Not an ongoing series, and definitely not recommended.
Thing 1: Being a lawyer is hard. That's not new information, but I got several reminders today (and yesterday). Unfortunately I cannot go into too much detail about what actually occurred, but I can say how I felt. During two hearings, I felt small and foolish, even though I was sure my argument was correct. In fact, I received confirmation that I was correct from a moderately unlikely source. My boss reminded me that the outcome of the hearings was next to null; even if I'd won the argument, it wouldn't make a meaningful difference to my clients. Still, it's strange to feel right, but foolish at the same time.
Those feelings may have stemmed from a meeting that occurred just before the hearings. I wasn't fully prepared for the meeting, in part because I didn't realize I needed to be, in part because the agenda for the meeting was not formalized ahead of time. I allowed a comment to cloud my vision and judgment, which deprived me of the full benefit of the meeting. My condition was apparent to at least two of my colleagues and the matter was addressed, but it had a dramatic effect on my day.
There were really good moments in the morning, but I can't relate them, except to say that they were unexpected and a good way to start the day.
Anyway, my career is hard, and it should be. Not bragging that my career is harder than yours, by any stretch. I have a tendency to show off but I do my utmost to suppress it. I fail often. But anyway, take my word for it: I don't believe I'm better than you, because of my job or for any other reason.
Thing 2: Star Trek: The Next Generation managed to write a compelling episode about homosexuality... without actually using or referring to homosexuality. And they did it all in 1992.
Now, I couldn't watch Star Trek: The Next Generation when I was growing up, because it didn't air until after my bedtime. I was able to watch reruns if they ran earlier or on the weekend, and sometimes my stepdad would record an episode. When I did watch it, I usually enjoyed it, even if I didn't understand it. The long term effect of this is, there are a lot of episodes I haven't seen, and I'm generally unaware of the quality of the show, especially since I didn't watch them as an adult.
So I was quite surprised to watch "The Outcast." The episode features a humanoid race that is androgynous. The main representative explains that its race used to have gender--male and female, of course--but they have evolved. In fact, they see races with gender as primitive, unevolved. Later, this character reveals that some members of its race are still born with predisposition as male or female, that these members are ridiculed and even beaten, and that her race puts them through some kind of "psychotectic" treatment to "fix" this "sickness". Later still, it tells Riker that "she" is predisposed to being a she, that she doesn't see it as a sickness, that she's felt this way all her life, and that she is attracted to Riker.
Throughout this dialogue, the language and rhetoric she uses is very similar to descriptions of homosexuality: that a person is born with it, that it's not a disease or illness (ok, that language is definitely dated, but the episode is almost 20 years old now), that it's perfectly natural, etc.
I'm doing a horrible job of describing it; the Wikipedia page does a better job (just Google "Star Trek The Outcast" to find it). It also confirms what I felt: the episode, while pretty good, didn't go far enough. All the actors of the androgynous race were played by women. Jonathan Frakes (Riker) stated, and I agree, that the main representative who falls in love with Riker should have been more masculine, even played by a man, to further drive the point of the episode.
I won't tell you how the episode ends; you should watch it.
Anyway, I found the episode interesting and compelling, mostly because of the air date. And I stayed up too late to watch it.
Thing 3: There's an episode of Food Wars with El Guero Canelo! I'm recording it.
Thing 4: The Star Trek episode made me forget Thing 4. I don't think it was that there should be a National (or International) Fart Day, the day when we can all fart as loudly as possible and not be ridiculed, etc. It would be a celebration of farts. I imagine there could be a contest with multiple categories. I don't think that was the thing I was going to share, mostly because I haven't done the proper research to see if there is already a National Fart Day. I don't want to take credit for someone else's idea, and something as brilliant as this has to have been thought up before now. I guess the real research is why this either didn't take off, or why it exists but remains relatively unknown.
Thing 5: Something's wrong with my appreciation for sports. The normal "sports me" would hate that Duke and UConn just won national titles in NCAA basketball. Yet, I found a way to rationalize their wins, even though their sports empires are akin to that of the Yankees (ok, not really, because they didn't spend their way to victory) or anyone else who dominates for too long.
