Thinking about the post from yesterday, I started wondering about the words "reconcile" and "reconciliation." Merriam-Webster defines "reconcile" as:
1 a : to restore to friendship or harmony b : SETTLE; RESOLVE
2 : to make consistent or congruous ;
3 : to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant ;
4 a : to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy b : to account for intransitive verb : to become reconciled.
I thought it interesting that two of the four definitions assume an objective referent - "to make consistent or congruous" and "to check against another for accuracy."
Two of the definitions seem to have arisen by usage, but the other two were intriguing because of the use of the words "reconcile" and "reconciliation" and "to become reconciled" in Scripture. Depending on which definition you use, you could really screw up your theology.
The words are used in Scripture in three places that I could find on NETBible; I am citing the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because of the various versions out there, it's the more linguistically accurate:
Job 22:21
"Yield now and be at peace with Him; Thereby good will come to you."
Eph 2:16
"and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."
Col 1:20
"and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
The verse citation to Job came from the New International Version (NIV). It's technically a decent translation, but it's "tweaked" to make it more understandable. I don't like it as well as the NASB, but that's 'cuz my brain is wired for linguistics and "getting it right."
The Hebrew word used in that verse is translated "reconcile" in the NIV and "yield" in the NASB. In neither of those words is the concept that there is any "settlement" or "negotiation" - it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for the one who is doing the yielding or reconciling. Too often we use the term "reconcile" to imply a concession on both sides. In the theological sense, the sole concession on God's side was His willingness to accept Christ's blood in lieu of our own. For us to escape the penalty of death (i.e., eternal separation from God), we must accept God's terms. There are no other negotiations.
There are 2 Greek words in the New Testament for "reconcile": apokatallasso and diallasso.
"Apokatallasso" means 1) to reconcile completely, 2) to reconcile back again, 3) bring back a former state of harmony. "Diallasso" means 1) to change, 2) to change the mind of anyone, to reconcile, 3) to be reconciled, to renew friendship with one.
In a way, these words add to our understanding of why the need to accept God's terms is on us. "Apokatallasso" carries with it the original state of man - one in which Adam and Eve talked with God directly, had daily fellowship with Him and enjoyed His company. The reconciliation with God carries with it a sense of that renewal of harmony between two parties who are estranged because of the actions (sin) of one of them.
"Diallasso" also adds the realization that for us to become reconciled to God, we need to change - we need to change our minds (as Paul reminds us in Romans 12:2, when he says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds) and we need to take the steps that are necessary to renew our friendship with God. No matter how you parse it out, the act of reconciliation with God is that we move closer to God by accepting His terms - He doesn't change His ways to suit us or to entice us to come back to Him.
I hear people talk and sing about being a friend of God - it sounds a bit presumptuous to me, although I remember singing a similar hymn or two in my childhood like, "what a friend we have in Jesus" and "Jesus is my friend..." The difference is probably not obvious to a lot of people, but the earlier hymns are describing Jesus's being our friend, and the basis for that is that He loved us enough to lay down His life for us. How many of us can say that we are truly His friend, when we can't even lay down the remote control for Him? Just a thought.....
Anyway, that was where yesterday's post led me this morning.
I should also mention that I finally got to church this past Sunday - after almost a year of not going anywhere - and I'm cautiously optimistic.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A Matter of Perspective
A 41-year-old woman goes into a Magnolia’s Mystery* store in her local mall. She selects a few items, heads toward the dressing room and almost walks into a man coming out of the dressing room area.
“What is that man doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks a saleswoman.
“Oh, don’t mind him,” the saleswoman says calmly. “He’s an employee.”
“Well, what is he doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks again.
“I told you – he’s an employee.”
“Well, I don’t want him in the dressing room – I’m going to be in there trying on bras, and I don’t want him in there.”
“The idea that a man can’t work in the fitting room and not leer at the customers, not start panting with lust, is beyond insulting; it's ignorant! What kind of hate-monger are you?” the saleswoman fumed.
“What difference does it make if I hate men or not? I just don’t want them in the dressing room when I’m taking my clothes off! I’m supposed to give up my rights just because you didn’t have the sense to hire a woman? I’d feel the same way if you had a lesbian in the dressing room – it isn’t about them, it’s about my right to determine who might see me without my clothes on!”
