I saw this post the other day on the RCP website, by David Paul Kuhn, and thought I'd offer a brief response. In the post, Kuhn ponders why, with a the field of so many potential GOP 2012 Presidential candidates, none seem too eager to be the first to declare candidacy. Here are a few reasons I've come up with, not particularly in order of importance.
1. They're not that serious. Every election cycle we see candidates like this. They're either running to make a point, or running to see to that one of the leading candidates doesn't win, or other people want them to run, but the candidate himself really isn't too hot about the idea of being President- whatever the reason may be, the candidate really doesn't want the job and the responsibilities and stress that go with it.
A perfect example of this is Fred Thompson. A great actor who also served a term in the United States Senate, Thompson had a good platform, and a strong following, and at this point in 2007, was considered a frontrunner for the GOP 2008 nomination along with John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. Ultimately, Thompson's dry wit, at some point, would likely have precluded him from winning, but he easily could've been a VP. He didn't declare until late 2007, effectively ending any chance he may have had. I can't speak for why Thompson waited so long. My guess, based on his behavior, is that, while everyone else wanted him to run, Thompson just wasn't so hot about the idea. Instead of saying, "Thanks, but no thanks," or giving a Sherman speech, Thompson effectively declined by simply not doing what was required of a seriuos candidate.
I'm not saying they won't run, but I don't see Chris Christie holding fundraisers, or spending time in Iowa, or making inroads with Republican governors in key states like Ohio and Wisconsin, and Florida (not to mention Virginia). Barack Obama was able to win the nomination by making connections with people like Ted Strickland, Kathleen Sebelius, Claire McCaskill, Evan Bayh, and Tim Kaine. He was then able to parlay the coalitions he built in those states into considerable voting blocks, for the general election. In essence, he won by putting all of the swing states into play and then by forcing McCain have to nearly run the table in order to win. Not saying he isn't running, but I don't see Christie doing this, and I don't see him winning without doing it, especially considering each party has a different primary nominating system, and the GOP's is even more heavily contingent on the constituency a candidate builds up in a particular state. Mitch Daniels and John Thune fall into this group, as well- they may be great candidates, but they're relatively unknown. By the way, if he doesn't hurry up and start getting money, you could probably toss Mike Huckabee into this category, as well.
2. They're not that good. George Allen, Howard Dean, Bobby Jindal- these are all people who at one point, had their names floated around as possible candidates for President. Each had one bad moment, and was instantly disqualified. Jindal's rebuttal to Obama's 2009 address to congress was widely considered awful; Allen will never live down calling someone "Macaca"; and Howard Dean will forever regret his "I Have a Scream" speech.
Potential candidates in the 2012 election are no different. Mike Huckabee was exposed badly by Jon Stewart, on the issue of gay marriage, in a 2008 appearance on the Daily Show. It's not that gay marriage is all that popular. Most Americans don't favor it, but the fact that Huckabee couldn't defend his position on it- in front of a comedian- does not bode well for him. Sarah Palin has, time and time again put her foot in her mouth.
3. Obama is very good. Rank and file Rebpulicans have a difficult time admitting this, but fact are facts, and even if Obama the President isn't very good (and I'm inclined to disagree with this position) Obama the Candidate is masterful. He just doesn't make many big gaffes. He just doesn't give many speeches that fall flat. He's difficult to beat in a debate. Even in a bad economy and during a nasty battle over the Health Care Bill, his approval ratings were in the mid 40s. Even people who disapprove like him. His personal approval is in the 60s. He beats every GOP candidate in a head to head poll. This isn't to say he'll be re-elected. But GOP candidates are not rank and filers. They're seasoned political veterans. They know that even an unpopular Obama will be difficult to beat- and one that's as popular as he is now (not that he's really all that popular) will be next to impossible to beat.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Jayhawks Have Been Here Before
Only a few weeks remain in the season. The team started strong but has a couple of losses in recent weeks, and at times in those losses and even in their wins, has looked awful. Our guards are getting beat off the dribble. One of the players who was supposed to be a star is playing injured. Another guy is a question mark as to whether he'll be able to come back from an injury. 2011, right? Well, actually you could say the same thing about the 2005 'Hawks.