With Duke, it's the respect for Coach K and his job with a less-than-talented Duke squad that wouldn't be favored if the remaining #1 seeds were still around. There is either one or zero future NBA first round draft picks on this team, yet they won the title. Also, Coach K took some heat for coaching Team USA in the Olympics because it distracted him from coaching the Duke team. But he managed to win gold (that's why they're called "The Redeem Team"), and two years later he won his fourth title. Like him or not, you can't deny his credentials, especially considering the stark contrast between his current Duke squad and Team USA. Some like to argue it takes a completely different mindset and coaching style to coach college vs. a team of superstars (partly how Phil Jackson gets credit for coaching his Jordan/Kobe star-studded teams--others haven't been able to pull it off with nearly as much success, even though one would think it would be simple). Coach K can do both.
With UConn, I have no rational reason. I don't really care for basketball, I care even less for women's basketball, but whenever a person or team is dominating the rest of the competition, it's compelling, even if it's negative publicity. I don't care about tennis, but I felt I should watch the end of the match where what's his face passed Sampras on the grand slam victory list. Why? I guess it's quasi-historical (every stat in sports is vulnerable and it's going to be beat later (if its even possible, some aren't, like Cy Youngs win total), so whether a moment is "historical" is subjective), so I feel obligated to watch. UConn just won a billion games in a row and had two undefeated seasons in a row, which includes two titles. I didn't watch a second of one game in those two seasons. Yet, their undefeated streak caused me to think about women's basketball for 10 minutes more than I would have under any other circumstance (which would be not at all). So, I suppose if a win streak can make me think about a team and a sport that I would otherwise ignore, that must be somewhat compelling.
Of course, if Butler or Stanford won, that might have equally caused me to think about basketball. But a hero is only as compelling as his villain. Without villains like Duke and UConn--if indeed they are villains, and let's face it, they probably are--no one would care about even a potential Butler or Stanford victory (except their students and alum, of course). If that's the case, I'm OK with my happiness/respect/whatever towards Duke and UConn, in just the same way that it's OK to like Magneto and the Joker.
Well, now it's definitely time for bed.
Thing 1: Being a lawyer is hard. That's not new information, but I got several reminders today (and yesterday). Unfortunately I cannot go into too much detail about what actually occurred, but I can say how I felt. During two hearings, I felt small and foolish, even though I was sure my argument was correct. In fact, I received confirmation that I was correct from a moderately unlikely source. My boss reminded me that the outcome of the hearings was next to null; even if I'd won the argument, it wouldn't make a meaningful difference to my clients. Still, it's strange to feel right, but foolish at the same time.
Those feelings may have stemmed from a meeting that occurred just before the hearings. I wasn't fully prepared for the meeting, in part because I didn't realize I needed to be, in part because the agenda for the meeting was not formalized ahead of time. I allowed a comment to cloud my vision and judgment, which deprived me of the full benefit of the meeting. My condition was apparent to at least two of my colleagues and the matter was addressed, but it had a dramatic effect on my day.
There were really good moments in the morning, but I can't relate them, except to say that they were unexpected and a good way to start the day.
Anyway, my career is hard, and it should be. Not bragging that my career is harder than yours, by any stretch. I have a tendency to show off but I do my utmost to suppress it. I fail often. But anyway, take my word for it: I don't believe I'm better than you, because of my job or for any other reason.
Thing 2: Star Trek: The Next Generation managed to write a compelling episode about homosexuality... without actually using or referring to homosexuality. And they did it all in 1992.
Now, I couldn't watch Star Trek: The Next Generation when I was growing up, because it didn't air until after my bedtime. I was able to watch reruns if they ran earlier or on the weekend, and sometimes my stepdad would record an episode. When I did watch it, I usually enjoyed it, even if I didn't understand it. The long term effect of this is, there are a lot of episodes I haven't seen, and I'm generally unaware of the quality of the show, especially since I didn't watch them as an adult.