“Just for that, we’re going to take away your Magnolia’s Mystery credit card! We don’t want to do business with someone as bigoted as you!”
[End scene].
*Magnolia's Mystery is a renaming of a famous women's lingerie store..... :)
Sound familiar? I know, it’s a bit of stretch. But think about it: don’t men have as much “right” to work in “Magnolia’s Mystery” or anywhere else that sells women’s clothes? By the same token, Tim Hardaway – agree with him or not – has the right to express his opinion about who he shares a locker room with.
The problem we get into whenever we tackle these topics is the difference between state and action, and by “state” I mean “who (or what) you are” as opposed to “what you do.” (I could have said “who you do” but that would have been a) poor grammar, and b) poor taste….)
People on both sides of the discussion miss a very important point: there is no question that God hates, and the Bible rightfully condemns, homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees with me should read Romans 1 and any number of other passages I could point to. [While I’m on the subject, heterosexual sexual behavior between people who aren’t married to each other is just as bad – and no, there is no “exception” if you’re “really in love” with the person you’re having sex with.]
What we miss is the fact that God hates all sin – not just homosexuality. He hates lying (even the little white ones), cheating, stealing, murder, envy, lust, gluttony, disobedience to parents and rebellion against His authority – just to name a few. All of those behaviors and attitudes are sin that God hates – not just homosexuality.
But in spite of our status as sinners by nature and by choice, God loves us so much that He sent His only Son to pay for our sin with His own blood.
Think about it. God hates sin so much that He requires blood (death), but He loved us so much that He, through His Son Jesus Christ, volunteered to pay that penalty for us so we could be reconciled to Him.
Here’s the thing, though. Maybe because we’re sinful human beings, maybe because we’re lazy, or maybe because we haven’t been taught, we equate hating the sin with hating the sinner. If you really think about that, it’s like hating your child because he disobeyed you.
What reasonably normal mother would tell her, say, 16-year-old child, “I hate you! I don’t even want to be in the same room with you! You disgust me!” just because he stole money from her purse, got drunk and ran the family car into a tree? Would the mother be angry? Sure! Would there be consequences for the child? Absolutely! But would the mother’s love be extinguished? I would hope not – maybe in some families, yes, which is sad, but likely not.
Here’s the thing, though: as humans, we can understand the difference between being angry with a child for doing things like I’ve described or worse, and still loving the child and wanting what is best for the child. How much more does God, who is perfect and therefore loves perfectly, feel the same way? It is not inconsistent to say, on one hand, that God hates homosexuality and on the other that He nevertheless loves the homosexual.
Going on with that thought, does the mother who loves the child who steals money from her purse, gets drunk and runs the family car into the tree want her child to continue doing those things? Not at all! Why? Because those behaviors are dangerous for the child, harm the family unit, and are illegal in most states. The mother doesn’t sit around wishing or lobbying for laws that will allow the child to have an endless supply of money, alcohol and motor vehicles so that the child can continue his or her behavior.
God’s will for us as human beings is that we will become reconciled to Him (by our acceptance of the gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ), that we will be holy as He is holy, and that we will tell other people about how they can become reconciled to God, so that we can all enjoy a relationship with Him.
We can’t do that if we sit around redefining sin so that it doesn’t offend anyone. I don’t agree with Tim Hardaway’s hatred of homosexuals – I don’t think they’re right, but I don’t think hatred of homosexuals is right either. We can hate the sin without hating the sinner. But at the same time, by refusing to call sin “sin”, we’re blocking the path for people to come to God. Regardless of our “sincerity”, lying to people about what the Bible says is as much sin as homosexuality.
“What is that man doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks a saleswoman.
“Oh, don’t mind him,” the saleswoman says calmly. “He’s an employee.”
“Well, what is he doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks again.
“I told you – he’s an employee.”
“Well, I don’t want him in the dressing room – I’m going to be in there trying on bras, and I don’t want him in there.”
“The idea that a man can’t work in the fitting room and not leer at the customers, not start panting with lust, is beyond insulting; it's ignorant! What kind of hate-monger are you?” the saleswoman fumed.