On February 15, 2005, KU had two losses (20-2), and was ranked second in the polls. On this day, in 2005, the 'Hawks were considered a front runner for a deep run in the NCAA tournament. Keith Langford was struggling to come back from an injury he'd suffered in 2004, and Wayne Simien was nursing a bad shoulder (seemingly his entire KU career). But, dspite the injuries, it was a deep team, and there was no reason for anyone to panic. The team imploded; a rift between the last vestiges of the Roy Williams era and Bill Self's first batch of recruits became a chasm as the season wore on. They would only win 3 more games, limping their way across the finish line to a 3 seed and a first round upset in the NCAA Tournament.
The similarities are striking. On February 15, 2011, the Jayhawks sit #1 in the polls (on their way down to fifth or sixth), at 23-2. Thomas Robinson is injured and there is serious question as to when, and to what extent he can recuperate from mid season knee surgery. Josh Selby isn't nearly the player 'Hawks fans expected him to be; then again, he hasn't played healthy all year, and may never get healthy. While this team appears to play well with each other much better than the 2005 bunch, at times, they play more like a group of individuals keen on personal stats than as a synergistic unit.
KU is at a cross roads. They know- or should know- exactly how good they are- and aren't. They know what they need to fix, and they have the personnel to fix it. Offensively, they're very good. They shoot well; they move the ball well; and even when not at their best, their offense keeps them in games. In both the Texas and K-State losses, the 'Hawks' offense was adequate. It's unrealistic for a team to expect to be perfectly efficient every night, or to shoot with an EFG% of over 50 every time. In short, you can't always rely on outshooting or outscoring people in order to win games. You need defense.
Even prior to the K-State loss, KU's perimeter defense had been awful. Iowa State and Colorado both shot lights out from 3 (in Iowa State's case, their 3 FG% was better, not only than their 2 FG%, but than their FG%, which was under 50%). There was a time when KU's 3FG% defense was top 5 in the country. It's currently 8 and dropping. Their guards are not fronting well at all. They chase players around on defense, which means they aren't paying attention to the scouting reports. The result is that while KU has played good defense on the post and in the paint, they've left open too many perimeter marksmen.
They've been able to overcome this with depth, and exceptional shooting on their own offensive end; but it cannot continue. If KU's perimeter defense does not improve, they'll get bounced by the first team they meet in the tournament with decent guard play. As to the depth, this has been a blessing and a curse for KU. Against K-State, KU almost came back, in the first part of the second half. They cut the lead to 5, and had several of K-State's big men in trouble. This was vintage Bill Self: wear 'em out; foul 'em out. Except this time he wasn't playing with a full deck. He didn't have Robinson, and what he had of Selby was useless.
All too often, the last several years, when KU's starters have been less than stellar, the bench has been able to pick up the slack. I would guess that KU's bench has been worth anywhere between 4 and 8 wins every year since 2006. KU won a National Championship in 2008 with its bench. Sasha Kaun was the leading scorer in the Davidson game. Cole Aldrich allowed Kaun, Arthur, and Jackson to sit on the bench in foul trouble while UNC was attempting a comeback. And last, but certainly not least, Derrick Rose played all 45 minutes of the Memphis game. Neither of his counter parts had more than 35 (Collins had 34; Russell Robinson had 20). Think that may have had something to do with him clanking that free throw? I do. You don't think Russell Robinson (or, more correctly, the ability to play either Russ or Sherron- or, for that matter, Chalmers) absolutely shutting Rose down in the first half was key to KU winning that game? I do. You know how many point Kansas outscored Memphis by after Joey Dorsey fouled out? I do: 13. 13 points in 6:23. So, yes it's very nice to have depth.
