I love the story of Job because its a story that continues to play out day after day, year after year for all eternity. But I was really thinking about how much my life resembles this story of a guy who had it all but then had tragedy strike him and all the time that he is suffering, his friends continue to offer him advice. Only my version is decidedly less than earth shaking in its impact.
When I returned from Kenya, full of vim and vigor, I was ready to go out and conquer the world. This time I was really going to make a difference - hike, walk, whatever it took to lose weight. I even made plans to run the Bay to Breakers. I had a plan. I started to walk. I was ready to shed those pounds.
Three weeks later, my knee hurting a little from all the walking I'd been doing, I started on a particularly long and hard hike, figuring that I would "walk off" that nagging pain and feel better after the fact. I did walk off the pain, only to have it return as a crippling pain later in the hike. By the time I got home that night, I was in real pain and could barely walk.
Two days later, I went to the Emergency Room because I was in severe agony. No amount of icing or ibuprofen was helping. The Emergency Room doctor jabbed my knee with a needle to lessen the swelling (it didn't, but that's neither here nor there) and then took me aside. "You know," he said cooly, "You really ought to lose some weight. That's why you're having knee problems." Sitting on my ash heap at the time, I calmly explained that I'd just finished hiking eight miles on a bum knee to try doing exactly that. "I'm just saying," the doctor added.
Eventually, I got my knee swelling down though I continued to hobble. All the time I was metaphorically kicking myself for damaging my knee. As soon as I felt myself return to 98% of recovered, I hobbled out and started walking again. Bang! Out went the other knee.
As I now hobbled on the other knee, friends and family members continued to offer constructive advice, "You should take it easy. You keep damaging yourself. Let your legs heal, first." So I did. I let my legs heal. Long after they were healed, I had a relapse - and I hadn't been exercising at all. Then I healed my relapse, let my long period of sitting go on even longer, then started walking again - slowly. Hobbling. Eventually, after several weeks, I was actually able to hobble about a mile.
I drove to Vegas. No problems. I wandered up and down the Vegas Strip. No problems. I drove back home. No problems. YET, I still did not consider myself healed.
Finally, after a couple more weeks of walking normally, including one week where I walked more than I had since returning from Kenya, I finally made plans to go for another hike.
Then I twisted my ankle. Everyone saw me hobbling again and assumed it my knee - assumed that I had reinjured it. I explained that it was my ankle - a temporary setback. I hobbled for most of the last two weeks - taking it easy.
Yesterday, I threw caution to the wind for a good cause. I walked a little over five miles in a rain storm to raise money for Crop Walk. My legs, though stiff, did not fail. My ankle felt fine. I did develop a shin splint, but those go away relatively quickly (in fact, I can't even feel it now). I walked further than I'd walked since that day I blew out of my knee.
And when I reported the news to my Dad, he said, "See... all you needed was a little exercise."
I love the absurdity of this whole situation and try not to assign any cosmic significance to it other than the things that I thought before I started the whole process - I'm getting older and I need to lose some weight. The commentary has been, without a doubt, the most enjoyable part of it - like a Greek Chorus that is lagging behind the narrative by about three acts. I think when it comes to our health, human beings are at our most hypocritical. We ignore our own aches and pains while at the same time diagnosing dire ailments for anyone who dares to mention, or who is unable to hide, their own infirmities. I'm frankly surprised we don't have more hypochondriacs out there. It is, of course, the physical manifestation of the parable of the man trying to remove the splinter in his friend's eye while he has a log in his own eye. It is rather remarkable how the more the world changes, the more human beings remain the same.
As a final addendum to this lengthy discourse, I'm planning to hike again this Saturday - assuming I can make it through the week without something else falling off. My goal of losing weight, though many times thwarted, has never changed.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Choke on the bile of Free Speech
A little background: My sister was quoted in an article on the down-turned economy. She is a lawyer who has been laid off due to the lack of law work out there. As she was just getting her feet underneath her as a lawyer, the timing was rather unfortunate. Anyway, this article was posted at a reputable newspaper site and has since become a magnet for the kinds of vicious and scathing comments that are reprinted below.