“What difference does it make if I hate men or not? I just don’t want them in the dressing room when I’m taking my clothes off! I’m supposed to give up my rights just because you didn’t have the sense to hire a woman? I’d feel the same way if you had a lesbian in the dressing room – it isn’t about them, it’s about my right to determine who might see me without my clothes on!”
“Just for that, we’re going to take away your Magnolia’s Mystery credit card! We don’t want to do business with someone as bigoted as you!”
[End scene].
*Magnolia's Mystery is a renaming of a famous women's lingerie store..... :)
Sound familiar? I know, it’s a bit of stretch. But think about it: don’t men have as much “right” to work in “Magnolia’s Mystery” or anywhere else that sells women’s clothes? By the same token, Tim Hardaway – agree with him or not – has the right to express his opinion about who he shares a locker room with.
The problem we get into whenever we tackle these topics is the difference between state and action, and by “state” I mean “who (or what) you are” as opposed to “what you do.” (I could have said “who you do” but that would have been a) poor grammar, and b) poor taste….)
People on both sides of the discussion miss a very important point: there is no question that God hates, and the Bible rightfully condemns, homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees with me should read Romans 1 and any number of other passages I could point to. [While I’m on the subject, heterosexual sexual behavior between people who aren’t married to each other is just as bad – and no, there is no “exception” if you’re “really in love” with the person you’re having sex with.]
What we miss is the fact that God hates all sin – not just homosexuality. He hates lying (even the little white ones), cheating, stealing, murder, envy, lust, gluttony, disobedience to parents and rebellion against His authority – just to name a few. All of those behaviors and attitudes are sin that God hates – not just homosexuality.
But in spite of our status as sinners by nature and by choice, God loves us so much that He sent His only Son to pay for our sin with His own blood.
Think about it. God hates sin so much that He requires blood (death), but He loved us so much that He, through His Son Jesus Christ, volunteered to pay that penalty for us so we could be reconciled to Him.
Here’s the thing, though. Maybe because we’re sinful human beings, maybe because we’re lazy, or maybe because we haven’t been taught, we equate hating the sin with hating the sinner. If you really think about that, it’s like hating your child because he disobeyed you.
What reasonably normal mother would tell her, say, 16-year-old child, “I hate you! I don’t even want to be in the same room with you! You disgust me!” just because he stole money from her purse, got drunk and ran the family car into a tree? Would the mother be angry? Sure! Would there be consequences for the child? Absolutely! But would the mother’s love be extinguished? I would hope not – maybe in some families, yes, which is sad, but likely not.
Here’s the thing, though: as humans, we can understand the difference between being angry with a child for doing things like I’ve described or worse, and still loving the child and wanting what is best for the child. How much more does God, who is perfect and therefore loves perfectly, feel the same way? It is not inconsistent to say, on one hand, that God hates homosexuality and on the other that He nevertheless loves the homosexual.
Going on with that thought, does the mother who loves the child who steals money from her purse, gets drunk and runs the family car into the tree want her child to continue doing those things? Not at all! Why? Because those behaviors are dangerous for the child, harm the family unit, and are illegal in most states. The mother doesn’t sit around wishing or lobbying for laws that will allow the child to have an endless supply of money, alcohol and motor vehicles so that the child can continue his or her behavior.
God’s will for us as human beings is that we will become reconciled to Him (by our acceptance of the gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ), that we will be holy as He is holy, and that we will tell other people about how they can become reconciled to God, so that we can all enjoy a relationship with Him.
We can’t do that if we sit around redefining sin so that it doesn’t offend anyone. I don’t agree with Tim Hardaway’s hatred of homosexuals – I don’t think they’re right, but I don’t think hatred of homosexuals is right either. We can hate the sin without hating the sinner. But at the same time, by refusing to call sin “sin”, we’re blocking the path for people to come to God. Regardless of our “sincerity”, lying to people about what the Bible says is as much sin as homosexuality.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Balancing Act
If you've ever been a waiter or waitress, you learned how to carry stuff on a tray. The trick to not dumping the entire thing on the floor is to focus on your destination - not your feet, or the stuff on the tray, or people around you.