It's even nicer when you don't use it as a crutch. When you don't use depth as an excuse for your starters not giving their best effort. I think, sometimes with this team, there is so much talent, and so much depth, that guys become complacent. They think they don't have to give their very best; that someone else will pick up the slack. Likewise, I think they sometimes think that it's okay to not play their best because most nights they can just outshoot or outscore the other team. That's where they need to improve.
I opened this blog by comparing 2011 to 2005, but the point was to illustrate a team at a cross roads; a team that could go in either of two directions. In 2008, Sherron Collins played ineffectively due to a hand injury much of the year. Never a great defender, and at times a careless dribbler, Collins struggled to shoot the ball much of the year. Brandon Rush, recovering from knee surgery, was, at times, awful. He would have games where he'd hardly score, and either play with foul trouble or foul out. Three years ago, today, KU stood at 23-2, following a loss to Texas, and a previous loss to K-State in Manhattan. Both games, KU's guards were out played. There was question as to whether the team would come together, or whether it was going to be a lost season and a badly squandered opportunity. There was question as to whether KU's guards could play defense; whether they would be effective enough on offense. There was question as to who that team's leader was. They played 15 more games...and only lost one.
On February 15, 2005, KU had two losses (20-2), and was ranked second in the polls. On this day, in 2005, the 'Hawks were considered a front runner for a deep run in the NCAA tournament. Keith Langford was struggling to come back from an injury he'd suffered in 2004, and Wayne Simien was nursing a bad shoulder (seemingly his entire KU career). But, dspite the injuries, it was a deep team, and there was no reason for anyone to panic. The team imploded; a rift between the last vestiges of the Roy Williams era and Bill Self's first batch of recruits became a chasm as the season wore on. They would only win 3 more games, limping their way across the finish line to a 3 seed and a first round upset in the NCAA Tournament.
The similarities are striking. On February 15, 2011, the Jayhawks sit #1 in the polls (on their way down to fifth or sixth), at 23-2. Thomas Robinson is injured and there is serious question as to when, and to what extent he can recuperate from mid season knee surgery. Josh Selby isn't nearly the player 'Hawks fans expected him to be; then again, he hasn't played healthy all year, and may never get healthy. While this team appears to play well with each other much better than the 2005 bunch, at times, they play more like a group of individuals keen on personal stats than as a synergistic unit.
KU is at a cross roads. They know- or should know- exactly how good they are- and aren't. They know what they need to fix, and they have the personnel to fix it. Offensively, they're very good. They shoot well; they move the ball well; and even when not at their best, their offense keeps them in games. In both the Texas and K-State losses, the 'Hawks' offense was adequate. It's unrealistic for a team to expect to be perfectly efficient every night, or to shoot with an EFG% of over 50 every time. In short, you can't always rely on outshooting or outscoring people in order to win games. You need defense.
Even prior to the K-State loss, KU's perimeter defense had been awful. Iowa State and Colorado both shot lights out from 3 (in Iowa State's case, their 3 FG% was better, not only than their 2 FG%, but than their FG%, which was under 50%). There was a time when KU's 3FG% defense was top 5 in the country. It's currently 8 and dropping. Their guards are not fronting well at all. They chase players around on defense, which means they aren't paying attention to the scouting reports. The result is that while KU has played good defense on the post and in the paint, they've left open too many perimeter marksmen.
They've been able to overcome this with depth, and exceptional shooting on their own offensive end; but it cannot continue. If KU's perimeter defense does not improve, they'll get bounced by the first team they meet in the tournament with decent guard play. As to the depth, this has been a blessing and a curse for KU. Against K-State, KU almost came back, in the first part of the second half. They cut the lead to 5, and had several of K-State's big men in trouble. This was vintage Bill Self: wear 'em out; foul 'em out. Except this time he wasn't playing with a full deck. He didn't have Robinson, and what he had of Selby was useless.
