I am generally a very moral person with a healthy guilt complex. I don't like to play the system because it feels like cheating. Every time I've done something a little dishonest... I find that it's not worth the guilt I feel afterwards.
At dinner on Saturday night with a bunch of friends, our waitress forgot to charge us for our pitcher of margaritas. The table was divided on whether or not we should mention it. People threw out multiple reasons for not saying anything, "It's a $30 pitcher... that's SO overpriced." "Their margs aren't even that good anyway." "Who cares, we'll just tip the waitress a little extra." In the end, those in favor of fessing up won out, and I thought our waitress was going to cry. She thanked us profusely and told us that the cost of the pitcher otherwise would have come out of her tips for the night. Whether or not that was true, I knew we had done the right thing, and importantly for me personally, I knew I wouldn't later have that feeling in my stomach that I had cheated...
...Like I felt the time my sister borrowed my hair straightener and loved it, so I bought her the exact same one for Christmas, only to have mine burn out the following week. I used the receipt from the purchase of my sister's hair straightener to "trade" mine in, acting like it was the new one that had burned out and needed to be replaced. I felt awful about that... and I still do. I can hardly believe I let myself do that, and I wish I had just sucked it up and spent the $85 to buy a new one. Saving $85 wasn't worth the guilt I felt after the fact. Even confessing this on the internet doesn't have the repentance effect I was hoping for and just leaves me (now publicly) embarrassed about my behavior.
All of this being said, HOWEVER... I have no qualms with using Accord and Satisfaction to "pay" my parking tickets and advising my friends to do the same. For the non-lawyers out there, A&S is a legal doctrine that basically says, if someone cashes a check for less than the amount of the debt (essentially, the "accord"), with the words "Payment In Full" written in the memo section, the debt is considered satisfied (the "satisfaction"), and the creditor won't have any recourse to come back later and say you owe them the balance. It's a beautiful thing. There is some legal reasoning behind this, all having to do with the concepts of offer, acceptance and count-offer... but I'll save everyone (and myself) the brain damage of walking through it.
I almost never pay the full amount of my parking tickets. I will pay $10 on a $25 ticket and $15-$20 on a $50 ticket (except for that time I got a parking ticket in the church parking lot... I paid the full amount on that one). Then I incessantly check my bank account and wait for them to cash it. My bank has that digital picture of the check thing... which allows to me see my cashed check, with that "payment in full" written in the memo box, and it makes me smile.
I don't know if it's the amount of money I borrowed to go to law school, or the little practical effect my everyday practice actually has on my own life, or the fact that I despise parking tickets... but for some reason, I get a certain "satisfaction" (obvious pun intended here) from discharging at least 50% of my parking ticket obligation.
Any time my legal degree equates to satisfaction of a debt, it's a good day.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
"chicken" is to "egg" as "law license" is to "loan repayment"
I can hardly handle this article: Law Grad with No Plan to Repay Debt Fails Character and Fitness Mandate. My blood is boiling.
A law graduate, working part time at the public defenders office for $12 an hour, was denied a law license for failure to meet the "character and fitness" requirement because he has no "plan" to pay back the $200,000 he owes on his loans. You have GOT to be kidding me.
Here is the entire Opinion:
Ohio legal opinion
Now, I understand that people are saying... "But wait, this guy failed the Bar 3 times before this?? Hm... that's suspect." Also, the Court faults him for merely working part-time and uses that as partial justification for finding him "morally unfit." Excuse me? This man has been studying for the Bar Exam(s) for the last 2.5 years, while also working part-time. We all know how studying for the Bar is a full-time job. We've all seen the statistics that say if you're working while studying for the Bar, your chances of passing decrease tremendously. Lots of us took out even MORE loans to be able to support ourselves while we studied for the Bar full-time. This guy, however, is working part-time at the PD's office (which...let's be honest... can't really be "part-time." I've seen friends work "part-time" for the Public Defender, and it was, at the very least, all consuming) while he studies for the Bar. And I can only imagine that the stress increases tenfold with every Bar failure.
