Gangly Thoughts

So mr. jolt and I are off to the big city tomorrow, for one night, to join some friends throwing a high-class blast of a party to celebrate  drown their sorrows about turning 40.  It will be a lot of fun and a lot of other people we haven’t seen lately will be there as well.

Because it took us a while to arrange an overnight sitter, we were late making a hotel reservation.  As a result, the cheapest place that wasn’t either 20 miles outside the city or likely to be extremely scary, was for the bargain price of $299.  Before taxes.  For one frigging night.  Cough, cough, sputter, sputter.  We aren’t even going to be in the city for 24 hours.  On the other hand, with mr. jolt’s work schedule we haven’t had a date night since early September, so it should all even out in the end, right?  Right?

One frustating thing about civil litigation occurs when you  know that a particular claim is not likely to do well, you advise one’s client of said fact, and having client state that they refuse to settle because the $ is too low/too high when you know they will regret it if the case proceeds to trial. 

I’ve been working on a monstrous civil case in which this occurred and after reviewing boxes upon boxes of documents and awaiting yet further boxes and boxes of documents and mentally steeling myself for a multi-week trial involving highly technical and detailed testimony. 

Then  a few weeks ago, a whisper of a new possibility of settlement arose, prompted by new personnel in decision-making positions.  Today, it has been confirmed that a number has been agreed upon between the parties.  

I feel like I’ve just been given future weeks and months of my life back.  This was one of those cases that really was just about the money and I find those the most exasperating to try.  So, woohoo, here’s to reason and compromise and settlement!! 

It’s that time of year again when millions of parents attempt to catch the essence of their offspring’s charm on camera in order to send pictures of said cherubs far and wide to relatives, friends, former neighbors, etc. 

My dilemma is this – we have a cute picture of the boys sitting on Santa’s lap from a ride on the “Santa Express” train we rode over the long weekend.  It is a much better picture of them than the multiple dozens we had attempted over the prior week.  Time is running short.  mr. jolt wants to use the santa pic for the holiday card.  I, however, don’t want to impose santa on my non-santafying friends, and, frankly, don’t really want to include some stranger in a suit in our yearly photo.

Any suggestions?

See this cat and girl comic from a few days ago.

Well, I tried to comment in response to this post by Lauren at offsprung, but it won’t take the password I thought I had, and keeps erroring me out.  So here it is:

When my mom remarried when I was a kid, she didn’t want to take my stepdad’s name b/c it would have given her the same name as a major criminal in the news at the time.  She didn’t want to keep my dad’s name, either.  So she went with her maiden name and we had three names on our mailbox – it sounded like a law firm – any surprise I ended up a lawyer?   Anyway, as a result, I never considered taking mr. jolt’s name, although I did suggest some version of our names smooshed together (he wouldn’t do it) so we each have our names & the kids are hyphenated. 

Our theory: by the time they might be settling down with someone who might also be  hyphenated they’ll hopefully have some solution to this whole conundrum.

This post reminded me of a terrible poem I wrote back in college.  (I wrote a lot of terrible poetry back then).  In essence, it was a rant against my then boyfriend, now husband, that I would not be his personal feminist librarian.  I was in that first flush of feminism: angry, depressed, yet filled with rage seeking an outlet.  mr. jolt read the poem and, in some ways, backed away.   I think, looking back, he felt somewhat clueless, and in keeping with his general undergraduate persona, he took the lazy way out, and continued to rely on me to inform him of feminist viewpoints (dear reader, he has improved in this regard – but more on that later).

I am torn on the issue of feminist education and my individual obligation to provide it- I think it depends on the place and the person.  There are people who I think are not unreasonable, who seem merely unaware, who I try to draw in, educate, a little at a time.  I think I do this more often where I live now, which is a generally more conservative and traditional area than the BigCity I moved from a few years back.  So I try to have patience and remind myself that ignorance is not always arrogance.

But.  In a legal group I belong to, a certain portion of members are nominated as students by an officer of the local law school who is also a member of this legal group.  This year they were all male, all white.  I was discussing this with one of mr. jolt’s colleagues I’m friendly with, who said, yes, you need to tell Mr. G and he’s always appalled at himself, and says “please remind me, I just don’t think.”

Sheesh, the privilege in that.  He means to nominate women, to nominate non-white males, but just can’t remember unless someone reminds him.  Give me a break.  One or two years of “oversight” maybe- the guy is of an older generation where enlightenment is less commonly found – but this is absurd.

Anyway, I find myself torn between opposing drives: the drive to convince people I know that feminism is not as scary as they think it is (more on an interchange on that subject in a later post) and the drive to say: fuck ‘em they’re just a bunch of entitled, privileged assholes.

When I was in college I always knew that I would be more comfortable working “in the system” trying to change it from the inside out.  I knew I didn’t have the heart or mettle of the revolutionary radical.  Which leads me to conclude that I must continue to educate and subtly manipulate.  And, where necessary confront, as I may well do with the guy above who just can’t “remember” because reminding him is not so much education but insistence on action.  But jeez, providing all this enlightenment gets old.

