Observations on two important cases in the news:
1) The government's case against 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui got much stronger today. Under oath, he actually admitted that he was planning to fly a fifth plane into the White House as part of the September 11th terror plot. No wonder his lawyers didn't want him to testify. They must have known he would literally hang himself with his own rope.
Maybe he just doesn't realize what he did today. Or maybe he did it deliberately, since he knew he would get the death penalty and be a martyr for the terrorists. Or maybe he just doesn't care anymore and wants to die. In any event, I think the jury will be more than happy to help him along with that. Essentially, his confession today makes the prosecution's case on him being part of a conspiracy, of him knowing about the 9/11 plot ahead of time. He actually admitted that he had prior knowledge, and that he would have taken part in it had he not been captured.
Two observations about the trial...I think the civil libertarians and all the people who insist that these terrorists, or terror suspects, be tried in civilian courts are trying to have it both ways when they try to block people like Moussaoui from testifying on their own behalf. His lawyers did not want him to take the stand, yet the same people who would leap to defend him would also want to prevent him from taking the stand. It just doesn't work that way. You cannot insist on granting terror suspects who are not U.S. citizens constitutional protections, and then manipulate those constitutional protections to get an acquittal. The judge in this case was right to allow Moussaoui to testify. If you have a civilian trial (by the way, I think they should have military tribunals, but that's a whole other post), you have to allow the defendant to take the stand in his or her own defense, if they wish to do so.
Second, I just hope that his testimony won't be called into question by what he said before (he had said before he was to take part in another attack after 9/11, among other things). The defense might try this, but I don't think the jury will buy it. For one thing, they already know this is a terrorist we're dealing with, and the evidence of his culpability, including today's confession, is overwhelming. Also, his actual guilt is not at issue here-the jury's role is to decide whether he gets life in prison without parole, or the death penalty. As long as they are willing to impose it, the weight of the evidence should support aggravating, rather than mitigating, circumstances.
2) On a related note, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. This is the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who served as Osama bin Laden's personal driver and bodyguard. He was captured in Afghanistan four years ago, and has been held at Guantanamo Bay ever since. The Court has to confront a difficult issue here-does it affirm the D.C. Circuit's ruling that President Bush does not have the authority to create special military commissions for Guantanamo detainees, or does it reverse, presumably granting them access to civilian courts?
Here is the story on Fox News, which is my source for the information on this case: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189268,00.html
Even if the Court reverses the D.C. Circuit, in order for Hamdan to have access to civilian courts to review his habeas petition, the Court would also have to rule that the Detainee Treatment Act, passed by Congress in December 2004, does not apply to petitions filed before the law came into effect. Herein lies the problem-there is no general consensus on where the law applies. Hamdan's side is going to argue for no retroactivity, and that petitions filed before the date are still to be considered. The government will have to lay out the case for retroactivity, under which case a military tribunal would handle Hamdan's case, not the federal courts.
The stakes here cannot be overstated. If the Court sides with the Bush administration, it will uphold the use of military tribunals for the suspects already at Guantanamo, and will be a strong precedent for using tribunals for any suspects that are captured in the future. This would allow the administration to conduct the war on terror with much more secrecy, as most anything that takes place in federal courts is public record. This is absolutely essential when dealing with individuals who would not hesitate to use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against our cities if given the chance.
But if the Court sides with Hamdan, it will open the courts up to a wave of habeas petitions from the detainees currently in military custody. It will make the war on terror exponentially more difficult for our military and intelligence services. Every al-Qaeda lowlife that is captured on foreign soil will start demanding a lawyer, demanding rights that belong to American citizens, and generally make it much harder for the government to gather intelligence that might lead to the capture of more of the enemy, or even stop a terrorist attack and save American lives.
The Court must not give our enemies this kind of power, to use our democratic system for their military and propaganda purposes. If the justices grant terrorists access to the federal courts, they will be acting in direct contradiction to the public policy of every conflict fought in the history of this country. There is a reason for this-it will be a Pandora's box of litigation, overly zealous civil libertarians, and paperwork our system was never meant to accomodate in a time of war and national peril.