So you mean to tell me, Ohio Board of Commissioners... that, in order to start paying on his loans, you want this guy, who has already demonstrated how effing DIFFICULT the Bar Exam is for him (and it wasn't a cake walk for the rest of us either) to take on a full-time job, thereby cutting the amount of time he has to study for the next Bar exam in half? And that will then fix his character and make him "fit to be a lawyer"? REALLY??
Not to mention, the Opinion seems to turn its nose up at the fact that he has a 9 year old daughter and lives with her and her mother (translation: they're not married, but they have a child together and live together), and the baby-momma essentially supports him. Um, yeah... Of course she does. You think he supports himself AND pays to apply for and take the Bar Exam three times (that's not a cheap process folks) on his $12 an hour part-time job? And wait... is the panel actually making a left-handed comment about how he hasn't bought a ring and thrown a wedding. I mean, reallly?
Furthermore, the Opinion scoffs at his suggestion that perhaps he would file for Bankruptcy (aka, demonstrate a "plan") by noting: "...the panel observed that the only debt that could be distinguished in a bankruptcy proceeding would be the applicant's $16,500 in consumer debt, as the applicant's $170,000 in student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Noting that the applicant has no plan or ability to pay these debts, the panel recommended that his application be denied..."
I would also like to mention here that it's pretty darn impressive that this guy ONLY has 16 grand in consumer debt. Do the math. He works part-time, so that means 20 hours a week for $12/hour... so he makes $240/week before taxes... and let's call it $900/month after taxes. Now spread the 16.5 K in credit card debt over those three years. That means he has been living on his "salary" of $10,800 a year + about 5.5 K in credit card debt each year. So $16,300. He has been living on $16,300 a year while working for the Public Defender (which is not like working at Barnes and Noble for $12/hour people... there's a little bit more stress involved. Lives are at stake... not to mention, like for all of us in our first couple years of practice... there's A LOT to learn.) And he studied for the Bar... not once, but three times. For those who aren't lawyers, when you're studying for the Bar Exam, every meal is take-out or delivery. There are impulsive purchases that can only be explained by the insane amount of stress. I spent 15 K in four months while studying for the Bar Exam and applying for jobs (no, I'm not proud of that). Granted, that included rent, study courses, a flight home and meals... but I'm just saying, $16.5 K over three years? Hey Board of Commissioners...You have to have a PLAN to sustain that kind of lifestyle.
If I'm reading this correctly, the message that is being conveyed here is: Sorry, but you don't have a "plan" to pay back your debt. We can tell you don't have a plan because you haven't taken on a full-time, well-paying job. We don't care that you're not a licensed attorney yet. In fact, we're not going to let you become a licensed attorney, which (in theory) would facilitate the process of getting a well-paying (ok, better than $12/hour) job, until you've started paying some of your debt. Oh, you have a family to support? Well from the looks of it, they're supporting you (and you're not even married). Oh, and that thought you had about filing for BK... yeah, that's not going to help your cause either. So basically, dude, your only option is to get a better job. Only you'll be competing with all those other unemployed lawyers (who actually passed the Bar Exam and have a license). So... yeah, good luck with that.
This article is just another example of how pompous, self-righteous and out-of-touch the American Bar Association (both in the sense of the actual association and the conglomerate of lawyers who have been practicing for the last 5 years and sit on "Boards of Commissioners" and law school faculties) is. Get over yourselves. People are STRUGGLING, and now, you have the audacity to say that their inability to pay back their student loans not only means they should be denied a license to practice law, but you're also going to use it to attack their CHARACTER and MORAL FITNESS?
I only thought I was angry before...
A law graduate, working part time at the public defenders office for $12 an hour, was denied a law license for failure to meet the "character and fitness" requirement because he has no "plan" to pay back the $200,000 he owes on his loans. You have GOT to be kidding me.
