Completed the 2010 Pasadena Marathon two days ago - 1001st place! Perfect weather - cool, breezy, not much sun.
So far, I have had more fun with every race I have done - though the Iron Man Race was more exhilirating I was DQ'd after the bike ride for being too slow.
Picked up an old pair of shoes in the closet on race day, thinking, "these shoes are hardly worn, I think they'd be perfect for the race." Unfortunately, I forgot that the reason they were hardly worn was they were a bit too small in the toe box and the sole cushion was a bit too narrow for my foot. Never again! The shoes have now been donated to a charity far, far away.
Met a lot of other runners during the race, kept slightly ahead of my target pace of 5-1/2 hours for about half the race until for some inexplicable reason (could it really be the shoes?) I developed huge blisters on the balls of both feet. This slowed me down considerably - felt like I was walking on those fun packing materials that you squeeze to pop. This meant that every time the terrain changed, I had to find a new way to walk to minimize the discomfort. Fortunately, this was very doable.
Then, with about 2.5 miles or so to go, I got a real surprise - all of the skin on the bottom of my left little toe came off in once piece - and took with it my toenail. That's right, my shoe must have been upset with all the pounding my overweight body was giving it and tried to tortue me by pulling out one of my nails! Needless to say, the immediate pain was rather sharp. At the time, I thought the pain was from a blister having broken, but there was no way I was going to let a little pain keep me from finishing the race.
I kind of hobbled the last few miles, but finished in 6 hours 35 minutes roughly. For the first time, I had a real sense of accomplishment when I finished a race. I also felt more comraderie with the other runners, and was in a better position to feel a sense of solidarity them - partly because I passed and was passed by the same people many times during the race, and partly because of the three out-and-backs along the course where you got to see more people. Mostly, though, because I had more of a sense of us all being in the race together and I wasn't comparing myself to anyone. I could just appreciate the tremendous effort that each person was putting into completing the marathon.
I was seriously tempted to stop after about 20 miles, when I saw the last two hills that had to be climbed and a medical tent close by. Fortunately, I mentioned to someone that I was thinking about calling it quits and he said to me "You've come this far, you can't stop now." I started thinking about how I knew that I could finish the race, and I would forever feel a sense of accomplishment while the pain of moving forward would last only a couple of more hours.
From having mentally prepared to complete an iron man race, I knew that I could finish, it was only a matter of having the will to do so. In fact, the entire iron man experience had taken away any doubt whatsoever that I could complete the course, even with its several 300 foot elevation gains.
By the time my toenail was ripped off, there was no way I was going to stop even if I had to crawl to the finish line. I offered my pain to God for propitiation of my sins, and contemplated how much more pain Christ was in having been mercilessly scourged on Good Thursday and then having to carry the cross and re-open so many cuts with every step on Friday. I was able to walk on my heels to lessen the pain in one toe and the balls of my feet, but Christ had no option, as every part of His body had been cut open by the scourging.
Besides finishing, the good news is that I completely eliminated any knee pain by wearing a wrap that kept both knees warm and thereby increasing the blood flow to the area around the knee. I'm learning something with every race.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Appellate Decision in Our Favor - Hurrah!
Received the appellate decision today in one of my cases, and we won! Not only that, but another attorney read the decision, commented on how deserving my client appears, and gave me a pat on the back for good advocacy. It doesn't get much better than that - or, as was once said "That's as high as a metaphysic wit can fly."
Mother of two children, one low-functioning autistic child, had support cut in half by a trial court that misapplied the law. Felt great to have three appellate court justices agree with my client's position, and now have an opportunity to (1) obtain another bench officer and (2) obtain a more equitable result for the support of this very dedicated mother and her two children.
Really sad thing is I saw the same judge make the same mistake in several other cases while waiting for my own cases to be heard. I was tempted to pull the self-represented litigants aside and tell them that I thought the judge misapplied the law, but decided that this was probably not allowed without their first approaching me.
Today, we made a real difference. Hopefully, I won't sprain my shoulder trying to pay myself on the back.
Mother of two children, one low-functioning autistic child, had support cut in half by a trial court that misapplied the law. Felt great to have three appellate court justices agree with my client's position, and now have an opportunity to (1) obtain another bench officer and (2) obtain a more equitable result for the support of this very dedicated mother and her two children.
Really sad thing is I saw the same judge make the same mistake in several other cases while waiting for my own cases to be heard. I was tempted to pull the self-represented litigants aside and tell them that I thought the judge misapplied the law, but decided that this was probably not allowed without their first approaching me.
Today, we made a real difference. Hopefully, I won't sprain my shoulder trying to pay myself on the back.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Family Law is a long and winding road
This week, the privilege and responsibility of serving as an attorney-advocate humbled me several times. I was in court or otherwise out of the office on location helping an elderly man and trying to protect two children from the bad decisions of the adults in their lives, collecting past-due support for others. Humbled, because each case I handle affects the lives of my clients in important ways, and I am in a position to make a unique difference in their lives.
First up, another motion for a new trial from an opposing attorney whose client owes more than a million dollars in support arrears. The apparent catalyst for the motion is that changes to Homeland Security procedures mean that one cannot leave the country without a passport. Prior to last year, one could travel to Mexico, Canada, and many countries in the Carribean without having to show a passport.
Now that the rules have changed, the support obligor seems desperate to overturn the child support orders that so that a pssport can be obtained without having to make good on the support obligation. Could it be that the obligor has, perhaps, hidden some money in an off-shore account? If so, what a delicious irony that the obligor first hides all the money money off-shore to avoid paying child support arrears, then is prevented unexpectedly from traveling to get the money because of the arrears - so long, that is, as my legal research and writing is sufficient to bring the relevant law and facts to the attention of a judicial officer in a persuasive manner.
