Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
- I want to start volunteering with kids again. I did it for years. I love children, I love the trappings of childhood, and I have enough free time to dedicate myself to doing something, other than work, that is personally fulfilling to me. I think I am going to start by reading bedtime stories to children in the hospital.
- I am going to stop being so stingy with my time. When my caseload numbers suddenly shot up and when the cases themselves got complex, I started doing a lot of prioritizing, because I had to. Now, I am going to let the client whose case has already been dismissed, but who keeps insisting on coming in to say hi, come in and say hi. I will start calling clients I have not spoken to in a while, just to check in. I will acknowledge that even the small cases are big cases. I anticipate that a frustrating number of my clients won't have accurate contact information, and won't call me back, but this is my job, I get paid to deal with the frustration of this system, and they don't. I can at least try.
- I will resume reading US Supreme Court cases and state Supreme Court cases regularly, because I like to.
- I'm going to take more weekend trips to visit people who are near and dear to me.
- I'm going to take more weekend trips to be outside and to be present in nature, in the world around me. I'm going to get out of the city and make my way to the woods and just breathe.
I hope that these things will get me in touch with what's important to me and what brought me here. I might not get around to reaching all of the goals on this list, but just identifying concrete steps I can take to rejuvenate myself is a good way to stop feeling helpless and hopeless. I want to give my clients the best attorney that money could never buy. And I want to make sure that my life, too, is fulfilling and rewarding, and that I am a good friend, sister, daughter, confidante, citizen, community member to others.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
The New York Times has been covering a trial in New York City that has been charged as a hate crime based on the use of a word: you know, the N word. The crux of the case seems to be this: is it a slang term used in a ghetto-fabulous way, or was the attack solely racially based? That is, can people of different races assault one another without it being a hate crime? If so, does the N word change that? In all cases? How can you tell?
I think that's the tricky part with hate crimes. It's hard to tell what someone's motivation is. And, if in New York City, the only evidence is the use of the N word, is that sufficient? Perhaps the jury will let us know.