Here is the entire Opinion:
Ohio legal opinion
Now, I understand that people are saying... "But wait, this guy failed the Bar 3 times before this?? Hm... that's suspect." Also, the Court faults him for merely working part-time and uses that as partial justification for finding him "morally unfit." Excuse me? This man has been studying for the Bar Exam(s) for the last 2.5 years, while also working part-time. We all know how studying for the Bar is a full-time job. We've all seen the statistics that say if you're working while studying for the Bar, your chances of passing decrease tremendously. Lots of us took out even MORE loans to be able to support ourselves while we studied for the Bar full-time. This guy, however, is working part-time at the PD's office (which...let's be honest... can't really be "part-time." I've seen friends work "part-time" for the Public Defender, and it was, at the very least, all consuming) while he studies for the Bar. And I can only imagine that the stress increases tenfold with every Bar failure.
So you mean to tell me, Ohio Board of Commissioners... that, in order to start paying on his loans, you want this guy, who has already demonstrated how effing DIFFICULT the Bar Exam is for him (and it wasn't a cake walk for the rest of us either) to take on a full-time job, thereby cutting the amount of time he has to study for the next Bar exam in half? And that will then fix his character and make him "fit to be a lawyer"? REALLY??
Not to mention, the Opinion seems to turn its nose up at the fact that he has a 9 year old daughter and lives with her and her mother (translation: they're not married, but they have a child together and live together), and the baby-momma essentially supports him. Um, yeah... Of course she does. You think he supports himself AND pays to apply for and take the Bar Exam three times (that's not a cheap process folks) on his $12 an hour part-time job? And wait... is the panel actually making a left-handed comment about how he hasn't bought a ring and thrown a wedding. I mean, reallly?
Furthermore, the Opinion scoffs at his suggestion that perhaps he would file for Bankruptcy (aka, demonstrate a "plan") by noting: "...the panel observed that the only debt that could be distinguished in a bankruptcy proceeding would be the applicant's $16,500 in consumer debt, as the applicant's $170,000 in student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Noting that the applicant has no plan or ability to pay these debts, the panel recommended that his application be denied..."
I would also like to mention here that it's pretty darn impressive that this guy ONLY has 16 grand in consumer debt. Do the math. He works part-time, so that means 20 hours a week for $12/hour... so he makes $240/week before taxes... and let's call it $900/month after taxes. Now spread the 16.5 K in credit card debt over those three years. That means he has been living on his "salary" of $10,800 a year + about 5.5 K in credit card debt each year. So $16,300. He has been living on $16,300 a year while working for the Public Defender (which is not like working at Barnes and Noble for $12/hour people... there's a little bit more stress involved. Lives are at stake... not to mention, like for all of us in our first couple years of practice... there's A LOT to learn.) And he studied for the Bar... not once, but three times. For those who aren't lawyers, when you're studying for the Bar Exam, every meal is take-out or delivery. There are impulsive purchases that can only be explained by the insane amount of stress. I spent 15 K in four months while studying for the Bar Exam and applying for jobs (no, I'm not proud of that). Granted, that included rent, study courses, a flight home and meals... but I'm just saying, $16.5 K over three years? Hey Board of Commissioners...You have to have a PLAN to sustain that kind of lifestyle.
If I'm reading this correctly, the message that is being conveyed here is: Sorry, but you don't have a "plan" to pay back your debt. We can tell you don't have a plan because you haven't taken on a full-time, well-paying job. We don't care that you're not a licensed attorney yet. In fact, we're not going to let you become a licensed attorney, which (in theory) would facilitate the process of getting a well-paying (ok, better than $12/hour) job, until you've started paying some of your debt. Oh, you have a family to support? Well from the looks of it, they're supporting you (and you're not even married). Oh, and that thought you had about filing for BK... yeah, that's not going to help your cause either. So basically, dude, your only option is to get a better job. Only you'll be competing with all those other unemployed lawyers (who actually passed the Bar Exam and have a license). So... yeah, good luck with that.