The last motion was over 1,000 pages long. This one was a much more manageable 250 pages. Sadly, it appears that the other attorney alleged that fraud had taken place at the trial many years ago while attaching as exhibits documents which clearly show precisely the opposite. I seem to recall reading somewhere that if one commits perjury to falsely accuse someone of murder, the penalty should be the same as for attempted murder. Wonder what, if anything, the penalty will be for knowingly and falsely making an allegation of dishonesty.
Fortunately, the judicial officer to whom the case has been assigned appears to be extremely sharp and well-versed in law and motion, including evidentiary issues.
Next, I was forced to make an emergency motion to the court so that one of my clients who had retired last year would finally be able to receive payouts from the pensions partially earned during the marriage. Seems the opposing party was dragging feet signing off on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the pension plans were refusing to pay anything out until an order was made. The retirement plans provide that if my client died before the QDRO was entered, the -ex would receive the entire payout. Amazingly, the other party refused to sign the order or or make any objection to it for six months, even though this kept the -ex from receiving any of the funds either.
Once I got to court, at first the judge was reluctant to issue an order without a full-blown hearing - which would have further delayed the pension payout. This reluctance apparently flowed from the fact that the opposing attorney had not answered the phone when I left word of the emergency hearing, and had not contacted me via e-mail, fax, or telephone to take a position - essentially voting "present" or, perhaps, "not present." The court naturally would prefer not to make orders that affect the finances of both parties without hearing from both sides. Fortunately, the clerk of the court offered me her copy of the Family Code, and I was able to locate and make available to the judge the Family Code section that provides that the pension plan had a 30-day waiting period before making any payments, so that the pension or either party could object. This meant that the -ex would receive a copy of the order and still have plenty of time to object if the order was inaccurate. Talk about pressure. If the motion had failed, there was a good chance that my client would go belly-up financially, not to mention the added stress might be detrimental to his health.
Had the clerk not been able to see behind the paperwork to the very real issue of whether this retired man was going to survive financially, and out of sympathy offered to allow me to research some additional law to respond to the court's initial objection to the request, my client would have suffered. Instead, the court was able to obtain additional information permitting it to make the right call. Earlier in my career, I might have accepted the initial rejection without protest or further pleading (literally). Knowing where to look in the Family Code for the relevant section, knowing that in some circumstances a "no" isn't final, and knowing the hardship that a rejection would create for my client, all made a difference, and so I felt that I had made a difference.
Then an early-morning meeting with the principal of an elementary school to discuss a very sensitive matter - a teacher having an affair with the married parent of a child at the school, very openly and publicly. Surprise, surprise - the child felt awkward around the teacher, particularly since as things stand at the moment the child will be in that teacher's classroom next year. Clearly at least one parent is at fault, as is the teacher. Of course the child has done nothing wrong. Who should have to move, teacher or student?
Because my client's English is not ideal, the client is rather shy, and the child has no other advocate, it was essential that I be present to explain my client's position. Didn't hurt that I am a former teacher, so I have a bit better idea how schools really operate. I could see through the initial bureaucratic response and point out to the principal that there were some things that could be done to protect the child, even if it was uncomfortable to impose consequences on the adults who created the situation. Naturally, though, the principal promised to think about things, speak with various people, and get back to me. Nevertheless, the groundwork has been laid to take further action, if necessary.
Finally another emergency hearing the same day - this one to appoint an expert to evaluate the ramifications of a preschooler stating that one of the parents had been touching the child inappropriately. Lots of emotions, with my client repeatedly asking for an investigation to determine the ramifications, and the other party previously stonewalling. Minor's counsel had at first objected to further investigation, but new evidence surfaced that appeared to tip the scales in favor of having a trained professional evaluate the situation. High emotions on all sides, a fair amount of miscommunication and ambiguity about the underlying facts, and some somewhat unusual conflicts between what potential witnesses told me they heard and saw and what minor's counsel reported the potential witnesses had told minor's counsel. Finally, everyone seems to agree that an investigation is warranted to figure out what the child is saying, what the witnesses heard and saw, and what the heck it all means.
Both parties are under suspicion - one for possible inappropriate conduct and/or supervision and the other for possible false allegations. In my role as advocate for one of the parties, I was required to speak up and challenge the methodology and accuracy of minor's counsel, who appears to be a dedicated and caring attorney.
So, today, I am thankful that I am in this position where I can make a difference in people's lives. In none of these situations could my clients have accomplished the results alone, each was relying on me to protect their interests. Very humbling position to be in.
First up, another motion for a new trial from an opposing attorney whose client owes more than a million dollars in support arrears. The apparent catalyst for the motion is that changes to Homeland Security procedures mean that one cannot leave the country without a passport. Prior to last year, one could travel to Mexico, Canada, and many countries in the Carribean without having to show a passport.
Now that the rules have changed, the support obligor seems desperate to overturn the child support orders that so that a pssport can be obtained without having to make good on the support obligation. Could it be that the obligor has, perhaps, hidden some money in an off-shore account? If so, what a delicious irony that the obligor first hides all the money money off-shore to avoid paying child support arrears, then is prevented unexpectedly from traveling to get the money because of the arrears - so long, that is, as my legal research and writing is sufficient to bring the relevant law and facts to the attention of a judicial officer in a persuasive manner.
The last motion was over 1,000 pages long. This one was a much more manageable 250 pages. Sadly, it appears that the other attorney alleged that fraud had taken place at the trial many years ago while attaching as exhibits documents which clearly show precisely the opposite. I seem to recall reading somewhere that if one commits perjury to falsely accuse someone of murder, the penalty should be the same as for attempted murder. Wonder what, if anything, the penalty will be for knowingly and falsely making an allegation of dishonesty.
Fortunately, the judicial officer to whom the case has been assigned appears to be extremely sharp and well-versed in law and motion, including evidentiary issues.