All too often, the last several years, when KU's starters have been less than stellar, the bench has been able to pick up the slack. I would guess that KU's bench has been worth anywhere between 4 and 8 wins every year since 2006. KU won a National Championship in 2008 with its bench. Sasha Kaun was the leading scorer in the Davidson game. Cole Aldrich allowed Kaun, Arthur, and Jackson to sit on the bench in foul trouble while UNC was attempting a comeback. And last, but certainly not least, Derrick Rose played all 45 minutes of the Memphis game. Neither of his counter parts had more than 35 (Collins had 34; Russell Robinson had 20). Think that may have had something to do with him clanking that free throw? I do. You don't think Russell Robinson (or, more correctly, the ability to play either Russ or Sherron- or, for that matter, Chalmers) absolutely shutting Rose down in the first half was key to KU winning that game? I do. You know how many point Kansas outscored Memphis by after Joey Dorsey fouled out? I do: 13. 13 points in 6:23. So, yes it's very nice to have depth.
It's even nicer when you don't use it as a crutch. When you don't use depth as an excuse for your starters not giving their best effort. I think, sometimes with this team, there is so much talent, and so much depth, that guys become complacent. They think they don't have to give their very best; that someone else will pick up the slack. Likewise, I think they sometimes think that it's okay to not play their best because most nights they can just outshoot or outscore the other team. That's where they need to improve.
I opened this blog by comparing 2011 to 2005, but the point was to illustrate a team at a cross roads; a team that could go in either of two directions. In 2008, Sherron Collins played ineffectively due to a hand injury much of the year. Never a great defender, and at times a careless dribbler, Collins struggled to shoot the ball much of the year. Brandon Rush, recovering from knee surgery, was, at times, awful. He would have games where he'd hardly score, and either play with foul trouble or foul out. Three years ago, today, KU stood at 23-2, following a loss to Texas, and a previous loss to K-State in Manhattan. Both games, KU's guards were out played. There was question as to whether the team would come together, or whether it was going to be a lost season and a badly squandered opportunity. There was question as to whether KU's guards could play defense; whether they would be effective enough on offense. There was question as to who that team's leader was. They played 15 more games...and only lost one.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Groundhog Day
I can still remember when the phrase actually had more to do with spring, a rodent, and its shadow than it did a repetitve, unpleasant situation. It's funny, sometimes, how words in our lexicon evolve; five or six years ago "friend" would never have been considered a verb, in any sense of the word. Before the mid 1990s, Groundhog Day was nothing other than a holiday.
Then, in 1993, the phrase slowly began to take on a new meaning. The meaning, as I'm sure all my readers (and by all I mean, about as many as I can count on one hand), derives from a movie written by Harold Ramis, and starring Bill Murray- that's right, Egon and Venkman collaborated to make that masterpiece. It's about a man, Phil Connors (Murray), stuck in a time warp where he just keeps repeating Groundhog Day, no matter what. It's a movie I really never understood or liked until I started practicing law.
It's hard to believe that almost three years have passed since I founded my own law practice. It seems like such a short period, and yet, my entire stint in Lawrence for law school was three years. For most students graduating law school, a firm will not hire you until you pass the Bar. Everyone in the profession knows this, but not many outside of it do. Insurance agents can work until they become certified- same thing with accountants and stock brokers (you may eventually be out of work, should you be unable to quickly become certified, but in the interim, you can work- not so for lawyers). Some firms will hire, but the reality is that unless you can appear before some judge somewhere, or sign your name on some pleading and file it somewhere, your law degree is useless. You're most likely a liability to any firm you would work for.
You could do legal research, but firms have interns and staff who do that. You can write briefs, but again, there are staff who do that; moreover, as a lawyer you're expected to argue briefs, not just write them. And at 25, you're not likely to be a Rainmaker. In short, no license, no worth; no worth, no job.