I will try to elaborate more on my position on this in a future post, possibly when the ruling is handed down this summer. My prediction is a 4-4 tie, with the votes lining up along ideological lines (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy to affirm, and Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer to reverse, with Roberts having to recuse himself since he participated in the D.C. Circuit's decision). A tie would affirm the D.C. Circuit, but could call into question the ruling's precedential value. Because of this, I don't think Hamdan is going to be the last word on the issue.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Friday, March 24, 2006
Reading, pt. 2
Yesterday, I finished the second of two books I have read on my own this semester.
This is compared to 6-8 I would have had time to read during my undergraduate years. One of those expressions people like to repeat is that "the law is a jealous mistress". I definitely understand now what those people were talking about, because my free time to devote to reading and personal enrichment has been about a third of what it used to be. If you are in undergrad and reading this, and thinking about law school, be prepared to work your tail off, because that's what you'll be doing in law school, and in your career as well.
But getting back to reading:
1) The first book I read this semester was Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. He is a professor at UCLA, officially teaching geology, but has a broad range of knowledge in ornithology and environmental history, among other things. The basic premise of his book was that some societies in the past failed, and others succeeded, because of environmental factors. Some of these factors were induced by the population, and some occurred naturally, but different societies responded either successfully or unsuccessfully, thus "choosing" to fail or succeed.
The book is basically structured as a case study of past and present societies, such as the Greenland Norse and Easter Islanders (past), and China and Australia (present). Before each case study, Diamond included a chapter that listed the factors he would consider for each; these were things such as cultural traditions, the way the society made decisions (passed down from chiefs or decided by individuals), and the amount of contact with other cultures or societies, such as through trade. Then for each case study, he ran through the factors to determine what caused the society to collapse, or succeed and survive to the present day. The Greenland Norse and Easter Islanders died out because they depleted their natural resources and lived in almost total isolation from other societies; Tokugawa Japan succeeded because the shoguns regulated deforestation several hundred years ago, and preserved the country's environment.
The last part of the book talked about environmental conditions today-how companies are adopting new, more environmentally-friendly policies, for example, or factors that will either preserve the environment or destroy it.
When I first got into the book and found out it was all about environmental history, my first impression was that it would be another Silent Spring-type book written by another alarmist professor, talking about the proverbial sky was falling unless we began living like cave people and gave up all luxuries or vestiges of modern life. But Diamond's approach was actually pretty reasonable, and I thought he made some good points. One was that it is actually in many corporations' best interests to adopt environmentally sound policies, since it helps with securing contracts in developed and developing countries. Another was that societies have to have the courage and foresight to adapt their behavior to environmental realities, instead of holding on to their cultural traditions at any cost. For example, one Pacific island thrived after the islanders killed their pigs, which were a status symbol even though they harmed the environment, yet the Greenland Norse held on to cows until the very end, which factored into their collapse by starvation in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Overall....a good read, although it took me a long time to read (about 2 months) because of the dense material, and since I only spent about 10-15 minutes a day on it. I would recommend it if you want to learn more about how environmental conditions affect the course of history. It is also a good companion to one of Diamond's other books, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
2) The other book was 1776 by David McCullough, the Pulitzer-Prize winning historian (I will get around to reading his book John Adams soon). 1776 talks about this pivotal year of the Revolutionary War from the British and American perspectives, starting with the political tumult in England over the war, and covering the siege of Boston, the battle for New York, and finishing with Washington's attack on Trenton and crossing of the Delaware.
Instead of having a specific thesis like Diamond, McCullough's book takes the form of a narrative, focusing on the generals (Washington, Henry Knox, and Nathanael Greene for the Americans and William Howe, Henry Clinton, and Charles Cornwallis for the British) and the "regular people" in both armies. It was a spectacular read and I thought it was very entertaining-I read this one in three days over spring break.
I actually had a few thoughts and reflections on the book, that might apply to the Christian experience, law school, or life in general:
A) If there was ever a lesson on confidence you could get from the history books, look to George Washington. Whatever his other failings were, a lack of leadership was definitely not one of them. Washington was the American Revolution. At one point (p. 43), McCullough quotes the patriot Benjamin Rush as saying that he "has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among 10,000 people."