Next, I was forced to make an emergency motion to the court so that one of my clients who had retired last year would finally be able to receive payouts from the pensions partially earned during the marriage. Seems the opposing party was dragging feet signing off on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the pension plans were refusing to pay anything out until an order was made. The retirement plans provide that if my client died before the QDRO was entered, the -ex would receive the entire payout. Amazingly, the other party refused to sign the order or or make any objection to it for six months, even though this kept the -ex from receiving any of the funds either.
Once I got to court, at first the judge was reluctant to issue an order without a full-blown hearing - which would have further delayed the pension payout. This reluctance apparently flowed from the fact that the opposing attorney had not answered the phone when I left word of the emergency hearing, and had not contacted me via e-mail, fax, or telephone to take a position - essentially voting "present" or, perhaps, "not present." The court naturally would prefer not to make orders that affect the finances of both parties without hearing from both sides. Fortunately, the clerk of the court offered me her copy of the Family Code, and I was able to locate and make available to the judge the Family Code section that provides that the pension plan had a 30-day waiting period before making any payments, so that the pension or either party could object. This meant that the -ex would receive a copy of the order and still have plenty of time to object if the order was inaccurate. Talk about pressure. If the motion had failed, there was a good chance that my client would go belly-up financially, not to mention the added stress might be detrimental to his health.
Had the clerk not been able to see behind the paperwork to the very real issue of whether this retired man was going to survive financially, and out of sympathy offered to allow me to research some additional law to respond to the court's initial objection to the request, my client would have suffered. Instead, the court was able to obtain additional information permitting it to make the right call. Earlier in my career, I might have accepted the initial rejection without protest or further pleading (literally). Knowing where to look in the Family Code for the relevant section, knowing that in some circumstances a "no" isn't final, and knowing the hardship that a rejection would create for my client, all made a difference, and so I felt that I had made a difference.
Then an early-morning meeting with the principal of an elementary school to discuss a very sensitive matter - a teacher having an affair with the married parent of a child at the school, very openly and publicly. Surprise, surprise - the child felt awkward around the teacher, particularly since as things stand at the moment the child will be in that teacher's classroom next year. Clearly at least one parent is at fault, as is the teacher. Of course the child has done nothing wrong. Who should have to move, teacher or student?
Because my client's English is not ideal, the client is rather shy, and the child has no other advocate, it was essential that I be present to explain my client's position. Didn't hurt that I am a former teacher, so I have a bit better idea how schools really operate. I could see through the initial bureaucratic response and point out to the principal that there were some things that could be done to protect the child, even if it was uncomfortable to impose consequences on the adults who created the situation. Naturally, though, the principal promised to think about things, speak with various people, and get back to me. Nevertheless, the groundwork has been laid to take further action, if necessary.
Finally another emergency hearing the same day - this one to appoint an expert to evaluate the ramifications of a preschooler stating that one of the parents had been touching the child inappropriately. Lots of emotions, with my client repeatedly asking for an investigation to determine the ramifications, and the other party previously stonewalling. Minor's counsel had at first objected to further investigation, but new evidence surfaced that appeared to tip the scales in favor of having a trained professional evaluate the situation. High emotions on all sides, a fair amount of miscommunication and ambiguity about the underlying facts, and some somewhat unusual conflicts between what potential witnesses told me they heard and saw and what minor's counsel reported the potential witnesses had told minor's counsel. Finally, everyone seems to agree that an investigation is warranted to figure out what the child is saying, what the witnesses heard and saw, and what the heck it all means.
Both parties are under suspicion - one for possible inappropriate conduct and/or supervision and the other for possible false allegations. In my role as advocate for one of the parties, I was required to speak up and challenge the methodology and accuracy of minor's counsel, who appears to be a dedicated and caring attorney.
So, today, I am thankful that I am in this position where I can make a difference in people's lives. In none of these situations could my clients have accomplished the results alone, each was relying on me to protect their interests. Very humbling position to be in.
Friday, January 29, 2010
There you go again!
Be careful. Be very careful. I think I must be losing my mind!
Last night I signed up for two marathons and another Ironman for 2010.
I have no idea how I'll find the time to get ready for the Pasadena Marathon in four weeks, or the LA Marathon a month later, but I signed up anyway. If you enjoy watching geezers wheeze, show up at the finish line just before sun down and you may get a chance to watch me crawl across the finish line.
Last night I signed up for two marathons and another Ironman for 2010.
I have no idea how I'll find the time to get ready for the Pasadena Marathon in four weeks, or the LA Marathon a month later, but I signed up anyway. If you enjoy watching geezers wheeze, show up at the finish line just before sun down and you may get a chance to watch me crawl across the finish line.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Some Lessons Learned
Traveling to Florida to participate in the Iron Man led to many lessons learned, and I am so grateful for each of them. Although I did not complete the course, having finished the bike portion too late to be allowed to run, my first run at Iron Man was a joyous event, and well worth the time, energy, and money. I share them for future first-timers wondering whether they can jump straight into Iron Man and skip all of the small fry stuff such as Triathlons.
First lesson - the one I learned in the Boy Scouts, BE PREPARED.
WETSUIT FIT. I picked up my wetsuit the Monday before the race, never wore it before I got to Florida, and discovered that the Zootsuit was fantastic, but just a little small in the shoulders. This was not apparent until I was swimming, and my shoulder got a fair amount of resistance when I stretched my hand directly over my head. This led to two results that one wants to avoid. First, it pulled the back of the wetsuit up my neck and onto my scalp - resulting in a nasty rope burn when it slid back into place with each stroke. The salt water further aggravated the painful, but minor, injury, and it left about a one inch square scab that is still healing. Second, when I adapted to this situation by not lifting my arm straight over my head, this caused me to lose the ability to swim straight. I became like a plane on auto-pilot, constantly correcting course, but eventually making it to the destination.
Otherwise, I was fine on the swim. The currents, swells, and breaking waves didn't both me as I had done quite a bit of ocean swimming as a child while body surfing and generally being left on my own for hours at a time at the ocean. Primary lesson, just keep on keepin on and never give up, and those swells and currents won't bother you.