This article is just another example of how pompous, self-righteous and out-of-touch the American Bar Association (both in the sense of the actual association and the conglomerate of lawyers who have been practicing for the last 5 years and sit on "Boards of Commissioners" and law school faculties) is. Get over yourselves. People are STRUGGLING, and now, you have the audacity to say that their inability to pay back their student loans not only means they should be denied a license to practice law, but you're also going to use it to attack their CHARACTER and MORAL FITNESS?
I only thought I was angry before...
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Grati-Tuesday: James Yuill
On this Grati-Tuesday, I am reminded of how true the phrase "music is the soundtrack to our lives" is for me. I have always loved music, but especially lyrics (it must be the writer in me). I memorized Ice Ice Baby in the third grade (and still sing it occasionally at karaoke). I also distinctly remember sitting at my desk at home when I was in about eighth grade writing out all the lyrics to "Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It."
Well, I should back up... First, I called the radio station every day after school for about two weeks asking them to play Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It on the radio so that I could tape it. It's not that they didn't play the song... they played it A LOT, but I was never at home, in front of my stereo with the tape all cued up. So, after I finally got that puppy on tape, I sat down, pen and paper in hand, and wrote out the lyrics. It went a little like this: Listen. Stop the tape. Frantically scribble lyrics. Rewind the tape. Listen again. Check lyrics. Rewind the tape. Listen again while reading lyrics. It took hours. Especially that pig latin part. Phew. But again, makes for some good karaoke at 27...
My best friend and I did the same thing during our freshman year of college with "We Didn't Start The Fire." Only this time, we had used Napster to illegally download the song and burned it to a CD (which probably took an hour or so in and of itself). Then played the song and paused and scribbled lyrics and played and paused and scribbled.
Perhaps the We Didn't Start The Fire lyrics are a little more impressive than Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It... but somewhere along the way (probably around the same time I started hanging out in coffee shops and writing in my journal) it became less about knowing all the lyrics and more about what the lyrcis actually said. It turned out these people had gone through some of the same "life" stuff I was going through and they wrote a song about it! It was an incredible realization, and I quickly became obsessed. Instead of deciding whether I liked a song based solely on its musicality (which of course, is also incredibly important), I would wait until I had heard the song enough times to know a majority of the lyrics, and then decide. Same with artists. If the artist had enough lyrically poignant songs, I became a fan.
And so it went.
Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I have songs or albums that remind me of a certain period of my life. It makes listening to Pandora or my iPod on random somewhat nostalgic, and it's necessary every now and then to remind myself where I've been and how I got here.
James Yuill's album Movement In A Storm has been my soundtrack lately. Not only do his lyrics give me goosebumps, but his sounds is also incredible. Whether I'm running, driving, working, cooking... it's all I've been listening to, and I love it.
Today, I am grateful for James Yuill.
Well, I should back up... First, I called the radio station every day after school for about two weeks asking them to play Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It on the radio so that I could tape it. It's not that they didn't play the song... they played it A LOT, but I was never at home, in front of my stereo with the tape all cued up. So, after I finally got that puppy on tape, I sat down, pen and paper in hand, and wrote out the lyrics. It went a little like this: Listen. Stop the tape. Frantically scribble lyrics. Rewind the tape. Listen again. Check lyrics. Rewind the tape. Listen again while reading lyrics. It took hours. Especially that pig latin part. Phew. But again, makes for some good karaoke at 27...
My best friend and I did the same thing during our freshman year of college with "We Didn't Start The Fire." Only this time, we had used Napster to illegally download the song and burned it to a CD (which probably took an hour or so in and of itself). Then played the song and paused and scribbled lyrics and played and paused and scribbled. Perhaps the We Didn't Start The Fire lyrics are a little more impressive than Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It... but somewhere along the way (probably around the same time I started hanging out in coffee shops and writing in my journal) it became less about knowing all the lyrics and more about what the lyrcis actually said. It turned out these people had gone through some of the same "life" stuff I was going through and they wrote a song about it! It was an incredible realization, and I quickly became obsessed. Instead of deciding whether I liked a song based solely on its musicality (which of course, is also incredibly important), I would wait until I had heard the song enough times to know a majority of the lyrics, and then decide. Same with artists. If the artist had enough lyrically poignant songs, I became a fan.