As I was driving back from Flint this morning, I realized that the same trick for not spilling a tray of food onto innocent people is valuable for other things in life as well. Focusing on your goals keeps you from dropping all of the things you take with you en route. How else can you explain the drive and success rates of parents who return to school while holding down a full-time job and raising a family?
Focusing on the stuff on your tray, however, means that you drop things. Or, that you whine about how much you have to carry. The end result is the same: you don't get where you're going, and you aren't as efficient, effective or fun to work with as those people who sail through the room, their trays loaded with stuff, joking and smiling and generally making life a better place to be.
That's what I want to do this year. I know it might be a little late for new year's resolutions, but I'm going to make this one anyway.
As I was driving back from Flint this morning, I realized that the same trick for not spilling a tray of food onto innocent people is valuable for other things in life as well. Focusing on your goals keeps you from dropping all of the things you take with you en route. How else can you explain the drive and success rates of parents who return to school while holding down a full-time job and raising a family?
Focusing on the stuff on your tray, however, means that you drop things. Or, that you whine about how much you have to carry. The end result is the same: you don't get where you're going, and you aren't as efficient, effective or fun to work with as those people who sail through the room, their trays loaded with stuff, joking and smiling and generally making life a better place to be.
That's what I want to do this year. I know it might be a little late for new year's resolutions, but I'm going to make this one anyway.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Today's Inbox
This was in my email inbox today, and I was so moved I decided to a) check the source to verify, and b) copy the whole thing to get this out to anyone who happens to wander over here. The original post with comments by the author can be found here. Hats off to J.D. Pendry. This is an amazing composition!! (I apologize for any errors - please visit retired Sgt. Major Pendry's site to see his comments on this post, as well as his other articles).
On Your Hands
Our God and soldiers we alike adore,
Ev’n at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both alike requited,
Our God’s forgotten, and our soldiers slighted. – Frances Quarles, 1632
******************
Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.
American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.
They need you to do it now.
Copyright © J.D. Pendry 2006
On Your Hands
Our God and soldiers we alike adore,
Ev’n at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both alike requited,
Our God’s forgotten, and our soldiers slighted. – Frances Quarles, 1632
******************
Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.
American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.
They need you to do it now.
Copyright © J.D. Pendry 2006
Monday, February 12, 2007
One man's jerk is another man's pit bull.....
Aaahhh, the arrogance of perspective.
One of the current catch-phrases of the practice of law is that we are to maintain civility - hard to accomplish in advocacy at times, but that's the goal. It isn't a legal obligation - which is probably just as well since it can be difficult to legislate nuance - but for whatever reason, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan thinks enough of the concept of civility to adopt "civility principles" which include directives on how attorneys and judges ought to behave. These apparently are only suggestions.
One of the principles I dealt with today reads, "We will consult other counsel regarding scheduling matters in a good-faith effort to avoid scheduling conflicts." So explain to me how this warrants another attorney - who seems to have a problem with losing to a girl - arbitrarily scheduling depositions without any prior notice or consultation with me about the date?
In trying to sort this out - which took 2 hours, thank you very much!! - I did what any other smart attorney would do when faced with a brick wall: I climbed over his head. Granted, his senior partner didn't help much, but at least I got the date he had scheduled these depositions.
Which just goes to show you: one man's jerk is another man's pit bull. This guy is getting rewarded for being a you-know-what, so he keeps doing it. Civility be damned.
I said that he seems to have a problem with losing to a girl because I've beaten him - twice - in this case. On top of that, the judge denied part of his request for fees. So not only did he get beaten by a girl - I LOVE saying that!! :) - but he lost money, too.
[I should point out that technically, he lost because he tried to force his clients' creditors to accept what his clients felt like paying in a bankruptcy case, and the judge wouldn't approve any of his multiple proposals. Still, it's fun to say "he got beaten by a girl...." If I could, I'd dance around and sing it: "You got beat by a giiiiirrrrl! You got beat by a giiiiirrrrl! (in a sing-song, playground voice)"]
What was the title of my post again?? :)
One of the current catch-phrases of the practice of law is that we are to maintain civility - hard to accomplish in advocacy at times, but that's the goal. It isn't a legal obligation - which is probably just as well since it can be difficult to legislate nuance - but for whatever reason, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan thinks enough of the concept of civility to adopt "civility principles" which include directives on how attorneys and judges ought to behave. These apparently are only suggestions.