Next area in which I found I was unprepared - NUTRITION. For me, at least, gel is the only thing that seems to help. I had mostly used Cliff bars during training, with an occasional gel, but that is because I usually stopped to eat, and wasn't really racing a clock. Since I had not PRACTICED under race conditions, I didn't realize that I would simply refuse to eat the clif bars. Result: I went 40 miles into the bike ride before I realized that gel was available. Had I known I was going to eat strictly gel, I would have brought my own and never had to stop.
Related to nutrition, was LOGISTICS OF FOOD AND WATER ON THE BIKE. I hadn't paid much attention to this, carrying my food and water on the back of my bike during training. The extra weight helped prepared me, and gave me a boost when I shed the basket, but then I didn't have a good system to accept food and water on the course. I just stopped at each aid station, ate and drank my fill, and continued on. While I thought this wouldn't be significant since the Iron Man is primarily an endurance, not a speed, race, when I missed the cut-off all these stops came back to bite me.
Third, CHECK YOUR EQUIPMENT THOROUGHLY. My bike shipped fine to Florida, and my brother was kind enough to send it to a local bike shop for a tune-up. However, I didn't discover until the race was ON that my speedometer didn't work. With no speedometer, there is no good way to pace yourself, and you end up slowing down.
Bottom line, on race day you don't want anything to get in the way of completing the race, especially something that you have complete control over. So take care of the details. Act as if you've been there before a thousand times, which of course means that everything that can go wrong would have gone wrong for you at one time or another, so you would always carefully check each and every aspect of the race logistics, calmly, and without obsession.
Second major lesson learned, is that RACING IS A LOT MORE FUN WITH A GROUP. I mostly trained on my own, though I did a few bike rides and runs with various people, including my brother. My brother, on the other hand, trained this year primarily with a great group of men and women, about a dozen, and 6 or 8 of them entered the race. Their joy not only on race day, but leading up to the race, at the pre-race potluck, the pre-race practice swim, the race itself, and the aftermath, was palpable. Join a group and quadruple your fun!
One woman completed the race after separating her shoulder and undergoing deep bruising after barreling into a traffic barrel. Two others completed the race despite not having been able to train properly. All brought family or friends to the race and this expanded the cheering section, and gave the spectators more to do than merely spectate and speculate about their loved one's progress.
One great guy even proposed marriage to his now-fiance at the finish line! He'd never more drenched in sweat or more exhausted, but his future bride is a triathaloner so she found the sweat quite romantic. Only problem with doing something like that at the finish line is that word quickly gets around, so your friends know you're engaged before you can even get to post it on your Facebook page. The proposal was so cool that it has been included in the 2009 Highlights of the Florida Ironman.
The third thing I took away from the race is CHERISH YOUR FAMILY. My older brother was competing in the race, as was his nephew (the aforementioned groom). There was even a very distant relative with my same last name whom I had never before met. I was thrilled because both my daughters came to the race, as did my future son-in-law, my sister-in-law, nephew, and niece. There simply is no finer group of people on this planet, and I was floating just being in the presence of so many outstanding and loveable people.
I enjoyed being around such an accomplished group - a teacher with a Master's Degree, two counselors each with a Master's degree, and two grad students, not to mention a CPA. But even more I enjoyed being around such a fun and loving group. Small acts of kindness, laughter, working together, and the obvious love and high regard for one another filled the weekend.
First lesson - the one I learned in the Boy Scouts, BE PREPARED.
WETSUIT FIT. I picked up my wetsuit the Monday before the race, never wore it before I got to Florida, and discovered that the Zootsuit was fantastic, but just a little small in the shoulders. This was not apparent until I was swimming, and my shoulder got a fair amount of resistance when I stretched my hand directly over my head. This led to two results that one wants to avoid. First, it pulled the back of the wetsuit up my neck and onto my scalp - resulting in a nasty rope burn when it slid back into place with each stroke. The salt water further aggravated the painful, but minor, injury, and it left about a one inch square scab that is still healing. Second, when I adapted to this situation by not lifting my arm straight over my head, this caused me to lose the ability to swim straight. I became like a plane on auto-pilot, constantly correcting course, but eventually making it to the destination.
Otherwise, I was fine on the swim. The currents, swells, and breaking waves didn't both me as I had done quite a bit of ocean swimming as a child while body surfing and generally being left on my own for hours at a time at the ocean. Primary lesson, just keep on keepin on and never give up, and those swells and currents won't bother you.
Next area in which I found I was unprepared - NUTRITION. For me, at least, gel is the only thing that seems to help. I had mostly used Cliff bars during training, with an occasional gel, but that is because I usually stopped to eat, and wasn't really racing a clock. Since I had not PRACTICED under race conditions, I didn't realize that I would simply refuse to eat the clif bars. Result: I went 40 miles into the bike ride before I realized that gel was available. Had I known I was going to eat strictly gel, I would have brought my own and never had to stop.
Related to nutrition, was LOGISTICS OF FOOD AND WATER ON THE BIKE. I hadn't paid much attention to this, carrying my food and water on the back of my bike during training. The extra weight helped prepared me, and gave me a boost when I shed the basket, but then I didn't have a good system to accept food and water on the course. I just stopped at each aid station, ate and drank my fill, and continued on. While I thought this wouldn't be significant since the Iron Man is primarily an endurance, not a speed, race, when I missed the cut-off all these stops came back to bite me.
Third, CHECK YOUR EQUIPMENT THOROUGHLY. My bike shipped fine to Florida, and my brother was kind enough to send it to a local bike shop for a tune-up. However, I didn't discover until the race was ON that my speedometer didn't work. With no speedometer, there is no good way to pace yourself, and you end up slowing down.
Bottom line, on race day you don't want anything to get in the way of completing the race, especially something that you have complete control over. So take care of the details. Act as if you've been there before a thousand times, which of course means that everything that can go wrong would have gone wrong for you at one time or another, so you would always carefully check each and every aspect of the race logistics, calmly, and without obsession.