Not that I come from a military background, but this is the kind of confidence I need to project that I lack too many times. Why? Who knows. All I know is that I need to start acting more confident, then maybe I will be more confident. One of the book's recurring themes was that Washington was miserable and down in his spirits about the war, from all the hardships he faced as commander, but he always kept his chin up and inspired respect when the Glorious Cause was in its darkest days. If you need to exude confidence, there is no better example than that.
B) As a Christian, reading 1776, I was impressed by how God used people like Henry Knox and Nathanael Greene to lead the American army, one of the most important causes in all of human history. Neither was born into wealth or an aristocracy. Knox was an overweight bookseller before the war, who became a highly decorated artillery commander. Greene had a limp from a previous accident, and was not even considered fit to drill with a militia company, yet he ended up being Washington's right-hand man and commanding Continental troops in the South later in the war.
The amazing thing is, the world had written these guys off. Who were they next to William Howe and Lord Cornwallis, rich noblemen who were some of the best military minds in the world? But we all know how the story ends. I believe it was God's hand that gave America its independence, and He used these two men, and so many others, so that we could be free today. This is a lesson too-no matter what your circumstances, no matter what you did before, just put your trust in the Lord and He will make a way. "With God, all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26 KJV).
C) No way to prove this, but there were so many miraculous twists and turns in the story of the American Revolution, that I truly believe God had a hand in it all. Just one example: when Washington's army was surrounded by the British on the edge of Long Island in New York, they were severely outnumbered and had to escape. On land, they were surrounded by the British army, and they had their backs to the East River, where the British fleet could come at any time and trap the army, thus the war would be over and the British would have won. Yet amazingly, the wind blew out of the northeast and kept the British fleet at bay, and shifted to blowing out of the southwest just long enough, and at the exact time, to allow the American army to escape across the river. Not only that, but when not all of the troops got across before dawn, a thick fog settled over the area, preventing an all-out British attack. Coincidence? I don't think it was.
I know this has been a long post, but I will be reading more books in the coming weeks, and posting on them again. Collapse and 1776 were both great, and I hope my schedule allows me to read more again soon.
This is compared to 6-8 I would have had time to read during my undergraduate years. One of those expressions people like to repeat is that "the law is a jealous mistress". I definitely understand now what those people were talking about, because my free time to devote to reading and personal enrichment has been about a third of what it used to be. If you are in undergrad and reading this, and thinking about law school, be prepared to work your tail off, because that's what you'll be doing in law school, and in your career as well.
But getting back to reading:
1) The first book I read this semester was Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. He is a professor at UCLA, officially teaching geology, but has a broad range of knowledge in ornithology and environmental history, among other things. The basic premise of his book was that some societies in the past failed, and others succeeded, because of environmental factors. Some of these factors were induced by the population, and some occurred naturally, but different societies responded either successfully or unsuccessfully, thus "choosing" to fail or succeed.
The book is basically structured as a case study of past and present societies, such as the Greenland Norse and Easter Islanders (past), and China and Australia (present). Before each case study, Diamond included a chapter that listed the factors he would consider for each; these were things such as cultural traditions, the way the society made decisions (passed down from chiefs or decided by individuals), and the amount of contact with other cultures or societies, such as through trade. Then for each case study, he ran through the factors to determine what caused the society to collapse, or succeed and survive to the present day. The Greenland Norse and Easter Islanders died out because they depleted their natural resources and lived in almost total isolation from other societies; Tokugawa Japan succeeded because the shoguns regulated deforestation several hundred years ago, and preserved the country's environment.
The last part of the book talked about environmental conditions today-how companies are adopting new, more environmentally-friendly policies, for example, or factors that will either preserve the environment or destroy it.
When I first got into the book and found out it was all about environmental history, my first impression was that it would be another Silent Spring-type book written by another alarmist professor, talking about the proverbial sky was falling unless we began living like cave people and gave up all luxuries or vestiges of modern life. But Diamond's approach was actually pretty reasonable, and I thought he made some good points. One was that it is actually in many corporations' best interests to adopt environmentally sound policies, since it helps with securing contracts in developed and developing countries. Another was that societies have to have the courage and foresight to adapt their behavior to environmental realities, instead of holding on to their cultural traditions at any cost. For example, one Pacific island thrived after the islanders killed their pigs, which were a status symbol even though they harmed the environment, yet the Greenland Norse held on to cows until the very end, which factored into their collapse by starvation in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Overall....a good read, although it took me a long time to read (about 2 months) because of the dense material, and since I only spent about 10-15 minutes a day on it. I would recommend it if you want to learn more about how environmental conditions affect the course of history. It is also a good companion to one of Diamond's other books, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
2) The other book was 1776 by David McCullough, the Pulitzer-Prize winning historian (I will get around to reading his book John Adams soon). 1776 talks about this pivotal year of the Revolutionary War from the British and American perspectives, starting with the political tumult in England over the war, and covering the siege of Boston, the battle for New York, and finishing with Washington's attack on Trenton and crossing of the Delaware.