So I was quite surprised to watch "The Outcast." The episode features a humanoid race that is androgynous. The main representative explains that its race used to have gender--male and female, of course--but they have evolved. In fact, they see races with gender as primitive, unevolved. Later, this character reveals that some members of its race are still born with predisposition as male or female, that these members are ridiculed and even beaten, and that her race puts them through some kind of "psychotectic" treatment to "fix" this "sickness". Later still, it tells Riker that "she" is predisposed to being a she, that she doesn't see it as a sickness, that she's felt this way all her life, and that she is attracted to Riker.
Throughout this dialogue, the language and rhetoric she uses is very similar to descriptions of homosexuality: that a person is born with it, that it's not a disease or illness (ok, that language is definitely dated, but the episode is almost 20 years old now), that it's perfectly natural, etc.
I'm doing a horrible job of describing it; the Wikipedia page does a better job (just Google "Star Trek The Outcast" to find it). It also confirms what I felt: the episode, while pretty good, didn't go far enough. All the actors of the androgynous race were played by women. Jonathan Frakes (Riker) stated, and I agree, that the main representative who falls in love with Riker should have been more masculine, even played by a man, to further drive the point of the episode.
I won't tell you how the episode ends; you should watch it.
Anyway, I found the episode interesting and compelling, mostly because of the air date. And I stayed up too late to watch it.
Thing 3: There's an episode of Food Wars with El Guero Canelo! I'm recording it.
Thing 4: The Star Trek episode made me forget Thing 4. I don't think it was that there should be a National (or International) Fart Day, the day when we can all fart as loudly as possible and not be ridiculed, etc. It would be a celebration of farts. I imagine there could be a contest with multiple categories. I don't think that was the thing I was going to share, mostly because I haven't done the proper research to see if there is already a National Fart Day. I don't want to take credit for someone else's idea, and something as brilliant as this has to have been thought up before now. I guess the real research is why this either didn't take off, or why it exists but remains relatively unknown.
Thing 5: Something's wrong with my appreciation for sports. The normal "sports me" would hate that Duke and UConn just won national titles in NCAA basketball. Yet, I found a way to rationalize their wins, even though their sports empires are akin to that of the Yankees (ok, not really, because they didn't spend their way to victory) or anyone else who dominates for too long.
With Duke, it's the respect for Coach K and his job with a less-than-talented Duke squad that wouldn't be favored if the remaining #1 seeds were still around. There is either one or zero future NBA first round draft picks on this team, yet they won the title. Also, Coach K took some heat for coaching Team USA in the Olympics because it distracted him from coaching the Duke team. But he managed to win gold (that's why they're called "The Redeem Team"), and two years later he won his fourth title. Like him or not, you can't deny his credentials, especially considering the stark contrast between his current Duke squad and Team USA. Some like to argue it takes a completely different mindset and coaching style to coach college vs. a team of superstars (partly how Phil Jackson gets credit for coaching his Jordan/Kobe star-studded teams--others haven't been able to pull it off with nearly as much success, even though one would think it would be simple). Coach K can do both.
With UConn, I have no rational reason. I don't really care for basketball, I care even less for women's basketball, but whenever a person or team is dominating the rest of the competition, it's compelling, even if it's negative publicity. I don't care about tennis, but I felt I should watch the end of the match where what's his face passed Sampras on the grand slam victory list. Why? I guess it's quasi-historical (every stat in sports is vulnerable and it's going to be beat later (if its even possible, some aren't, like Cy Youngs win total), so whether a moment is "historical" is subjective), so I feel obligated to watch. UConn just won a billion games in a row and had two undefeated seasons in a row, which includes two titles. I didn't watch a second of one game in those two seasons. Yet, their undefeated streak caused me to think about women's basketball for 10 minutes more than I would have under any other circumstance (which would be not at all). So, I suppose if a win streak can make me think about a team and a sport that I would otherwise ignore, that must be somewhat compelling.
Of course, if Butler or Stanford won, that might have equally caused me to think about basketball. But a hero is only as compelling as his villain. Without villains like Duke and UConn--if indeed they are villains, and let's face it, they probably are--no one would care about even a potential Butler or Stanford victory (except their students and alum, of course). If that's the case, I'm OK with my happiness/respect/whatever towards Duke and UConn, in just the same way that it's OK to like Magneto and the Joker.
Well, now it's definitely time for bed.