The most recent iteration of these comments came when a Blog for Temp Law Clerks reprinted the article. I read the comments and was really incensed. I wanted to complain and followed the link on the blog that said, "Report this blog."
Apparently, these comments are not regulated at all on the internet. In trying to make a complaint to Blogger, I received a message that basically said - We aren't liable, so we don't care.
I'd probably be mistaken to say that any air of civility this country once had has been completely eroded - I'm not entirely sure we ever had civility to begin with. Maybe we were just better hiding our lack of it in the pre-internet age. One thing I am certain of, these sorts of comments, left festering for all time on the internet for anyone to read, are destroying any chance of civil discourse. If someone can say some of these things without any worry of repurcussions, then why should any sort of commentary be banned? Why can't I say the N word? Or the F word? Or tell people what I think in the foulest, basest dialog imaginable?
Of course, I won't use that language - not because I can't, but because I was taught better. And that's my point. What are we teaching future generations if we won't clean up our commentary now? If any sort of commentary is allowed now, then what sort of restrictions on commentary will be followed in the future? The one undeniable fact of history is that the pendulum swings both ways. If we are allowed to say whatever we feel like now and we push the envelope far to the left, then eventually that pendulum will swing back the other way and our freedoms will be willfully repressed in the other direction - (Think 1950's to 1960's as a comparison). We need to address this now before it gets out of control.
Here is an example of the stuff people are saying: Keep in mind that this comes from a blog for Lawyers (those eloquent speakers and maintainers of civility and law).
- She looks like a slob. She looks like the perfect candidate for S&C.
- 10:33 PM
- Anonymous said...
- True dat 10:33. At least lay off the potatoe chips and go running or something.
- 10:44 PM
- Anonymous said...
- Not as uncommon as you may think. I know several succesful female attorneys (some fairly attractive) who support lazy, stay at home freeloading man bitches. If only I could find a succesful woman to support me. To hell with pride.
- 10:52 PM
- She's got the right look for a gestapo type staff attorney.
- 11:13 PM
- Anonymous said...
- She would fit right in with the middle-aged staff attorney cows like Lucy Cow and sloppy Big Mamma.
- 11:17 PM
- Anonymous said...
- Agree. Just what biglaw looks for in a staff attorney. Ugly, fat, and trapped in the position for monetary reasons. All she needs is the nasty, sadistic attitude.
- Anonymous said...
- I too have a hard time believing the the fat, dopey looking white broad actually made $100K in law. Not attractive enough. And men, with cunty women & their homo allies taking your jobs, their is no shame in being a daddy day care on their dime. Its about time they do the lifting. Its what they get when the get what they hoped for.....the total emasculation & N-wordization of the straight male.
- Anonymous said...
- I do not mock..I simply state truths in the real world. It is very unlikely that the subject woman was making $100K in any real law substantive job. But I will grant you that she may have done so in doc review in San Fran where labor laws are more strictly enforced. They make them pay good OT over there unlike in NYC. Perhaps she was a staff attorney. Whatver the case may be, she, and most other legal lemmings are now toast. I will say that I do think that such folk who are in such blatantly tenous and bullshit 'professions' such as law, are being foolishly irresponsible when they pork up kids on purpose or by mistake. Many lawyers have no healthcare or benefits & can't hold a job regardless of whether its their fault or the game's fault. How they could be so stupid as to put innocent children into the equasion is beyond me. The moral of the story is is that such a woman should have been able to take a gander at the mirror and known that she was not cut out for law.
- 1:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
- Everyone keep your hands off Big Mamma's cookies!
- 1:44 PM
- Anonymous said...
- To the dingbat who posted at 1;45....The poster above who states "that's what you get for going to a tier III school" knows the deal. She went to Golden Gate. Most likely not much 'intellect' or great chance of a late life blossoming there. I would take you up on your bet. She is toast. I would be shocked if she went to anything cornell. She appears to have gone to Hormell & eaten too much spam. Why were you so shocked by the fat folk you saw at Cravath? Why so 'horrified'? Because you, like most of law made a scathing judgment. Your profile of me is weak at best. I have been on the fringes of biglaw but am mostly a TT toileteer. Big gap between LS & UG. No hep from me folks ever. Not in HS, UG or LS. I am a guy and clearly you are just another PC, lala land living in, head in the sand dingbat broad. If she had the kids before law school then she is just another victim of the TTT law school scam. She got taken. If the kids came while in or after law scam the she is an irresponsible, deluded & possibly arrongant fool.