Instead of having a specific thesis like Diamond, McCullough's book takes the form of a narrative, focusing on the generals (Washington, Henry Knox, and Nathanael Greene for the Americans and William Howe, Henry Clinton, and Charles Cornwallis for the British) and the "regular people" in both armies. It was a spectacular read and I thought it was very entertaining-I read this one in three days over spring break.
I actually had a few thoughts and reflections on the book, that might apply to the Christian experience, law school, or life in general:
A) If there was ever a lesson on confidence you could get from the history books, look to George Washington. Whatever his other failings were, a lack of leadership was definitely not one of them. Washington was the American Revolution. At one point (p. 43), McCullough quotes the patriot Benjamin Rush as saying that he "has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among 10,000 people."
Not that I come from a military background, but this is the kind of confidence I need to project that I lack too many times. Why? Who knows. All I know is that I need to start acting more confident, then maybe I will be more confident. One of the book's recurring themes was that Washington was miserable and down in his spirits about the war, from all the hardships he faced as commander, but he always kept his chin up and inspired respect when the Glorious Cause was in its darkest days. If you need to exude confidence, there is no better example than that.
B) As a Christian, reading 1776, I was impressed by how God used people like Henry Knox and Nathanael Greene to lead the American army, one of the most important causes in all of human history. Neither was born into wealth or an aristocracy. Knox was an overweight bookseller before the war, who became a highly decorated artillery commander. Greene had a limp from a previous accident, and was not even considered fit to drill with a militia company, yet he ended up being Washington's right-hand man and commanding Continental troops in the South later in the war.
The amazing thing is, the world had written these guys off. Who were they next to William Howe and Lord Cornwallis, rich noblemen who were some of the best military minds in the world? But we all know how the story ends. I believe it was God's hand that gave America its independence, and He used these two men, and so many others, so that we could be free today. This is a lesson too-no matter what your circumstances, no matter what you did before, just put your trust in the Lord and He will make a way. "With God, all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26 KJV).
C) No way to prove this, but there were so many miraculous twists and turns in the story of the American Revolution, that I truly believe God had a hand in it all. Just one example: when Washington's army was surrounded by the British on the edge of Long Island in New York, they were severely outnumbered and had to escape. On land, they were surrounded by the British army, and they had their backs to the East River, where the British fleet could come at any time and trap the army, thus the war would be over and the British would have won. Yet amazingly, the wind blew out of the northeast and kept the British fleet at bay, and shifted to blowing out of the southwest just long enough, and at the exact time, to allow the American army to escape across the river. Not only that, but when not all of the troops got across before dawn, a thick fog settled over the area, preventing an all-out British attack. Coincidence? I don't think it was.
I know this has been a long post, but I will be reading more books in the coming weeks, and posting on them again. Collapse and 1776 were both great, and I hope my schedule allows me to read more again soon.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Cincinnati, Ohio
Before I talk about the reason behind the title, I owe anyone reading this an apology for taking down a post recently. It was about the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, in which I will be participating this summer. It was partly because I had been told that people were ridiculing what I had to say, and partly because I didn't want to seem like I was boasting. This will be the last time that anything is deleted from here because of rumors or hearsay. When you have a blog, you have to be honest with yourself.
The Blackstone Fellowship is offered through the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal defense organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona. It consists of three phases. During Phase I, I will be heading out to Arizona during the latter part of June for education and training, where we will learn about the Judeo-Christian foundations of our legal system. For Phase II, I will be working for an attorney in Cincinnati who works with the ADF on constitutional issues. Finally, for Phase III, I will be going back to Arizona for a week, for further training and education. The program is designed to give Christian law students a solid grounding in God's Truth as it applies to the intellectual foundations and practice of law, and to network with other students and legal professionals as we gain practical experience.