Second major lesson learned, is that RACING IS A LOT MORE FUN WITH A GROUP. I mostly trained on my own, though I did a few bike rides and runs with various people, including my brother. My brother, on the other hand, trained this year primarily with a great group of men and women, about a dozen, and 6 or 8 of them entered the race. Their joy not only on race day, but leading up to the race, at the pre-race potluck, the pre-race practice swim, the race itself, and the aftermath, was palpable. Join a group and quadruple your fun!
One woman completed the race after separating her shoulder and undergoing deep bruising after barreling into a traffic barrel. Two others completed the race despite not having been able to train properly. All brought family or friends to the race and this expanded the cheering section, and gave the spectators more to do than merely spectate and speculate about their loved one's progress.
One great guy even proposed marriage to his now-fiance at the finish line! He'd never more drenched in sweat or more exhausted, but his future bride is a triathaloner so she found the sweat quite romantic. Only problem with doing something like that at the finish line is that word quickly gets around, so your friends know you're engaged before you can even get to post it on your Facebook page. The proposal was so cool that it has been included in the 2009 Highlights of the Florida Ironman.
The third thing I took away from the race is CHERISH YOUR FAMILY. My older brother was competing in the race, as was his nephew (the aforementioned groom). There was even a very distant relative with my same last name whom I had never before met. I was thrilled because both my daughters came to the race, as did my future son-in-law, my sister-in-law, nephew, and niece. There simply is no finer group of people on this planet, and I was floating just being in the presence of so many outstanding and loveable people.
I enjoyed being around such an accomplished group - a teacher with a Master's Degree, two counselors each with a Master's degree, and two grad students, not to mention a CPA. But even more I enjoyed being around such a fun and loving group. Small acts of kindness, laughter, working together, and the obvious love and high regard for one another filled the weekend.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
I learn its not as easy as it looks
My brother is an Iron Man! Hurrah!
The sum total of my "competitive" running experience is now one sprint triathlon, one Olympic Distance triathlon, one Marathon (Surf City), and one partially completed Iron Man competition. Can the Wheaties box cover be far behind?
Ok. So experience DOES count for something. Finishing all the pressing matters I could at the office, I finally began packing for the race trip about 4 a.m. before making the mad dash to LAX for my early flight to Florida. In the 20 minutes I had to pack I managed to get all my Iron Man gear, and little else, into my carry-on bags. To save space, I wore my running shoes.
Having arrived a few days before the race, I quickly wished that I had also packed some clothes to wear on the non-race days. The night before the race, the competitors (in my case, participants) had to put their running gear into a bag to be held in the transition area from the ride to the run. Oops. Now I had no shoes to wear. Quick trip to Walmart and I was gellin with some Dr. Scholl's trail shoes.
First up. The 2.4 mile swim into the Gulf of Mexico. To avoid getting my face kicked in by one of 2,499 other swimmers, I waited a minute or two to allow the others to dive in and, hopefully, clear the area of jelly fish. Moving just fast enough to keep from sinking, I finished 16 minutes off of my target goal. I saw my family cheering encouragement, relieved that I had not drowned.
The panic I felt when three men threw me to the ground and quickly stripped me of my wetsuit soon gave way to joy and relief as they helped me up without any further assault and I was allowed to stand under the showers to wash off the sand for as long as my heart desired.
Some time later, I continued on to the changing area and was soon on my bicycle. I'd had the tires changed at the last minute before shipping my bike. Since it could take me hours to change a flat tire, I went with Armadillo tires - impervious to normal road hazards. Though I felt like I was riding on tank treads, I consoled myself that at least I wouldn't have to stop to change a flat tire. Imagine my surprise when I heard the night before that "This year, for a change, we swept the entire course free of glass." Even with the slow tires, I didn't seem to be moving as fast as I had trained. I wasn't too worried though. Several of the more experienced competitors I'd met had warned against going out too fast on the bike course and burning too much energy. One thing I didn't have after that swim was energy to burn.
Could it be the lack of food in my system? Had I really burned that many calories out there in the Gulf? Forty miles into the race I finally realized that all those Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts on the course were trying to offer me instant energy - gel food quickly consumed. When they asked me whether I wanted Strawberry or Chocolate, I couldn't resist, even though I had been taught never to take food from strangers. Somehow the other riders managed to eat, drink and ride at the same time. Since my only accident had occurred in training while I was chewing gum and riding, I stopped at every aid station to eat and drink.
Soon, my speed had picked up by what seemed like several miles an hour. I checked my bike computer to see how fast I was traveling. Oops. Note to self. Check to make sure all equipment is working BEFORE the race, not in the middle of it.
As I approached the end of the 112 mile bike course, the sun also approached the ends of its course for the day. The sun reached its destination over the horizon a few minutes before I reached mine. I missed the cut-off by 11 minutes and was not allowed to run the marathon.
After walking to the infamous Andy's Motel, showering, changing, eating dinner, and hanging out with friends and family, I made it to the finish line in time to see my older brother sprint across the finish line, confirming what I'd always known, he is a true Iron Man. As for me, I have not yet begun to rust!
The sum total of my "competitive" running experience is now one sprint triathlon, one Olympic Distance triathlon, one Marathon (Surf City), and one partially completed Iron Man competition. Can the Wheaties box cover be far behind?
Ok. So experience DOES count for something. Finishing all the pressing matters I could at the office, I finally began packing for the race trip about 4 a.m. before making the mad dash to LAX for my early flight to Florida. In the 20 minutes I had to pack I managed to get all my Iron Man gear, and little else, into my carry-on bags. To save space, I wore my running shoes.
Having arrived a few days before the race, I quickly wished that I had also packed some clothes to wear on the non-race days. The night before the race, the competitors (in my case, participants) had to put their running gear into a bag to be held in the transition area from the ride to the run. Oops. Now I had no shoes to wear. Quick trip to Walmart and I was gellin with some Dr. Scholl's trail shoes.