- Anonymous said...
- Wow.That last post was deep. Very much confirmation of the la la land dreamworld mentality that many a dumb biotch displays. 'Broad' was my attempt at politeness. Dumb biotch is definitely way more appropriate. Ratings are established by our vile, evil, classist & racist overlords to discriminate and marginalize those who are not they. Ratings...from the LSAT on greatly affect most non elite folks' lives & career. They most often preclude la di da surprises from happpening for the regular joe or decent folk in general. I would love to be as priviledged as you to have smoked whatever Alice in wonderland bullshit that you smoked. Let me know when your'e coming back to visit the real world.
- Anonymous said...
- $100K? MAybe! Fat and unattractive people have a tendency to be the worst supervisors. Hell mgnt loves them. They can be the evil twin of the boss. They do all his shit. But, KARMA works. They are the first shit canned and the cute ones are kept in the end.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Lies We Swallow
We're told lies by our government and by Wall Street all the time and all we can do is shrug our shoulders and hope that someone will come along and change things. But it doesn't help when people will actually defend these lies as truth. I want to put two of these lies to rest right now.
During the gas price surge from the late 1990's all the way until the collapse of markets in 2008, the big lie from the oil companies was that there was always a reason for the gas prices to rise. Prior to the late 1990's there was a natural ebb and flow to gas prices, but, in general, they remained pretty stable - fluctuating, on average, about 25 to 50 cents a year. Starting in the late 1990's however, whenever the price inched upwards, it never came back down. Once gas crested $3.00 a gallon, the public started to take notice, and that was when the lying began. We were given every excuse under the sun - oil refinery fires, hurricanes, solar activity, war, famine, you name it. If something bad happened somewhere, it was a cause for gas prices to rise. Though I'm no economist, it was obvious that the people raising gas prices were looking for any excuse to justify their greed.
When the whole economy came crashing down shortly after gas prices reached $4.50 a a gallon, gas prices fell dramatically - and then rebounded slightly until they reached the $3.00 a gallon (CA price) average that they've been at since 2008. Two years... no huge increases despite dozens of natural disasters, oil refinery fires, etc... All of those things that previously caused the price of gas to jump 25 cents in one day suddenly have no effect on the price of gasoline - thus refuting, once and for all, that these things had any effect on gas prices in the past.
In much the same way, I think we can look at the incredible bonuses paid on Wall Street (a record amount this year) and really quell anymore talk of Trickle Down Economics. Again, I'm no economist, but it seems that the more money paid to Wall Street execs, the less money there has been on Main Street. There is no such thing as trickle down economics. It's a complete BS economic theory. So anyone still spouting off about giving more money to the rich so that that money can then stimulate the economy for the poor should just have their heads examined.
Now, I'm not talking about tax breaks for companies to hire employees or help for small businesses to pay health care costs or things of that nature. I'm talking about some whacked notion that we should give tax breaks to the wealthiest few because, somehow, the money saved by these few people will then trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and other subsidies. It's just not going to happen. It never has. And it never will.
Historically, empires have sprung out of countries that recognized the wealth that came from the Middle Class (Don't believe me? Then ask yourself how the Dutch became a world power). It's not all that hard to understand why. If you put wealth into the hands of the wealthy few, they will defend it and not let it out of their sight. But the middle class aren't as controlling. They will spend most of that money to maintain their lifestyle and what they don't spend they can be enticed into giving back to the government in the form of taxes and fees to pay for the things that everyone needs (like roads and clean water). All fiscal policy should be set to increase the middle class and control the excesses of the rich. That's just good economic policy. Trickle Down Economics is not only a lie, but its bad economic policy.
Okay, enough real world stuff now... back to fantasy... have a good day!