One of the principles I dealt with today reads, "We will consult other counsel regarding scheduling matters in a good-faith effort to avoid scheduling conflicts." So explain to me how this warrants another attorney - who seems to have a problem with losing to a girl - arbitrarily scheduling depositions without any prior notice or consultation with me about the date?
In trying to sort this out - which took 2 hours, thank you very much!! - I did what any other smart attorney would do when faced with a brick wall: I climbed over his head. Granted, his senior partner didn't help much, but at least I got the date he had scheduled these depositions.
Which just goes to show you: one man's jerk is another man's pit bull. This guy is getting rewarded for being a you-know-what, so he keeps doing it. Civility be damned.
I said that he seems to have a problem with losing to a girl because I've beaten him - twice - in this case. On top of that, the judge denied part of his request for fees. So not only did he get beaten by a girl - I LOVE saying that!! :) - but he lost money, too.
[I should point out that technically, he lost because he tried to force his clients' creditors to accept what his clients felt like paying in a bankruptcy case, and the judge wouldn't approve any of his multiple proposals. Still, it's fun to say "he got beaten by a girl...." If I could, I'd dance around and sing it: "You got beat by a giiiiirrrrl! You got beat by a giiiiirrrrl! (in a sing-song, playground voice)"]
What was the title of my post again?? :)
Thursday, February 8, 2007
One of Those Days.....
Work is a four-letter word for a reason.
I talked to someone yesterday who very candidly told me that he worked because he could make money doing it. He doesn't really like his job, although he doesn't hate it. What he most enjoys about it is that his kids work with him in his business, so he gets to see them every day and watch them grow and develop in their skills and business sense.
In a way, that was the most refreshing conversation I've had with anyone in decades.
Why is it that there is such pressure to demonstrate that one's chosen career is enjoyable? Is it because of the sacrifices a career demands and we want to justify our choices? Or is it because most of us aren't wealthy enough to tell the truth when we're asked the question, "do you like what you do?"
Why do I do what I do? Do I like my job? Does it really matter if I do?
I suppose I do this job because it's the one in which I can make the most money just by doing what I have been trained to do. Most days, I'm OK with my job. On some days, I really love it; on others, I barely tolerate it. I don't suppose it matters to anyone but me if I like my job - sure, it probably makes life at work more tolerable for those with whom I work if I like my job. Nobody likes to work around a grouch.
There are other things I could do, and do very well, but I don't do them. Instead, I work day after day at a job that, while it offers some good things, nevertheless sucks the life out of me a little bit at a time. I come home at the end of the day drained - I get up later than I should because I really don't want to go to work, and then I don't sleep well because of the accumulated stress.
My weekends are MY time - they're the only time I can sleep late, relax with my dog, do errands and chores and generally re-charge my batteries, but I have a certain amount of face-time to commit to the office to make my billable hour quota and to demonstrate the level of commitment I have to the firm and its goals.
The thing is, I feel trapped. Trapped by the need for the income stream the job provides to pay existing obligations and to plan for the future, trapped by the mantle of accomplishment and "success" a law degree and a good job convey. Yes, I could just walk away - I could walk away, sell my condo (although probably not that successfully in this market), get a job that pays less, move into something smaller (renting, probably, rather than buying), and "trade down", but that is only noble in the movies.
Reality still intrudes.
What really makes all of this effort worthwhile?
The one who dies with the most toys still dies. How do you make time to enjoy life when the treadmill keeps increasing in speed and difficulty? I've tried jumping off periodically, but I don't have the energy to catch up that I used to have, and it seems a more efficient use of my energy to try to stay on the same treadmill instead of jumping from one to another.
Plus, the older I get, the less likely it is that I will find one I like - there are so many people out there looking. Younger, with more energy and more sense of who they are and what they want than I ever had. And the thing is, they get it! When I was growing up, I learned that you paid your dues by succeeding at stuff that nobody else wanted to do, and then you got rewarded with better assignments and more money.
Nowadays, kids - KIDS!! - look at you and say, "I'm not doing that" and they go someplace else where they get to do what they want for more money. They get rewarded for being selective instead of doing the work. What happened to paying dues?
