B in that class). Anyway, having spent a great deal of time working with both the Copyright Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office over the last couple years, I'm a bit concerned that the system might be too antiquated to deal with the IP legal issues raised by social media.
The long and short of it is social media has changed the way we do everything... including practice law. I recently heard a story (translation: this is total hearsay) about a civil theft case, where the plaintiff was seeking damages as a result of extreme emotional distress and the claim that she had become a hermit, afraid to leave her house, as a result of the incident. The defense attorney's legal assistant signed onto Facebook, searched the alleged victim, and pulled up her Facebook page, showing that she had been anything but a hermit since the incident. Not only had she had been out partying regularly, but she had posted all of the dirty details on Facebook for the whole world (and her opposing attorney to see). Ouch.
I can only imagine how Facebook is changing family law.
Back to the Lamebook/Facebook Complaint for a minute... I hope Lamebook wins on the assertion that their website is merely a parody of Facebook. I personally find that argument genius (and true).
Notably, I do recognize the issue of reproducing a Complaint on my blog. And I did ask myself if the Complaint constitutes protected information. Clearly, I concluded that it did not :)
Sunday, November 7, 2010
hurry up and wait
I've had some hesitation lately in really diving into this book. I think part of it is my way of doing things: procrastination then determination (I wait until the absolute last minute and then sit at my desk for days on end until it's done). I know this book isn't going to happen like that, and it's scary, so I put off writing more than the few pages I have. I think another part of it is this weather... It was 80 degrees yesterday! In November! In Colorado! (Yes, I am blaming the weather for my lack of chapters. I recognize this is a bit ridiculous).
There is nothing more frustrating than someone making you hurry up and wait. Therefore, I formally apologize to my audience.
As a token of my appreciation for your patience. Here is draft one (I repeat, draft ONE) of the Prologue. Comments, suggestions, criticisms, encouragement, acknowledgments, and any and all other comments are welcomed!
There is nothing more frustrating than someone making you hurry up and wait. Therefore, I formally apologize to my audience.
As a token of my appreciation for your patience. Here is draft one (I repeat, draft ONE) of the Prologue. Comments, suggestions, criticisms, encouragement, acknowledgments, and any and all other comments are welcomed!
***
PROLOGUE“Does it matter?” Grace asked, wiping mustard from her mouth with her napkin, and, in the same movement catching the tear that rolled down her cheek. She had gotten really good at that over the last few months. Incorporating “trauma-management,” as she called it, with the mundane parts of everyday life. Hours earlier she had been on her knees, heaving into the toilet in the office bathroom and resting her cheek on the cool plastic toilet seat as if that were the most natural action in the world. After catching her breath and checking her watch, she swished with the bottle of mouthwash she kept in her purse, swung by the kitchen to refresh her coffee and returned to her desk in time for her 9:30 conference call with corporate.
“Of course it matters G,” Anna responded. “I think at this point it’s the only thing that matters.” Anna was that friend, the kind who wouldn’t let Grace get away with a cop-out remark like that, no matter how terrible she was feeling.
Grace sighed loudly, begging to be convinced. Anna took the bait. “You loved Sam. No one could ever say you didn’t, but you didn’t want to go back. You didn’t want - ”
“Didn’t want what Anna? My life back? Our life back? How do you know that? How do you even know if I knew that?” Grace sputtered, now angry that Anna had suggested lunch in the first place. She didn’t want to have this conversation again. She was exhausted, and although she probably knew deep down that her friend was right, she didn’t know how many more times she could hear it.
Grace stood up and quickly gathered her purse, leaving her half-eaten sandwich on the plate. “I don’t want to be angry about this,” she said. “Honestly, I’m not even angry. I just can’t do this right now.” She turned and walked out of the patio, and, with absolutely no idea what the total was on their tab, handed a fifty dollar bill to the waitress and told her to keep the rest. Anna made no effort to follow her and instead motioned to the waitress for a box for the other half of Grace’s sandwich. She would take it over to her house that night when she went to apologize. It seemed to Anna she had been doing a lot of that lately.
***
Friday, November 5, 2010
the right to be heard
Yesterday, I had my second criminal hearing ever (Yes, Mom, this time I introduced myself as Nicole). I don't know if calling it a "hearing;" however, is particularly accurate. I was more "seen and not heard."
I spent hours prepping for all the what-ifs and talking to friends who do this stuff everyday. I did yoga breathing in the car to make sure I was calm enough to deliver my argument. My i's were dotted and my t's were crossed. My client even showed up on time. The DA was just enough of a jerk to make me feel like a legitimate lawyer, but not such a jerk that I felt like crying in the bathroom.
Our case was called, a hearing to expunge a juvenile record of a good kid who got his life together and now is in college. Our magistrate was incredibly nice, and the DA didn't object to our petition for expungement. The judge asked my client what he was doing with his life nowadays. When he replied that he was attending college, she asked him what he planned to do with his degree.
His response? "Go to law school probably. Change the world."
It took everything I had not to snort on the record.
I spent hours prepping for all the what-ifs and talking to friends who do this stuff everyday. I did yoga breathing in the car to make sure I was calm enough to deliver my argument. My i's were dotted and my t's were crossed. My client even showed up on time. The DA was just enough of a jerk to make me feel like a legitimate lawyer, but not such a jerk that I felt like crying in the bathroom.Our case was called, a hearing to expunge a juvenile record of a good kid who got his life together and now is in college. Our magistrate was incredibly nice, and the DA didn't object to our petition for expungement. The judge asked my client what he was doing with his life nowadays. When he replied that he was attending college, she asked him what he planned to do with his degree.
His response? "Go to law school probably. Change the world."
It took everything I had not to snort on the record.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
three totally unrelated articles
...two that make me smile, and one that makes me sad.
Rather than me providing the commentary, I thought I would put the articles out there and open it up to readers for comments. I recognize that this is a lot like moving to a new city and trying to throw a party. I'm taking a pretty big risk that no one will show up :)
Inspiring:
Good For This Mom!
This Is Why We Run ...and run and run
Disappointing:
I'm Sure He'll Be "Fein"...but it still sucks.
Rather than me providing the commentary, I thought I would put the articles out there and open it up to readers for comments. I recognize that this is a lot like moving to a new city and trying to throw a party. I'm taking a pretty big risk that no one will show up :)
Inspiring:
Good For This Mom!
This Is Why We Run ...and run and run
Disappointing:
I'm Sure He'll Be "Fein"...but it still sucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)