During the gas price surge from the late 1990's all the way until the collapse of markets in 2008, the big lie from the oil companies was that there was always a reason for the gas prices to rise. Prior to the late 1990's there was a natural ebb and flow to gas prices, but, in general, they remained pretty stable - fluctuating, on average, about 25 to 50 cents a year. Starting in the late 1990's however, whenever the price inched upwards, it never came back down. Once gas crested $3.00 a gallon, the public started to take notice, and that was when the lying began. We were given every excuse under the sun - oil refinery fires, hurricanes, solar activity, war, famine, you name it. If something bad happened somewhere, it was a cause for gas prices to rise. Though I'm no economist, it was obvious that the people raising gas prices were looking for any excuse to justify their greed.
When the whole economy came crashing down shortly after gas prices reached $4.50 a a gallon, gas prices fell dramatically - and then rebounded slightly until they reached the $3.00 a gallon (CA price) average that they've been at since 2008. Two years... no huge increases despite dozens of natural disasters, oil refinery fires, etc... All of those things that previously caused the price of gas to jump 25 cents in one day suddenly have no effect on the price of gasoline - thus refuting, once and for all, that these things had any effect on gas prices in the past.
In much the same way, I think we can look at the incredible bonuses paid on Wall Street (a record amount this year) and really quell anymore talk of Trickle Down Economics. Again, I'm no economist, but it seems that the more money paid to Wall Street execs, the less money there has been on Main Street. There is no such thing as trickle down economics. It's a complete BS economic theory. So anyone still spouting off about giving more money to the rich so that that money can then stimulate the economy for the poor should just have their heads examined.
Now, I'm not talking about tax breaks for companies to hire employees or help for small businesses to pay health care costs or things of that nature. I'm talking about some whacked notion that we should give tax breaks to the wealthiest few because, somehow, the money saved by these few people will then trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and other subsidies. It's just not going to happen. It never has. And it never will.
Historically, empires have sprung out of countries that recognized the wealth that came from the Middle Class (Don't believe me? Then ask yourself how the Dutch became a world power). It's not all that hard to understand why. If you put wealth into the hands of the wealthy few, they will defend it and not let it out of their sight. But the middle class aren't as controlling. They will spend most of that money to maintain their lifestyle and what they don't spend they can be enticed into giving back to the government in the form of taxes and fees to pay for the things that everyone needs (like roads and clean water). All fiscal policy should be set to increase the middle class and control the excesses of the rich. That's just good economic policy. Trickle Down Economics is not only a lie, but its bad economic policy.
Okay, enough real world stuff now... back to fantasy... have a good day!
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Missed opportunities...
Our society seems so intent on punishing wrong doers that we sometimes mistake the forest for the trees and miss opportunities to correct problems before they occur.
I read with sadness the story of the young man who chose suicide after being cyber bullied at Rutgers recently. This young man was so clearly distraught about the bullying behavior of others that he chose to jump from the George Washington Bridge to his death.
Since then, others have come forward with other stories of cyberbullying and other forms of bullying that have caused young people to do horrible things - suicide, etc... While it is sad to hear of such behavior, it is nothing new. Technology might have made it more widespread (to those who care to look for those things), but the anti-social attitudes represented by bullying teens are well-documented and rarely punished.
Had we Americans reacted to stop bullying after its most shocking incident, we might not have been in this situation right now. But we didn't. Instead, we looked upon the two young men who were bullied and villified them for their reactions to their incessant hazing (and rightfully so) without also addressing the people who bullied them.
I'm talking, of course, about Columbine. Lost in all the discussion about the evil actions of two disgruntled teenagers was the fact that these kids had been hazed and bullied by many of the people on their "hit" list. Instead of going to the nearest bridge and leaping to their deaths and a tragic suicide, they reacted to their bullying by buying guns, making bombs, and going after the people who had bullied them and a community of students that had done nothing to prevent the bullying from occurring.
I'm not justifying their reactions - far from it. I think they were completely wrong and totally evil in what they did. But I can also see how in their own eyes, they were justified in their response.