First up. The 2.4 mile swim into the Gulf of Mexico. To avoid getting my face kicked in by one of 2,499 other swimmers, I waited a minute or two to allow the others to dive in and, hopefully, clear the area of jelly fish. Moving just fast enough to keep from sinking, I finished 16 minutes off of my target goal. I saw my family cheering encouragement, relieved that I had not drowned.
The panic I felt when three men threw me to the ground and quickly stripped me of my wetsuit soon gave way to joy and relief as they helped me up without any further assault and I was allowed to stand under the showers to wash off the sand for as long as my heart desired.
Some time later, I continued on to the changing area and was soon on my bicycle. I'd had the tires changed at the last minute before shipping my bike. Since it could take me hours to change a flat tire, I went with Armadillo tires - impervious to normal road hazards. Though I felt like I was riding on tank treads, I consoled myself that at least I wouldn't have to stop to change a flat tire. Imagine my surprise when I heard the night before that "This year, for a change, we swept the entire course free of glass." Even with the slow tires, I didn't seem to be moving as fast as I had trained. I wasn't too worried though. Several of the more experienced competitors I'd met had warned against going out too fast on the bike course and burning too much energy. One thing I didn't have after that swim was energy to burn.
Could it be the lack of food in my system? Had I really burned that many calories out there in the Gulf? Forty miles into the race I finally realized that all those Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts on the course were trying to offer me instant energy - gel food quickly consumed. When they asked me whether I wanted Strawberry or Chocolate, I couldn't resist, even though I had been taught never to take food from strangers. Somehow the other riders managed to eat, drink and ride at the same time. Since my only accident had occurred in training while I was chewing gum and riding, I stopped at every aid station to eat and drink.
Soon, my speed had picked up by what seemed like several miles an hour. I checked my bike computer to see how fast I was traveling. Oops. Note to self. Check to make sure all equipment is working BEFORE the race, not in the middle of it.
As I approached the end of the 112 mile bike course, the sun also approached the ends of its course for the day. The sun reached its destination over the horizon a few minutes before I reached mine. I missed the cut-off by 11 minutes and was not allowed to run the marathon.
After walking to the infamous Andy's Motel, showering, changing, eating dinner, and hanging out with friends and family, I made it to the finish line in time to see my older brother sprint across the finish line, confirming what I'd always known, he is a true Iron Man. As for me, I have not yet begun to rust!
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Iron Man or just too much lead paint in the brain?
My wonderful brother convinced me to attempt an Iron Man in November of 2009. It looked easy enough while I was cheering for him in the Louisville Ironman race last Labor Day.
Even though I was exhausted from driving around in the 93 degree weather, cheering for the 2,500 participants, and standing in one spot cheering for hours at a time, what they were doing didn't seem all that difficult. After all, we were both exhausted, sweaty, hungry, and having the time of our lives.
So far, I've lost 10 pounds, gotten to know my local gym better than I thought I ever would, realize I need to learn to swim, and bought a really cool, light, bicycle. I've also watched Rocky I several times. . . .
Even though I was exhausted from driving around in the 93 degree weather, cheering for the 2,500 participants, and standing in one spot cheering for hours at a time, what they were doing didn't seem all that difficult. After all, we were both exhausted, sweaty, hungry, and having the time of our lives.
So far, I've lost 10 pounds, gotten to know my local gym better than I thought I ever would, realize I need to learn to swim, and bought a really cool, light, bicycle. I've also watched Rocky I several times. . . .
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Sharing Information with other attorneys
One image of attorneys is that they are a cut-throat bunch, caring little about their clients and less about their competitors. In fact, a great deal of sharing and mentoring goes on in the legal profession, even among competitors -- at least in the family law arena.
The Los Angeles County Bar Association, Family Law Section, has a listserve on which all members may post questions. Surprisingly, most questions are answered rather quickly, and there is often an ongoing discussion for a few hours, or even days, on subjects that are controversial.
By regularly monitoring the discussions, and occasionally pitching in, an attorney keeps his or her skills sharp, gets an insight into unusual or difficult situations that arise, and participates in a community of professionals. This helps to raise the standards within the legal profession and allows attorneys to receive regular feedback on their practices and procedures.
Since participation is entirely voluntary (and one must actually pay to be a member of the Los Angeles County Bar and pay more to join the family law section), the listserve is another area of life, and the law, that attorneys can be proud of.
The Los Angeles County Bar Association, Family Law Section, has a listserve on which all members may post questions. Surprisingly, most questions are answered rather quickly, and there is often an ongoing discussion for a few hours, or even days, on subjects that are controversial.
By regularly monitoring the discussions, and occasionally pitching in, an attorney keeps his or her skills sharp, gets an insight into unusual or difficult situations that arise, and participates in a community of professionals. This helps to raise the standards within the legal profession and allows attorneys to receive regular feedback on their practices and procedures.
Since participation is entirely voluntary (and one must actually pay to be a member of the Los Angeles County Bar and pay more to join the family law section), the listserve is another area of life, and the law, that attorneys can be proud of.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Will Voters Provoke Supreme Court to Eliminate Marriage?
The California Supreme Court has held that the California Constitution is violated when the State refuses to recognize "same gender" marriages. Actually, the Court got a little confused, since it talks about discrimination based on "sexual preference." As anyone who has been paying attention should know, there are plenty of "gay" men and women who are ALREADY married - to someone of the opposite gender.
Whenever I write a brief, I know my client is right whenever I can write a very short brief, right to the point. The Supreme Court rambled on for 121 pages. This tells me that the Court was unsure of itself and felt very strongly that it would have to "justify" its decision.
