and the envelope please

I confess that....I may very well have a different "ranking" when it comes to the major Oscars.

Traditionally, "Best Picture" is considered the top prize overall. In some years, "Best Screenplay" has been viewed as almost a 2nd place. For me, I think it might actually be the reverse. I tend to like strong, plot-driven movies that rely very heavily on substance and much less on style. Flash and color and the like are all fun, but a strong story wins me every time. I think that may be why I've often picked a screenplay winner as my personal best picture. That's what "works" for me.

I wanted Milk to win last night because of the story and the acting. It grabbed me and I was lost in it...almost forgetting it wasn't more of a true documentary. But, I can admit it wasn't too much for the eyes. The visuals fit the story, but they didn't go beyond it. Slumdog was much more visual...and musical too. Maybe that's part of the difference...a "Best Picture" has more of a balance between plot, acting, visuals, and music. It is a package deal. I'm more of an elements girl.

I remember many moons ago my college roommate and I were debating over email with my cousin about Titanic vs. Good Will Hunting. I still prefer Good Will Hunting, by far. But it is definitely a "simpler" movie in terms of style. So maybe my diagreements with the Academy become an "It's not you, it's me" thing.

Or a difference in priorities.

Or, maybe I'm right and they're wrong...just 'cause. :P

guilt by association

I confess that...I've been pondering the issue of attorneys and clients lately.

In a recent state election, one candidate tried to attack the other by bringing up the fact that he'd represented a pretty low-life of a criminal in his attorney days. This pissed me off. And it didn't seem to work too well. I think that attorneys in particular take the "everyone has a right to a defense" view in general criminal proceedings (i.e. non-"white collar crime"). The general public is a bit tougher on the lawyers (they are tougher on ALL lawyers), but I think they can still be pretty okay with it. Maybe it's all the lawyer shows on TV or something.

But, I'm wondering if we treat the issue the same when it comes to either civil or white collar matters. I saw an article about the attorneys for Madoff having to defend themselves a good bit (aside from potential conflict issues) and their choice to accept the representation. Do we judge these attorneys more harshly on the basis of their clientele?

One factor, among many, in my choice of law firm after graduation was that I didn't like that another one of my options was a firm that did a lot of tobacco work. They did say that you'd never be forced to do those cases, but I wasn't sure I wanted to be part of the firm anyway if that was a big part of their business. I'm not sure how much that was about what I felt I wanted for myself versus passing judgment. I didn't want to defend rapists either, but I was/am glad someone does and my feeling about the tobacco work was somehow different than the criminal work....even though the same principle sorta applies and the system needs advocates on both sides.

I did work on a case for a handgun company at one point. That was hard for me, but I think I was okay because it was a specific insurance matter and not a lawsuit by someone injured by the product. I had to work through that one a bit though some days. I'd have been personally uncomfortable with some other types of representation for that client. And I'm not sure how I feel towards the places that take those cases.

I have nothing in the way of a conclusion for this train of thought but wanted to share it anyway. It's weighing on me in a weird way.

what sounds easy

I confess that...I feel like I struggle with the strangest things.

For a while now, I've thought about cutting back on my weekly mileage. I'm tired a lot and sore much of the time. I always do take a rest day, but the my mileage has still been high. To be fully honest, when you add in both my workouts and informal walking (i.e. work to T), I've been over 50 miles pretty consistently. I got it into my head to average out to 7 miles a day and then decided 50 was a nicer number than 49. I've told myself there'd be no shame in going to 6 miles a day...42 per week. Mentally, I know that is PLENTY. I'm not training for anything and I'm well over the recommended cardio for health. But it is indescribably hard for me to actually do.

I took an unplanned rest day Monday. I can't recall my last unplanned rest day. I was in a LOT of pain and really just couldn't push myself through. I think it was the right call (Note to me: I do want to muse on the chronic pain and exercise thing eventually...it is pretty complicated, at least for me). I KNOW it was. But I can't get it out of my mind. I'll still end up with 42 miles, maybe a little more, if Thursday and Saturday are "normal". In fact, I was higher the first two weeks of the month so I'd actually still be over 7/day for February. I KNOW this is plenty. I'd tell anyone else that they are doing MORE than enough.

So why can't I LISTEN to that?

Obviously, there's a ton of complicated stuff in that answer. And I'm not going to type it all out...at least not here. I also know I am far from alone in this particular battle. But, thinking about it is making me more appreciative to how much of a struggle other addictions must be. I can be judgmental on addictions...smoking in particular...but I know firsthand that KNOWING and DOING are worlds apart.