One of the absolute best things about being a parent is the sheer joy and excitement that kids exude and pull you into.

We had our first snow of the season tonight.  It started at bedtime, but so what.  Big, fat fluffy flakes were filling the night sky.  We put on our jackets, gloves, boots, and hats, and went dancing into the quiet street.  The two neighbor boys, J and D, came out with sleds and started going down the steep hill of our street, but the snow was too wet.  They soon started skidding on their hockey shin guards down their steep driveway.  BB and LB tried sledding down our front yard, but the snow was better for snow balls than sledding. LB, not liking snow ball fights, retreated to the kitchen with me for graham crackers while BB and mr. jolt pummeled each other under the stars.

Bliss.

Which is a good thing- thanks Tonks! - distracted by family visits I haven’t posted in a week.  And I’m home with BB today who has a fever-yet he is somehow a ball of energy. 

Here goes:

1. Name something you have in common with all your siblings:
I’m also an only child so, not-applicable!

2. What is the greatest amount of physical pain you have ever endured?
Hmm, close call between pre-epidural on my labor with BB and smashing my thumb in a ladder a few months ago (I’m sure labor was worse, but the thumb is still fresh on my mind).

3. What number of drinks constitutes your limit?
Wine/beer: a lot, especially if I’m eating.  Hard alchohol – 2?

4. Do you fold your underwear?
Into thirds, doesn’t everybody?

5. Have you fired a gun before?
Nope.

6. What was your favorite childhood toy?
My red tricycle.

7. Name a sound that disturbs you?

People cracking their knuckles – ouch!
8. Name something random that you would never do.

Skydive – just, no. 
9. Name a person whose diary you would love to read.
Queen Elizabeth I.

10. Have you ever had the same dream more than once?
Yes.  Always the weird ones that make no sense.

11. Name a song that makes you happy.
I’ll Melt With You by Modern English.

13. If you were in an emergency situation and you had to deliver a baby, could you do it?
Sure.

14. What do you like about being in a committed relationship?
Trust and shared history

15. What do you dislike about being in a committed relationship?
I miss first kisses.

16. Name something you have to do tomorrow:
Go to work.

17. Name a movie you are looking forward to watching:
I’m so out of it.  Um, does it have to be one that has actually been made?

18. Name something you’ve heard about women that tends to be true:

We love.

19. Do you own an iPod?
Yes.  It’s a shuffle with 10 songs on it.  We are lame.

21. Do any of your friends have children?
Yes.

22. What CD is currently in your CD player?
Depends.  car: Elefunk by Black Eyed Peas; house: jazz & kid’s music; van: kink’s greatest hits

23. Do you prefer regular or chocolate milk?
Chocolate, of course.  Preferably with Ovaltine.

29. What movie do you know every line to?
Shrek, Shrek II, Toy Story, Toy Story II (see the theme?  This is not by choice!)

30. Where was your last vacation?
Cape Cod.  Fabulous. 

32. Are you currently wanting any piercings or tattoos?
Nope.  Ears are pierced.  Could never decide on a tattoo that I’d want to look at forever.

35. When was the last time you slept on the floor?
  Camping while driving cross-country while in college?

39. Do you watch the news?
Nope, it makes my skin crawl.  Internet and paper and radio.

40. Do you feel alone?
What tonks said – I crave time alone

I tag – Charley Carp & Mscheevious – but only if you want to.

In order to enjoy lawyering, it is necessary to get bizarre amusement over the occasionally byzantine wording necessary to convey concepts in legal documents.  I just coined the following phrase in a document I am drafting and it is giving me inexplicable pleasure to consider it:

“suggesting work performed for the ____ or other similarly-acronymed entity.”  Does not the phrase “similarly-acronymed entity” fill you with laughter?  But it truly is the only phrase that fits the argument I am making. 

Truly, I am weird.

Last night the boys and I went to Target to pick up, in addition to other things, some presents for a little girl in one of those holiday gift drives.  The boys were very helpful in pointing out stuff they thought she would like based on the short list of preferences I was given. (Sadly, there was no indication of clothing size, I would’ve liked to have gotten something cute – I never get to buy girl’s clothing).

Anyway, both boys would periodically announce our activity to passerby “We’re buying presents for a little girl whose family is poor.” And I would cringe.  Somehow, the way they said it made being poor sound like some form of disease (that’s certainly how certain conservatives treat it – like some contagious disease brought on by illicit behavior). 

I was trying to find some way to communicate with the boys that (a) it was not necessary to advertise our activities (in my view, helping others  should not be done for bragging rights (although if that’s what will draw the time & money sometimes it must be done – see corporate support for just about anything)); and (b) that what they were saying was somehow unkind.  And I couldn’t quite explain to myself why it was unkind, let alone put it into words that a 3 and 6 year-old would understand.  Something to do with the “us/them” distinction?  Something to do with an attitude of arrogant benificence coming from a position of privilege?  Help me out here — any ideas on how to explain to my boys that while their action is good, that their communication of same raises questions about intent and well-meaning but misguided understanding?