Now, suppose that the voters of California adopt an amendment to the Constitution stating that "marriage" can only be defined as a certain type of relationship between two people of different gender. Will the Supreme Court have the courage of its convictions and, based on its Equal Protection arguments, strike down all marriage laws. Remember, there are two ways to resolve a situation where one group is being "unfairly" benefited - extend the benefits to all, or strike down the benefits. Presumably, were "marriage" once again defined as it has been for thousands of years, the Supreme Court could strike down all laws that favor marriage based on the logic contained in its 121-page decision.
California has a system of Domestic Partnership registration, in which domestic partners are given the IDENTICAL rights as spouses. Legally, the California Supreme Court decision therefore adds no rights to those who seek a long-term committed relationship sanctioned by the State to someone of their own gender.
What the Supreme Court is allegedly concerned with is what we "label" the relationship. According to the Court, it is simply intolerable that we use two different words to describe committed relationships between folks of the same gender and folks of different genders. The Court hypothesizes that young children might suffer stigma if they are unable to tell classmates that their parents are married.
This is a clever argument, since one of the primary purposes, if not THE primary purpose, of marriage is to create a stable, long-term relationship where the children can be raised by two parents, both of whom make sacrifices for the good of the family, and the children. Same-gendered folks will have children either by adoption, by surrogates, or by relationships with folks of different gender (both before, during, and after the relationship with the person of the same gender). But, statistically speaking, they are far, far less likely to do so than people of opposite genders.
Rather than suggest that children be taught tolerance, or that the children be taught that domestic partnerships give same-gendered parents all the same rights and obligations as spouses, or that same-gendered parents consider these issues prior to having children, or teach their children in their own way how to deal with the subject, the Supreme Court decides to "protect" children by extending the label "marriage" to people to whom it has never been applied before. If we just change the definition of "marriage" the little children will not feel stigmatized.
Unfortunately, a relationship between differently gendered people is different than one between same gendered people, especially with regard to the likelihood of having children. Over the last several eons, society has apparently found that giving special recognition to families composed of a man and a woman is a good way to encourage people to have children, and to properly care for the children.
Whenever one group is favored, this comes with a cost. For example, we may give tax credits to a married couple (or take away tax benefits) to encourage or discourage certain behavior. If the primary reason we are doing so is to encourage people to have children and raise them well, we try to minimize the unnecessary costs without causing too many unforeseen consequences that are detrimental. Not all families will have children, not all will respond in the same way to the tax credit, or tax penalty. We can only afford so much in taxes. So, we give a tax credit, but we don't say that married people pay zero taxes. It would simply be too expensive.
When we state that a spouse can be covered by the other spouse's health, auto or life insurance, this comes with a certain cost - either to the insurance company or to the unmarried in society, who end up sharing the cost.
If we change the mix of people who are likely to have children who receive such benefits, this changes the cost-benefit ratio of the public policy trying to help children by helping married people. It may, or may not, be affordable or desirable to continue offering the benefit. That is, if 80% of all married folks end up having children, we might be able to tolerate the expense created by the other 20%, since this might still be the best way to target children, and encourage people to be married when they have children. But if only 20%, or 50%, or even 60% of married folks have children, we might not be able to tolerate that expense.
In the first scenario, 80 cents of every dollar of benefit helps the target group. In the second scenario only 20, 50 or 60% of every dollar of benefit helps the target group. This is true when married people just stop having children, and it is also true if we redefine marriage to include a large population that is unlikely to have children.
If we want everyone to have group health insurance, instead of a cost we might see the broadening of the definition of marriage to be a good thing, even worth the cost of having to redesign literally billions of forms and sales pitches, and conventions wherein if we know a person is married, we know the gender of the spouse. Advertisers utilize this to target advertising. If the cost-benefit of doing so changes, advertisers may choose not to advertise. This means a lack of benefit for the people who are already married.
There are no doubt millions of conventions, assumptions, business practices, and financial arrangements currently based on the idea that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. When and how we change those conventions, assumptions, and practices should be up to the people of California. We may want to try it on for size, fine-tune our system of incentives and disincentives for marriage and child-rearing, change our mind a few times until we can recalibrate marriage.
This is a matter for our body politic and Legislature, where the public policy priorities are pitted against one another in the grand compromise that gives rise to our laws. The Supreme Court is not well-positioned to make these evolving decisions.
Before the Supreme Court ruled, the Legislature had decided that enough people want to enter into marriage-like relationships with someone of the same gender to warrant setting up a system by which they can easily do so - Domestic Partnerships. While granting partners the same rights and obligations as spouses, the law also allowed the Legislature to tinker with public policy. For example, the Domestic Partnership Law did not allow people of opposite gender to become domestic partners unless they were 65 years old or older. The Legislature apparently thought that the trade-offs involved did not warrant extending Domestic Partnerships to all people of opposite genders - perhaps out of fear that more people would seek to gain the benefits of having a spouse without making the types of commitments that we normally associate with marriage, thereby overburdening our system of encouraging marriage. This is what Legislatures are supposed to do.
The majority of the Supreme Court apparently believes that we should think of relationships between people of the opposite gender the same as between people of the same gender. In order to try to force us to do so, it is now in the business of redefining language.
This is a very, very big change that will have enormous cultural, political, social and economic ramifications. My own view is that Judicial Fiat is not the best way to make public policy of this type.
No one can know at this time how many gay married couples will be raising children, whether more people will opt for marriage than opted for Domestic Partnerships, what those marriages will look like as compared to opposite-gendered marriages, and how this will affect our willingness to encourage marriage. We do not know whether this will strengthen society (perhaps leading to more marriages, more stable relationships that encourage the type of long-term sacrifice that benefits society), weaken our ability to promote child-friendly policy at a reasonable cost, or change absolutely nothing.
Whenever I write a brief, I know my client is right whenever I can write a very short brief, right to the point. The Supreme Court rambled on for 121 pages. This tells me that the Court was unsure of itself and felt very strongly that it would have to "justify" its decision.