A side note to any entering or current law students-this is a great opportunity if you are interested in serving God through the practice of law. A good place to start is with your school's chapter of the Christian Legal Society. It is a huge blessing to have other Christians with whom I can share the law school experience. And Blackstone interns work all over the country, with various attorneys, policy organizations, etc., so there are lots of opportunities to get involved.
I am really excited about the opportunities coming up this summer, and I am eager to get started with the work that lies ahead. I am not quite sure yet what exactly I will be working on, but one of the lessons I have learned this first year of law school is that the expectancy is sometimes the best part of the journey. One of my spiritual weaknesses has always been that I am overly analytical and try too hard to do everything by the book, instead of by God's book.
As hard as it is to have unanswered questions, as difficult as it is to walk by faith, I am going to reach out more often, because God's will for my life is infinitely beyond anything I could bring to bear or conceive.
"Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, / Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Ephesians 3:20-21 KJV).
The Blackstone Fellowship is offered through the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal defense organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona. It consists of three phases. During Phase I, I will be heading out to Arizona during the latter part of June for education and training, where we will learn about the Judeo-Christian foundations of our legal system. For Phase II, I will be working for an attorney in Cincinnati who works with the ADF on constitutional issues. Finally, for Phase III, I will be going back to Arizona for a week, for further training and education. The program is designed to give Christian law students a solid grounding in God's Truth as it applies to the intellectual foundations and practice of law, and to network with other students and legal professionals as we gain practical experience.
A side note to any entering or current law students-this is a great opportunity if you are interested in serving God through the practice of law. A good place to start is with your school's chapter of the Christian Legal Society. It is a huge blessing to have other Christians with whom I can share the law school experience. And Blackstone interns work all over the country, with various attorneys, policy organizations, etc., so there are lots of opportunities to get involved.
I am really excited about the opportunities coming up this summer, and I am eager to get started with the work that lies ahead. I am not quite sure yet what exactly I will be working on, but one of the lessons I have learned this first year of law school is that the expectancy is sometimes the best part of the journey. One of my spiritual weaknesses has always been that I am overly analytical and try too hard to do everything by the book, instead of by God's book.
As hard as it is to have unanswered questions, as difficult as it is to walk by faith, I am going to reach out more often, because God's will for my life is infinitely beyond anything I could bring to bear or conceive.
"Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, / Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Ephesians 3:20-21 KJV).
Sunday, March 12, 2006
On Pleasing God
Tonight is one of those times where I am overdue for some self-reflection. Once in a while, I need some time to step back and look at where I am going as a Christian, and how I am fulfilling my life's purpose of glorifying God.
Right now, this is timely because in five days, I am sitting down to take the second Contracts exam. It is the major part of the Contracts grade for the year, and is going to make a big difference as far as my overall first-year success, with getting onto a journal, class rank, etc. But before I sit for the exam, I need to address something that is much more pressing, that is on my heart as I write this. I need to figure out who I am trying to please by my life's actions.
I came to law school for one reason-to serve God by becoming a lawyer. Yet at the same time, I struggle with keeping my focus on that, and on Him, instead of the day-to-day worries over grades, what I am going to do next summer, and all of the things that consume us from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night. This daily grind is a major factor in the "culture shock" I have received since I moved down here 7 1/2 months ago. I am not used to not being at the very top when it comes to academic achievement, yet this idea that I would always be the best, always be number one, is now gone forever. I have just now begun to realize that maybe, just maybe, coming here for law school was God's plan all along, to jar me out of my spiritual complacency by taking away what I had hidden behind for all those years.
This was the wound that had to be delivered.
I've just now begun to realize that a lot of my problems and shortcomings come from what amounts to disobeying God by trying to please people. Instead of focusing on God's will for my life, and what the Lord says I should be doing, I focus on what the world says I should be doing. The world says I should be examining myself as a human being according to my first semester's grades and the prism of achievement. The world says I should pursue women until I find someone who will complete me and validate me as a man. And this is what has been making me miserable all this time, when I should be joyful, expecting God's favor, and eager for the blessings He is bringing to bear in my life. For crying out loud, if you had told me I would get into law school at Ohio State, live on my own in Columbus, and receive the Blackstone Fellowship at this time 18 months ago, I would have jumped for joy. But I have let some abstract standard define what will make me happy and fulfilled, instead of really listening to myself.