And so it went.
Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I have songs or albums that remind me of a certain period of my life. It makes listening to Pandora or my iPod on random somewhat nostalgic, and it's necessary every now and then to remind myself where I've been and how I got here.
James Yuill's album Movement In A Storm has been my soundtrack lately. Not only do his lyrics give me goosebumps, but his sounds is also incredible. Whether I'm running, driving, working, cooking... it's all I've been listening to, and I love it. Today, I am grateful for James Yuill.
Monday, January 10, 2011
and it's not like it's GOOD pie!!!!
I have to admit, I'm happy to see that people are spreading the truth about law school. The New York Times just published this great article (of course "great" only in the sense that it's honest) about why going to law school is a bad (BAD!) decision.
My assistant just told me she started going to DU to get her undergraduate degree in IT and then plans on attending law school. I literally got tears in my eyes and pleaded with her not to do it. She said what everybody says (what I said!): "But my family thinks I'll make a really good lawyer. I want to be a lawyer. It looks really interesting."
I told her about my debt and about how really, at the end of the day, it's just a job. I don't think I convinced her. Even the big round numbers didn't scare her like they should. And then I found myself shout-whispering at her through clenched teeth in the middle of our office about ABSOLUTELY NOT going to law school and going into IT instead. How there's actually money in IT. Stability in IT. Great hours in IT. Please, PLEASE... for your husband... and your kids.... and your SANITY... DO. NOT. GO. TO. LAW. SCHOOL.
Maybe it's because I worked all weekend and stayed up until 2 am last night trying to finish a Motion that the partner is going to take one look at and rip apart because he "thinks I'm worthless as an attorney. No, not me personally, because personally, he likes me, but as a second year attorney, I'm generally worthless because everyone knows you don't know anything as an attorney until you've been out for at least 5 years." (Direct quote). Or maybe it's because I have 8 weeks until I find out whether the Federal government is willing to defer my loan payments for another year. Or maybe it's just because, from a financial perspective, going to law school is a big effing mistake.
I have been saying what Steven Greenberg said:
Steven Greenberger of DePaul recommends a mandatory warning — a bit like the labels on cigarette packs — that every student taking the LSAT, the prelaw standardized test, must read.
"Something like ‘Law school tuition is expensive and here is what the actual cost will be, the job market is uncertain and you should carefully consider whether you want to pursue this degree,’ ” he says. “And it should be made absolutely clear to students, that if they sign up for X amount of debt, their monthly nut will be X in three years.”
- New York Times, Is Law School A Losing Game? (Consider that a rhetorical question).
Finally, a well-read publication has something to say about it. Thank you, New York Times. Thank you for not shout-whispering, but rather screaming at the top of your lungs that those people out there considering law school need to pick some other form of masochism. I just wish they hadn't concluded the article with a quote from some kid who has $250 K in debt, but lives in a brownstone for free (because THAT happens to the average person) and just ignores the lenders that are beating down his door, about how we live in the age of bail-outs, and he figures his student loan debt will just go away at some point.
The reality is... if you're the type with your mind made up about going to law school... if you think you were BORN to be a lawyer... if your family tells you that you'd make a really good lawyer, and you can see the numbers but somehow think they don't apply to you... Then chances are, you're just as Type-A as the rest of us... Which, sorry for you, also means that having a quarter of a million dollars in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt and graduating law school (and going through the Bar Exam... don't even get me started), just to wind up (if you're LUCKY) with a job (any job) that pays you less than you were making before you went to law school will drive you crazy. No really... it will drive you crazy because there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
If you or someone you love is considering law school, please feel free to email me at therecoveringlawyer@gmail.com, and I will happily talk them out of making a terrible, terrible mistake.
