My legs were useless during my gymnastics class today. I ended up spending most of my time on the uneven bars, as leg strength matters less on them than on any other apparatus. I suppose that at the level I'm currently working (not very high) that leg weakness would not profoundly impact my ability to use the balance beam, either, but I don't like the balance beam -- never really did all that much, for that matter -- and I'm not above using a convenient excuse to avoid it. It should have been one of my better events, as it is, in theory, anyway, an extension of one's floor routine, but restricted greatly in the surface area of the floor. It never seemed like doing a floor routine, though. It felt more like walking a very narrow plank.
I have tumbling on Thursday. Instead of avoiding any apparati, I will have to do a greatly dumbed-down version of anything I've practiced recently. My leg strength is too greatly compromised to propel myself into the air for long. I don't like being so lazy and standing around so much, but in truth, I probably hog the mat more than my fair share of the time, and this will allow others greater opportunity to develop or refine skills.
I was reading between classes about a topic on which it does not behoove me to obsess, which is Nancy Grace. Indications are that her disdain for the presumption of innocence in a court of law is not something she developed as a TV journalist, but was evident in her career as a prosecutor. I read citations in which she was criticized by the Georgia Supreme Court as well as by the Eleventh District Circuit of Appeals, which accused her of "playing fast and loose" with her ethical duties. I showed them to my aunt, an attorney, who said that a lawyer who practices for any length of time will ultimately come under fire of higher courts, though maybe not with quite such harsh criticism as was levied at Ms. Grace.
Nancy Grace entered law school, she has mentioned numerous times, because of her fiance's murder. She recounted details of the crime and of the subsequent trial of the killer in her book Objection! The New York Observer noted numerous instances of inaccuracy in relation to details of the crime and the trial. Ms. Grace defended the book as being the result of having relied on her memory, but most of the discrepancies seemed to err on the side of sensationalism. I would consider reading the book for myself except that : A) I don't want to buy it and add to her sales, and I'm not fond of public libraries; B) it would probably make me angry, just as Nancy Grace herself does.
I have tumbling on Thursday. Instead of avoiding any apparati, I will have to do a greatly dumbed-down version of anything I've practiced recently. My leg strength is too greatly compromised to propel myself into the air for long. I don't like being so lazy and standing around so much, but in truth, I probably hog the mat more than my fair share of the time, and this will allow others greater opportunity to develop or refine skills.
I was reading between classes about a topic on which it does not behoove me to obsess, which is Nancy Grace. Indications are that her disdain for the presumption of innocence in a court of law is not something she developed as a TV journalist, but was evident in her career as a prosecutor. I read citations in which she was criticized by the Georgia Supreme Court as well as by the Eleventh District Circuit of Appeals, which accused her of "playing fast and loose" with her ethical duties. I showed them to my aunt, an attorney, who said that a lawyer who practices for any length of time will ultimately come under fire of higher courts, though maybe not with quite such harsh criticism as was levied at Ms. Grace.
Nancy Grace entered law school, she has mentioned numerous times, because of her fiance's murder. She recounted details of the crime and of the subsequent trial of the killer in her book Objection! The New York Observer noted numerous instances of inaccuracy in relation to details of the crime and the trial. Ms. Grace defended the book as being the result of having relied on her memory, but most of the discrepancies seemed to err on the side of sensationalism. I would consider reading the book for myself except that : A) I don't want to buy it and add to her sales, and I'm not fond of public libraries; B) it would probably make me angry, just as Nancy Grace herself does.
No comments:
Post a Comment