That ends right now.
I want to add that I am not blaming anyone but myself for this; it is entirely self-inflicted. No one in the law school is forcing me to worry about whether I will get the kind of job I think I "should" have when I graduate; they are good and dedicated people helping us through a difficult three years. None of the people I interact with socially are forcing me to drag myself through the mud every time I start to think that I just might deserve something better than suppressing my self-confidence; they can listen and comfort, but not think for me.
The problem lies within, not without, and unless I open the door to something better, God will not come in. He gives me the free will to be as happy or as miserable as I choose. But now that I recognize what is going on, I can pray for God's help, and work to change. I wrote down what came to mind on this, and here it is, unchanged:
"Just remember, it's not your grades or your accomplishments that make you 'special'-it's the fact that God loves you, and what He has done for you, to save you. All these years, you spent thinking that it was what you did that made you stand out from everybody else-it wasn't. Those things are good and can be used to glorify God, but they are not what makes you the man you are. Who you really are comes from somewhere inside. It comes from your heart, and a soul and spirit that have been cleansed by what Jesus went through for you 2,000 years ago.
"Don't let how you do on this exam, or anything else, put you into a box or a percentile. You are a Christian. Be excellent, do your best, but keep your eyes on Him, and never lose focus of why you are here. That goes for life, not just law school."
Lord, let me never lose sight of You as my true focus. Let what I do as a law student be a prayer to You, as the best I have to offer.
Right now, this is timely because in five days, I am sitting down to take the second Contracts exam. It is the major part of the Contracts grade for the year, and is going to make a big difference as far as my overall first-year success, with getting onto a journal, class rank, etc. But before I sit for the exam, I need to address something that is much more pressing, that is on my heart as I write this. I need to figure out who I am trying to please by my life's actions.
I came to law school for one reason-to serve God by becoming a lawyer. Yet at the same time, I struggle with keeping my focus on that, and on Him, instead of the day-to-day worries over grades, what I am going to do next summer, and all of the things that consume us from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night. This daily grind is a major factor in the "culture shock" I have received since I moved down here 7 1/2 months ago. I am not used to not being at the very top when it comes to academic achievement, yet this idea that I would always be the best, always be number one, is now gone forever. I have just now begun to realize that maybe, just maybe, coming here for law school was God's plan all along, to jar me out of my spiritual complacency by taking away what I had hidden behind for all those years.
This was the wound that had to be delivered.
I've just now begun to realize that a lot of my problems and shortcomings come from what amounts to disobeying God by trying to please people. Instead of focusing on God's will for my life, and what the Lord says I should be doing, I focus on what the world says I should be doing. The world says I should be examining myself as a human being according to my first semester's grades and the prism of achievement. The world says I should pursue women until I find someone who will complete me and validate me as a man. And this is what has been making me miserable all this time, when I should be joyful, expecting God's favor, and eager for the blessings He is bringing to bear in my life. For crying out loud, if you had told me I would get into law school at Ohio State, live on my own in Columbus, and receive the Blackstone Fellowship at this time 18 months ago, I would have jumped for joy. But I have let some abstract standard define what will make me happy and fulfilled, instead of really listening to myself.
That ends right now.
I want to add that I am not blaming anyone but myself for this; it is entirely self-inflicted. No one in the law school is forcing me to worry about whether I will get the kind of job I think I "should" have when I graduate; they are good and dedicated people helping us through a difficult three years. None of the people I interact with socially are forcing me to drag myself through the mud every time I start to think that I just might deserve something better than suppressing my self-confidence; they can listen and comfort, but not think for me.
The problem lies within, not without, and unless I open the door to something better, God will not come in. He gives me the free will to be as happy or as miserable as I choose. But now that I recognize what is going on, I can pray for God's help, and work to change. I wrote down what came to mind on this, and here it is, unchanged:
"Just remember, it's not your grades or your accomplishments that make you 'special'-it's the fact that God loves you, and what He has done for you, to save you. All these years, you spent thinking that it was what you did that made you stand out from everybody else-it wasn't. Those things are good and can be used to glorify God, but they are not what makes you the man you are. Who you really are comes from somewhere inside. It comes from your heart, and a soul and spirit that have been cleansed by what Jesus went through for you 2,000 years ago.