So I sat for the Kansas Bar the summer after graduating law school- and passed. The only problem was, that 2008 was the beginning of one of the worst job markets in at least 25 years, especially in legal services. Firms had been overpaid by corporations for years. Once the corporations retaining the major firms tightened their belts, firms were forced to let people go. This meant, that in addition to competing with people of my own age and experience level, I also had to compete with people from the class of 2007...and 2006...and 2005, who had just been laid off. Some firms even paid what would've been new associates to not work for anyone else, in hopes of keeping them around for when the market picked back up. Compounding the problem, was that the potential jobs for entry level lawyers were for for menial work expected of clerks and interns. I know this because I did as much my first few months after taking the Bar.
I had always wanted to make partner in a firm- any firm, large or small, or, in the alternative, start my own firm. I figured I'd spend a few years getting experience, saving a little money, and then, some time between 35 and 45, after I'd been established, I would begin building my own firm. But then, it occurred to me, that I may not have the opportunity then. They tell college athletes thinking about entering the draft that it's better to come out too early than too late. If I had to guess, I'd say this would ring true for most professions- if you "bite off more than you can chew" and take a job you're not ready for, you can always back up, and get more experience and try again, but if you turn down a job opportunity in order to wait and get more experience, the job opportunity may never present itself again...so you should take it when it's available, even if you're not quite ready.
I had no obligations- no wife, no children, no mortgage. If I started up a practice, and it failed, I could always take the lessons I learned with me to my next job (and running the business would allow me to avoid a gap on my resume until the market picked up). I was completely free to fall face first onto cold pavement- not that I thought I would, just that in the event I did, I had no one else depending on my success, or lack thereof. In other words, if starting a firm was my dream, why not start at 25, instead of 35, 40, or 45?
Starting up my own business was hard- starting any business is, at least if you're going to try and be successful. Add in the fact that I had literally no experience, and, well, at times it was downright scary, not to mention depressing (honestly, the most difficult part of my job is watching friends of mine with careers, thinking that I should be where they are). I don't know how many friends, family members, and colleagues, somewhat congratulatorily, said, "That's tough," or, "That's ballsy", or "Aren't you scared you're going to mess something up?", or "I don't know how you can do it." To be quite honest, for the longest time, I didn't know how to respond. It wasn't because I didn't have an answer, it was because, to some extent, I knew they were right. I knew I might fail.
I just kept telling myself I wouldn't. I'd look back on my life- being among the first in my family to graduate college, being the first in my family to complete graduate school, and the only person in my family to have a doctorate degree, and tell myself that if I can accomplish those things, I can succeed in this, too. I'd think about high school, and being too small to play football, but sticking with it every day, willing myself onto the field. I remember 1999, my junior year of high school, and how I knew if our team put in the work, we could be state champions; how much it stung when we lost, in the state championship game- by one touchdown. Nothing hurts more than to try your very best at something, and come up short, and no matter how much you question what you would've or wouldn't have done differently, you keep answering yourself, "Nothing. I did my best. I just failed. If I had it back, I'd have done it exactly the same- and failed nonetheless."
I remember stopping by a McDonald's on the way home from the game. Eating my fries, I noticed a poster on the wall of Michael Jordan. It was one of those holographs where you look at it from one side and you see Jordan's face, and you look at it from the other, and you see what's probably his most famous quote. Paraphrasing, he said, "I have failed....and that is why I succeed."
The next year, we tried even harder- and won. 1st in the state, 3rd in the entire midwest, 14th in the nation. I kept reminding myself, in my first months of law practice, of past successes in my life- how almost every one of them was a long term achievement that took years to materialize; how every success stemmed from a previous risk- and failure.
Recently, I attended a Christmas Party where I ran into a friend from school, and she asked what having my own practice was like. I really don't know why, but I immediately replied, "It's like Groundhog Day." She thought I meant that every day was like wanting to electrocute myself in the bathtub; so I elaborated- in part defending my answer to her, and in part, defending it to myself.