Now, suppose that the voters of California adopt an amendment to the Constitution stating that "marriage" can only be defined as a certain type of relationship between two people of different gender. Will the Supreme Court have the courage of its convictions and, based on its Equal Protection arguments, strike down all marriage laws. Remember, there are two ways to resolve a situation where one group is being "unfairly" benefited - extend the benefits to all, or strike down the benefits. Presumably, were "marriage" once again defined as it has been for thousands of years, the Supreme Court could strike down all laws that favor marriage based on the logic contained in its 121-page decision.
California has a system of Domestic Partnership registration, in which domestic partners are given the IDENTICAL rights as spouses. Legally, the California Supreme Court decision therefore adds no rights to those who seek a long-term committed relationship sanctioned by the State to someone of their own gender.
What the Supreme Court is allegedly concerned with is what we "label" the relationship. According to the Court, it is simply intolerable that we use two different words to describe committed relationships between folks of the same gender and folks of different genders. The Court hypothesizes that young children might suffer stigma if they are unable to tell classmates that their parents are married.
This is a clever argument, since one of the primary purposes, if not THE primary purpose, of marriage is to create a stable, long-term relationship where the children can be raised by two parents, both of whom make sacrifices for the good of the family, and the children. Same-gendered folks will have children either by adoption, by surrogates, or by relationships with folks of different gender (both before, during, and after the relationship with the person of the same gender). But, statistically speaking, they are far, far less likely to do so than people of opposite genders.
Rather than suggest that children be taught tolerance, or that the children be taught that domestic partnerships give same-gendered parents all the same rights and obligations as spouses, or that same-gendered parents consider these issues prior to having children, or teach their children in their own way how to deal with the subject, the Supreme Court decides to "protect" children by extending the label "marriage" to people to whom it has never been applied before. If we just change the definition of "marriage" the little children will not feel stigmatized.
Unfortunately, a relationship between differently gendered people is different than one between same gendered people, especially with regard to the likelihood of having children. Over the last several eons, society has apparently found that giving special recognition to families composed of a man and a woman is a good way to encourage people to have children, and to properly care for the children.
Whenever one group is favored, this comes with a cost. For example, we may give tax credits to a married couple (or take away tax benefits) to encourage or discourage certain behavior. If the primary reason we are doing so is to encourage people to have children and raise them well, we try to minimize the unnecessary costs without causing too many unforeseen consequences that are detrimental. Not all families will have children, not all will respond in the same way to the tax credit, or tax penalty. We can only afford so much in taxes. So, we give a tax credit, but we don't say that married people pay zero taxes. It would simply be too expensive.
When we state that a spouse can be covered by the other spouse's health, auto or life insurance, this comes with a certain cost - either to the insurance company or to the unmarried in society, who end up sharing the cost.
If we change the mix of people who are likely to have children who receive such benefits, this changes the cost-benefit ratio of the public policy trying to help children by helping married people. It may, or may not, be affordable or desirable to continue offering the benefit. That is, if 80% of all married folks end up having children, we might be able to tolerate the expense created by the other 20%, since this might still be the best way to target children, and encourage people to be married when they have children. But if only 20%, or 50%, or even 60% of married folks have children, we might not be able to tolerate that expense.
In the first scenario, 80 cents of every dollar of benefit helps the target group. In the second scenario only 20, 50 or 60% of every dollar of benefit helps the target group. This is true when married people just stop having children, and it is also true if we redefine marriage to include a large population that is unlikely to have children.
If we want everyone to have group health insurance, instead of a cost we might see the broadening of the definition of marriage to be a good thing, even worth the cost of having to redesign literally billions of forms and sales pitches, and conventions wherein if we know a person is married, we know the gender of the spouse. Advertisers utilize this to target advertising. If the cost-benefit of doing so changes, advertisers may choose not to advertise. This means a lack of benefit for the people who are already married.
There are no doubt millions of conventions, assumptions, business practices, and financial arrangements currently based on the idea that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. When and how we change those conventions, assumptions, and practices should be up to the people of California. We may want to try it on for size, fine-tune our system of incentives and disincentives for marriage and child-rearing, change our mind a few times until we can recalibrate marriage.
This is a matter for our body politic and Legislature, where the public policy priorities are pitted against one another in the grand compromise that gives rise to our laws. The Supreme Court is not well-positioned to make these evolving decisions.
Before the Supreme Court ruled, the Legislature had decided that enough people want to enter into marriage-like relationships with someone of the same gender to warrant setting up a system by which they can easily do so - Domestic Partnerships. While granting partners the same rights and obligations as spouses, the law also allowed the Legislature to tinker with public policy. For example, the Domestic Partnership Law did not allow people of opposite gender to become domestic partners unless they were 65 years old or older. The Legislature apparently thought that the trade-offs involved did not warrant extending Domestic Partnerships to all people of opposite genders - perhaps out of fear that more people would seek to gain the benefits of having a spouse without making the types of commitments that we normally associate with marriage, thereby overburdening our system of encouraging marriage. This is what Legislatures are supposed to do.
The majority of the Supreme Court apparently believes that we should think of relationships between people of the opposite gender the same as between people of the same gender. In order to try to force us to do so, it is now in the business of redefining language.
This is a very, very big change that will have enormous cultural, political, social and economic ramifications. My own view is that Judicial Fiat is not the best way to make public policy of this type.
No one can know at this time how many gay married couples will be raising children, whether more people will opt for marriage than opted for Domestic Partnerships, what those marriages will look like as compared to opposite-gendered marriages, and how this will affect our willingness to encourage marriage. We do not know whether this will strengthen society (perhaps leading to more marriages, more stable relationships that encourage the type of long-term sacrifice that benefits society), weaken our ability to promote child-friendly policy at a reasonable cost, or change absolutely nothing.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Divorce Mediations Group
 |
DivorceMediations |
Visit this group |
A group for mediators of divorce. Any divorce mediator can become a member and add posts. Those interested finding a mediator are invited to view the group's posts, and you can learn how to contact a number of divorce mediators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