"Don't let how you do on this exam, or anything else, put you into a box or a percentile. You are a Christian. Be excellent, do your best, but keep your eyes on Him, and never lose focus of why you are here. That goes for life, not just law school."
Lord, let me never lose sight of You as my true focus. Let what I do as a law student be a prayer to You, as the best I have to offer.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Due Diligence
I have decided to make more posts on this blog, regardless of the amount of sleep lost, and to try and make them about the Christian law student experience as much as I can.
I made this decision in response to a conversation with a friend this past week. It had to do with professional conduct, and after thinking about what he said, I realize that there are probably ways in which I can enrich my education and learn more for when I am a lawyer, which is in the not-too-distant future. I think one of the ways I can feel better about the progress I have made so far in law school is to update my blog more often, and make it relevant to my life as a law student. I was looking at random law student blogs listed on a law students' website (4LawSchool.com, it has some good information) and I realized that the quality of my own pales in comparison to many of the others, some of which are updated every day.
Yet at the same time, I want this blog to reflect my own experiences, opinions, etc., not those of the "typical" law student. I want it to be more like the kinds of blogs my classmates have, which don't fall into a pattern of just describing the daily grind. Yes, I will post about court decisions, but I would like for this to be a record of this time in my life, so that I will remember 2005-2006, my first year of law school, with all its ups and downs, and good and bad experiences. So this means that I'm not going to rule anything out as a post topic, whether it be Ohio State football or oil prices. Whatever it is that is on my mind, will be on here.
I made this decision in response to a conversation with a friend this past week. It had to do with professional conduct, and after thinking about what he said, I realize that there are probably ways in which I can enrich my education and learn more for when I am a lawyer, which is in the not-too-distant future. I think one of the ways I can feel better about the progress I have made so far in law school is to update my blog more often, and make it relevant to my life as a law student. I was looking at random law student blogs listed on a law students' website (4LawSchool.com, it has some good information) and I realized that the quality of my own pales in comparison to many of the others, some of which are updated every day.
Yet at the same time, I want this blog to reflect my own experiences, opinions, etc., not those of the "typical" law student. I want it to be more like the kinds of blogs my classmates have, which don't fall into a pattern of just describing the daily grind. Yes, I will post about court decisions, but I would like for this to be a record of this time in my life, so that I will remember 2005-2006, my first year of law school, with all its ups and downs, and good and bad experiences. So this means that I'm not going to rule anything out as a post topic, whether it be Ohio State football or oil prices. Whatever it is that is on my mind, will be on here.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Barrister's Ball
It's been almost a week now, but the Barrister's Ball (AKA Moritz Prom) was great. Last Saturday, we law students gathered at a really nice ballroom at Confluence Park, down by the arena district, and ate, danced, and had a really good time. One of the best things is that I got some pictures out of the whole thing, which are now on the Facebook. I used one to update that really old picture of me, which was from 2001.
Everything went really well that night. The food was good (I had a steak and mashed potatoes) although it was late getting to us, the ballroom was beautifully decorated, and the window had a spectacular view of the Columbus skyline (it's even better when Nationwide's headquarters has the blue light shining on it). I always like getting dressed up, but when it's going toward having fun, all the better. I think everyone that went had a good time, and I hope we get to hang out again soon.
Reading, pt. 1
For the past six weeks or so, I've been reading a book called "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Basically, it talks about a half dozen or so classical societies, including the Greenland Norse, Maya, and inhabitants of Polynesia-and how their societies folded due to environmental factors. I'll talk about it if I ever decide to I finish it. It's taking a long time, because the only time I get to read is for 10-15 minutes when I go to bed.
Not the most interesting book for me. Even though it sort of deals with history, I'm more into military/political/economic history than environmental. The next book I read is going to be something more along the lines of the Civil War, Founding Fathers, etc.
Not the most interesting book for me. Even though it sort of deals with history, I'm more into military/political/economic history than environmental. The next book I read is going to be something more along the lines of the Civil War, Founding Fathers, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)