My assistant just told me she started going to DU to get her undergraduate degree in IT and then plans on attending law school. I literally got tears in my eyes and pleaded with her not to do it. She said what everybody says (what I said!): "But my family thinks I'll make a really good lawyer. I want to be a lawyer. It looks really interesting."
I told her about my debt and about how really, at the end of the day, it's just a job. I don't think I convinced her. Even the big round numbers didn't scare her like they should. And then I found myself shout-whispering at her through clenched teeth in the middle of our office about ABSOLUTELY NOT going to law school and going into IT instead. How there's actually money in IT. Stability in IT. Great hours in IT. Please, PLEASE... for your husband... and your kids.... and your SANITY... DO. NOT. GO. TO. LAW. SCHOOL.
Maybe it's because I worked all weekend and stayed up until 2 am last night trying to finish a Motion that the partner is going to take one look at and rip apart because he "thinks I'm worthless as an attorney. No, not me personally, because personally, he likes me, but as a second year attorney, I'm generally worthless because everyone knows you don't know anything as an attorney until you've been out for at least 5 years." (Direct quote). Or maybe it's because I have 8 weeks until I find out whether the Federal government is willing to defer my loan payments for another year. Or maybe it's just because, from a financial perspective, going to law school is a big effing mistake.
I have been saying what Steven Greenberg said:
Steven Greenberger of DePaul recommends a mandatory warning — a bit like the labels on cigarette packs — that every student taking the LSAT, the prelaw standardized test, must read.
"Something like ‘Law school tuition is expensive and here is what the actual cost will be, the job market is uncertain and you should carefully consider whether you want to pursue this degree,’ ” he says. “And it should be made absolutely clear to students, that if they sign up for X amount of debt, their monthly nut will be X in three years.”
- New York Times, Is Law School A Losing Game? (Consider that a rhetorical question).
Finally, a well-read publication has something to say about it. Thank you, New York Times. Thank you for not shout-whispering, but rather screaming at the top of your lungs that those people out there considering law school need to pick some other form of masochism. I just wish they hadn't concluded the article with a quote from some kid who has $250 K in debt, but lives in a brownstone for free (because THAT happens to the average person) and just ignores the lenders that are beating down his door, about how we live in the age of bail-outs, and he figures his student loan debt will just go away at some point.
The reality is... if you're the type with your mind made up about going to law school... if you think you were BORN to be a lawyer... if your family tells you that you'd make a really good lawyer, and you can see the numbers but somehow think they don't apply to you... Then chances are, you're just as Type-A as the rest of us... Which, sorry for you, also means that having a quarter of a million dollars in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt and graduating law school (and going through the Bar Exam... don't even get me started), just to wind up (if you're LUCKY) with a job (any job) that pays you less than you were making before you went to law school will drive you crazy. No really... it will drive you crazy because there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
If you or someone you love is considering law school, please feel free to email me at therecoveringlawyer@gmail.com, and I will happily talk them out of making a terrible, terrible mistake.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
V for Venn Diagram
 |
I love the website I pulled this from: This is Indexed. I love their slogan even more: "published weekday mornings as the coffee brews." Impressive that the creator can put together this kind of material before even having a cup of coffee. In fact, I just got her "widget" (another strange correlation between legal speak and blogging), and plan to add this site to my regular perusal. I'll be honest, as someone who is terrible at math, I actually have to think about a lot of the diagrams. It's humbling.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Social media has taken to the skies. Check this out: Planely (make sure you watch the instructional video), a social media site dedicated to connecting passengers on the same flights before they get on their flights, in order to facilitate "car pooling, coffee dates"... and friendship? Apparently you log on, enter your flight number, and then Planely tells you the other registered users who will be on your same flight. 
The idea being the elimination of surprise upon arriving at your seat and learning you will spend the next two to four hours (maybe more!) seated next to some teenie bopper in a 40-year-old's anorexic body who refuses to turn off her iPhone and then dances (literally) to Kesha, which blares from her portable speakers (as opposed to headphones), during the entire flight. So yeah, go ahead, meet her first. Maybe go for coffee before your flight. That way, when you don't hit it off with her and find yourself wanting to claw her eyes out, you two get to make your way to the gate together, and then spend an at-best "stressful" and at-most "life threatening" flight together. Thanks Planely, sounds awesome.