Some people who are bullied simply take it. They are miserable and depressed, but they don't fight back. Some people complain and are usually ignored or given the old, "boys will be boys" speech. But a few others fight back and stand up for themselves and for others who have been bullied. The longer and harder they were bullied, the more vicious the response can be.
In Jr. High, I was bullied (who wasn't really?) My response, most of the time, was to try and ignore it. But one time, the bullies crossed the line. The squirted mustard in my Dad's baseball glove. I walked over to where they were playing handball, waited patiently for the ball to come to me, and then I tossed the ball as far away as I could throw it. The bullies were ticked. They couldn't believe that I had fought back. They complained to the school dean. I told the dean what had happened and showed him the glove with the mustard in it and all he did was basically call it even. (Hardly...)
As a corollary to this, a friend of mine was also a frequent target of bullies. One day after school he came up to me and told me that he had gotten even. What I didn't know was that he had beaten a boy so severely that he had ended up in the hospital. Since it had been a mutual fight (though one sided) the only action taken was that my friend was suspended from school. But this was a much more severe response to bullying.
I am happy that people are finally talking about bullying. With the internet, such behavior can now have very serious and real world long term effects and so perhaps it has become time to end this type of behavior for all time. But it seems to me that with bullying as the main cause behind the most horrific school shooting ever, we probably should have looked at the real world consequences of such behavior back then. Either way, bullying should end now and its up to the parents and teachers to see that this kind of behavior becomes a thing of the past.
I read with sadness the story of the young man who chose suicide after being cyber bullied at Rutgers recently. This young man was so clearly distraught about the bullying behavior of others that he chose to jump from the George Washington Bridge to his death.
Since then, others have come forward with other stories of cyberbullying and other forms of bullying that have caused young people to do horrible things - suicide, etc... While it is sad to hear of such behavior, it is nothing new. Technology might have made it more widespread (to those who care to look for those things), but the anti-social attitudes represented by bullying teens are well-documented and rarely punished.
Had we Americans reacted to stop bullying after its most shocking incident, we might not have been in this situation right now. But we didn't. Instead, we looked upon the two young men who were bullied and villified them for their reactions to their incessant hazing (and rightfully so) without also addressing the people who bullied them.
I'm talking, of course, about Columbine. Lost in all the discussion about the evil actions of two disgruntled teenagers was the fact that these kids had been hazed and bullied by many of the people on their "hit" list. Instead of going to the nearest bridge and leaping to their deaths and a tragic suicide, they reacted to their bullying by buying guns, making bombs, and going after the people who had bullied them and a community of students that had done nothing to prevent the bullying from occurring.
I'm not justifying their reactions - far from it. I think they were completely wrong and totally evil in what they did. But I can also see how in their own eyes, they were justified in their response.
Some people who are bullied simply take it. They are miserable and depressed, but they don't fight back. Some people complain and are usually ignored or given the old, "boys will be boys" speech. But a few others fight back and stand up for themselves and for others who have been bullied. The longer and harder they were bullied, the more vicious the response can be.
In Jr. High, I was bullied (who wasn't really?) My response, most of the time, was to try and ignore it. But one time, the bullies crossed the line. The squirted mustard in my Dad's baseball glove. I walked over to where they were playing handball, waited patiently for the ball to come to me, and then I tossed the ball as far away as I could throw it. The bullies were ticked. They couldn't believe that I had fought back. They complained to the school dean. I told the dean what had happened and showed him the glove with the mustard in it and all he did was basically call it even. (Hardly...)
As a corollary to this, a friend of mine was also a frequent target of bullies. One day after school he came up to me and told me that he had gotten even. What I didn't know was that he had beaten a boy so severely that he had ended up in the hospital. Since it had been a mutual fight (though one sided) the only action taken was that my friend was suspended from school. But this was a much more severe response to bullying.
I am happy that people are finally talking about bullying. With the internet, such behavior can now have very serious and real world long term effects and so perhaps it has become time to end this type of behavior for all time. But it seems to me that with bullying as the main cause behind the most horrific school shooting ever, we probably should have looked at the real world consequences of such behavior back then. Either way, bullying should end now and its up to the parents and teachers to see that this kind of behavior becomes a thing of the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)