Anyway.
I started this with the heading "one of those days." That's just what it is, and it will pass.
I talked to someone yesterday who very candidly told me that he worked because he could make money doing it. He doesn't really like his job, although he doesn't hate it. What he most enjoys about it is that his kids work with him in his business, so he gets to see them every day and watch them grow and develop in their skills and business sense.
In a way, that was the most refreshing conversation I've had with anyone in decades.
Why is it that there is such pressure to demonstrate that one's chosen career is enjoyable? Is it because of the sacrifices a career demands and we want to justify our choices? Or is it because most of us aren't wealthy enough to tell the truth when we're asked the question, "do you like what you do?"
Why do I do what I do? Do I like my job? Does it really matter if I do?
I suppose I do this job because it's the one in which I can make the most money just by doing what I have been trained to do. Most days, I'm OK with my job. On some days, I really love it; on others, I barely tolerate it. I don't suppose it matters to anyone but me if I like my job - sure, it probably makes life at work more tolerable for those with whom I work if I like my job. Nobody likes to work around a grouch.
There are other things I could do, and do very well, but I don't do them. Instead, I work day after day at a job that, while it offers some good things, nevertheless sucks the life out of me a little bit at a time. I come home at the end of the day drained - I get up later than I should because I really don't want to go to work, and then I don't sleep well because of the accumulated stress.
My weekends are MY time - they're the only time I can sleep late, relax with my dog, do errands and chores and generally re-charge my batteries, but I have a certain amount of face-time to commit to the office to make my billable hour quota and to demonstrate the level of commitment I have to the firm and its goals.
The thing is, I feel trapped. Trapped by the need for the income stream the job provides to pay existing obligations and to plan for the future, trapped by the mantle of accomplishment and "success" a law degree and a good job convey. Yes, I could just walk away - I could walk away, sell my condo (although probably not that successfully in this market), get a job that pays less, move into something smaller (renting, probably, rather than buying), and "trade down", but that is only noble in the movies.
Reality still intrudes.
What really makes all of this effort worthwhile?
The one who dies with the most toys still dies. How do you make time to enjoy life when the treadmill keeps increasing in speed and difficulty? I've tried jumping off periodically, but I don't have the energy to catch up that I used to have, and it seems a more efficient use of my energy to try to stay on the same treadmill instead of jumping from one to another.
Plus, the older I get, the less likely it is that I will find one I like - there are so many people out there looking. Younger, with more energy and more sense of who they are and what they want than I ever had. And the thing is, they get it! When I was growing up, I learned that you paid your dues by succeeding at stuff that nobody else wanted to do, and then you got rewarded with better assignments and more money.
Nowadays, kids - KIDS!! - look at you and say, "I'm not doing that" and they go someplace else where they get to do what they want for more money. They get rewarded for being selective instead of doing the work. What happened to paying dues?
Anyway.
I started this with the heading "one of those days." That's just what it is, and it will pass.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Monday Morning
Sorry for the absence - I've been sick again, and when I'm sick, I make less sense than usual.
As a result, I am going to post a few air pilot jokes my sister sent me this morning - enjoy!! :)
Tower: "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees." TWA 2341: "Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?" Tower: "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
*******
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm f...ing bored!" Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately!" Unknown aircraft: "I said I was f...ing bored, not f...ing stupid!"
*******
A Pan Am 727 flight, waiting for start clearance in Munich , overheard the following: Lufthansa (in German): " Ground, what is our start clearance time?" Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English." Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany . Why must I speak English?" Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war!"
*******
The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206:
Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt , Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."
Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?"
Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, -- And I didn't land."
Gotta love those flyboys......
As a result, I am going to post a few air pilot jokes my sister sent me this morning - enjoy!! :)
Tower: "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees." TWA 2341: "Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?" Tower: "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
*******
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm f...ing bored!" Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately!" Unknown aircraft: "I said I was f...ing bored, not f...ing stupid!"
*******
A Pan Am 727 flight, waiting for start clearance in Munich , overheard the following: Lufthansa (in German): " Ground, what is our start clearance time?" Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English." Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany . Why must I speak English?" Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war!"
*******
The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206:
Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt , Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."
Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?"
Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, -- And I didn't land."
Gotta love those flyboys......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