I'm not even going mention the "mile high club" potentials here. Planely better watch out and take a lesson from Craigslist.
Now, I enjoy occasional plane conversation. I can appreciate the six degrees of separation between everyone in the universe, and, often, I find it fascinating. More often, however, I prefer to simply put on my headphones, wait for the drink cart and obsess about how I could die at any second.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Grati-Tuesday: Campfire Friends
Gratitude + Tuesday = Grati-Tuesday. This is not my genius phrase, but, as one of my friends from Argentina would say, "I'm going to take it and make it mine."
I am going to make an effort to pick something I'm grateful for every Tuesday (ok, maybe not EVERY Tuesday, but I'll try) and write a little bit about it.
This week, I am grateful for my "campfire friends." I recently heard someone describe "campfire friends" as the people you talk to when you're hurt, rejected and/or (because let's be honest... often, it's all three) embarrassed. They're your 2 am friends. And most people are lucky if they have one. I have more than one, which makes me especially grateful this Tuesday...
I was recently reminded how incredible and supportive my campfire friends are, and I am so grateful for their presence in my life. They know my heart (where others think I don't even have one), and it always amazes me when they show up before I even know I needed them. Their ability to put aside their own crises, emotions, insecurities, life frustrations, etc. and be there for me and take on mine for a bit is something I am incredibly grateful for. Too often people (especially women, for some reason) play the "yeah, you think YOUR life is bad, wait till you hear about MY life" game. Instead of supporting each other, we spend a night one-upping each other's problems and starting sentences with, "oh you think THAT'S bad???" Don't get me wrong, sometimes a night of having others tell you (me) their problems are worse than yours (mine) can make you (me) feel better... but it's only temporary. For me, whatever satisfaction is gained from learning how much "worse" someone else has it just leaves me feeling guilty for feeling miserable/angry/frustrated/sad/etc in the first place.
My campfire friends (is it overly cheesy yet?) are the ones who talk through why I feel the way I feel and what I should do about it. I don't know what I would do without them in my life, much less what I would have done without them these last couple weeks, so it seems fitting for them to be the first in my Grati-Tuesday series.
I'll bring the marshmallows... it's the least I can do.
 |
| A campfire AND mountains? Perfection. |
This week, I am grateful for my "campfire friends." I recently heard someone describe "campfire friends" as the people you talk to when you're hurt, rejected and/or (because let's be honest... often, it's all three) embarrassed. They're your 2 am friends. And most people are lucky if they have one. I have more than one, which makes me especially grateful this Tuesday...
I was recently reminded how incredible and supportive my campfire friends are, and I am so grateful for their presence in my life. They know my heart (where others think I don't even have one), and it always amazes me when they show up before I even know I needed them. Their ability to put aside their own crises, emotions, insecurities, life frustrations, etc. and be there for me and take on mine for a bit is something I am incredibly grateful for. Too often people (especially women, for some reason) play the "yeah, you think YOUR life is bad, wait till you hear about MY life" game. Instead of supporting each other, we spend a night one-upping each other's problems and starting sentences with, "oh you think THAT'S bad???" Don't get me wrong, sometimes a night of having others tell you (me) their problems are worse than yours (mine) can make you (me) feel better... but it's only temporary. For me, whatever satisfaction is gained from learning how much "worse" someone else has it just leaves me feeling guilty for feeling miserable/angry/frustrated/sad/etc in the first place.
My campfire friends (is it overly cheesy yet?) are the ones who talk through why I feel the way I feel and what I should do about it. I don't know what I would do without them in my life, much less what I would have done without them these last couple weeks, so it seems fitting for them to be the first in my Grati-Tuesday series.
I'll bring the marshmallows... it's the least I can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)