I explained that some mornings you're tired, and want to sleep in. Some mornings you hate your job. Some mornings you want to punch Ned in the face. Some mornings you hate your life and wish you could just start over. But every night, you go to bed, and wake up the next morning exactly as the day before. Every day is a new day to learn to master something- an opportunity. Someone once asked Harold Ramis how long he thought Phil Connors was stuck in the time warp. Ramis replied that it'd take at least 10 years to learn to master all of those things- piano, ice sculpting, etc. But that's solo practice. Every day is like Groundhog Day. Every day is a repetitive, unpleasant situation. Every day you deal with rich people and scum bags. Every day you deal with other jerk attorneys. It becomes extremely monotonous and stressful, and the first few years, it doesn't even pay that well.
But the only way you break out of it, is to live in the moment, to just keep repeating everything- until you get it perfect; to keep living and reliving every day, until you get it perfect. Jordan practiced his shots until he got them perfect. My team practiced plays until we all knew exactly what everyone else was doing, where everyone else would be on the field, what everyone else was thinking- until we were perfect. That's Groundhog Day- and law practice. Some days you don't want to get up, and some days you want to punch somebody in the face. But you can't just go through the motions. You have to practice every day, until you get it perfect.
Happy Groundhog Day!
Then, in 1993, the phrase slowly began to take on a new meaning. The meaning, as I'm sure all my readers (and by all I mean, about as many as I can count on one hand), derives from a movie written by Harold Ramis, and starring Bill Murray- that's right, Egon and Venkman collaborated to make that masterpiece. It's about a man, Phil Connors (Murray), stuck in a time warp where he just keeps repeating Groundhog Day, no matter what. It's a movie I really never understood or liked until I started practicing law.
It's hard to believe that almost three years have passed since I founded my own law practice. It seems like such a short period, and yet, my entire stint in Lawrence for law school was three years. For most students graduating law school, a firm will not hire you until you pass the Bar. Everyone in the profession knows this, but not many outside of it do. Insurance agents can work until they become certified- same thing with accountants and stock brokers (you may eventually be out of work, should you be unable to quickly become certified, but in the interim, you can work- not so for lawyers). Some firms will hire, but the reality is that unless you can appear before some judge somewhere, or sign your name on some pleading and file it somewhere, your law degree is useless. You're most likely a liability to any firm you would work for.
You could do legal research, but firms have interns and staff who do that. You can write briefs, but again, there are staff who do that; moreover, as a lawyer you're expected to argue briefs, not just write them. And at 25, you're not likely to be a Rainmaker. In short, no license, no worth; no worth, no job.
So I sat for the Kansas Bar the summer after graduating law school- and passed. The only problem was, that 2008 was the beginning of one of the worst job markets in at least 25 years, especially in legal services. Firms had been overpaid by corporations for years. Once the corporations retaining the major firms tightened their belts, firms were forced to let people go. This meant, that in addition to competing with people of my own age and experience level, I also had to compete with people from the class of 2007...and 2006...and 2005, who had just been laid off. Some firms even paid what would've been new associates to not work for anyone else, in hopes of keeping them around for when the market picked back up. Compounding the problem, was that the potential jobs for entry level lawyers were for for menial work expected of clerks and interns. I know this because I did as much my first few months after taking the Bar.
I had always wanted to make partner in a firm- any firm, large or small, or, in the alternative, start my own firm. I figured I'd spend a few years getting experience, saving a little money, and then, some time between 35 and 45, after I'd been established, I would begin building my own firm. But then, it occurred to me, that I may not have the opportunity then. They tell college athletes thinking about entering the draft that it's better to come out too early than too late. If I had to guess, I'd say this would ring true for most professions- if you "bite off more than you can chew" and take a job you're not ready for, you can always back up, and get more experience and try again, but if you turn down a job opportunity in order to wait and get more experience, the job opportunity may never present itself again...so you should take it when it's available, even if you're not quite ready.
I had no obligations- no wife, no children, no mortgage. If I started up a practice, and it failed, I could always take the lessons I learned with me to my next job (and running the business would allow me to avoid a gap on my resume until the market picked up). I was completely free to fall face first onto cold pavement- not that I thought I would, just that in the event I did, I had no one else depending on my success, or lack thereof. In other words, if starting a firm was my dream, why not start at 25, instead of 35, 40, or 45?
Starting up my own business was hard- starting any business is, at least if you're going to try and be successful. Add in the fact that I had literally no experience, and, well, at times it was downright scary, not to mention depressing (honestly, the most difficult part of my job is watching friends of mine with careers, thinking that I should be where they are). I don't know how many friends, family members, and colleagues, somewhat congratulatorily, said, "That's tough," or, "That's ballsy", or "Aren't you scared you're going to mess something up?", or "I don't know how you can do it." To be quite honest, for the longest time, I didn't know how to respond. It wasn't because I didn't have an answer, it was because, to some extent, I knew they were right. I knew I might fail.
I just kept telling myself I wouldn't. I'd look back on my life- being among the first in my family to graduate college, being the first in my family to complete graduate school, and the only person in my family to have a doctorate degree, and tell myself that if I can accomplish those things, I can succeed in this, too. I'd think about high school, and being too small to play football, but sticking with it every day, willing myself onto the field. I remember 1999, my junior year of high school, and how I knew if our team put in the work, we could be state champions; how much it stung when we lost, in the state championship game- by one touchdown. Nothing hurts more than to try your very best at something, and come up short, and no matter how much you question what you would've or wouldn't have done differently, you keep answering yourself, "Nothing. I did my best. I just failed. If I had it back, I'd have done it exactly the same- and failed nonetheless."
I remember stopping by a McDonald's on the way home from the game. Eating my fries, I noticed a poster on the wall of Michael Jordan. It was one of those holographs where you look at it from one side and you see Jordan's face, and you look at it from the other, and you see what's probably his most famous quote. Paraphrasing, he said, "I have failed....and that is why I succeed."
The next year, we tried even harder- and won. 1st in the state, 3rd in the entire midwest, 14th in the nation. I kept reminding myself, in my first months of law practice, of past successes in my life- how almost every one of them was a long term achievement that took years to materialize; how every success stemmed from a previous risk- and failure.
Recently, I attended a Christmas Party where I ran into a friend from school, and she asked what having my own practice was like. I really don't know why, but I immediately replied, "It's like Groundhog Day." She thought I meant that every day was like wanting to electrocute myself in the bathtub; so I elaborated- in part defending my answer to her, and in part, defending it to myself.
I explained that some mornings you're tired, and want to sleep in. Some mornings you hate your job. Some mornings you want to punch Ned in the face. Some mornings you hate your life and wish you could just start over. But every night, you go to bed, and wake up the next morning exactly as the day before. Every day is a new day to learn to master something- an opportunity. Someone once asked Harold Ramis how long he thought Phil Connors was stuck in the time warp. Ramis replied that it'd take at least 10 years to learn to master all of those things- piano, ice sculpting, etc. But that's solo practice. Every day is like Groundhog Day. Every day is a repetitive, unpleasant situation. Every day you deal with rich people and scum bags. Every day you deal with other jerk attorneys. It becomes extremely monotonous and stressful, and the first few years, it doesn't even pay that well.
But the only way you break out of it, is to live in the moment, to just keep repeating everything- until you get it perfect; to keep living and reliving every day, until you get it perfect. Jordan practiced his shots until he got them perfect. My team practiced plays until we all knew exactly what everyone else was doing, where everyone else would be on the field, what everyone else was thinking- until we were perfect. That's Groundhog Day- and law practice. Some days you don't want to get up, and some days you want to punch somebody in the face. But you can't just go through the motions. You have to practice every day, until you get it perfect.
Happy Groundhog Day!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)