Wednesday, November 24, 2010
What went right this November!
Not sure if many of you heard, but I ran for office this November, as a candidate for Folsom City Council, one of seven. The results? I came in 7/7, the last or least popular vote-getter, with 6.15% of the vote (3216 votes). This post is about the process, the experience and the outcome.
Let me be the first to say that I knew I didn't have much of a chance going in (yes, that's what all of us losers say) - the incumbents are strongly established in Folsom - they've been running the city for a long time now, and Folsom residents are happy with their work. (I'm not going to slam anyone, so if that's what your waiting for, too bad!) Also, my platform, was to bring diversity to Folsom's all white City Council. With a stated minority percentage of the entire population at approx. 15-17%, and if you average a minority voting population of about 50% or half, so about 7-9% and voter turnout about 60% of the vote, the actual (approx.) minority population voting was about 4-6%. So, under the circumstances, I did fairly well with my campaign platform and my core audience.
However, I did not reach out to the majority as well as I did the minority population. So what did I do wrong there? I did not do any door to door campaigning, or "precinct walking" using the correct buzz words. I didn't do any mailings or phone calls either. So what did I do, you may ask? I attended every candidate forum I was invited to, I spent more than half my campaign budget on signs (more than half of which sat in my garage due to an unschooled, first-timer error), and I chickened out at the enormity of the task that I signed up for myself.
Regardless, I thought that this was a phenomenal process, and to be quite unoriginal and cliched, it was a real "eye-opener." I urge every activistic, concerned resident to consider running for local office, to get some of these experiences first-hand.
First, even though this office (City Council) is supposedly non-partisan, which means that no where in the election filing paperwork are you required to list your party affiliation, it is super important to everyone else to find out what your party affiliation is. That was really ironic! It started out with the endorsement process. Somehow, I got all the emails related to endorsements from the Democratic party and that started the ball rolling. The endorsement process was fascinating! It forced me to prepare for future candidate forums and gave me an idea of the Big Divide in our partisan country, where to draw the lines between the reds and the blues, between capitalism and labor unions, between employers and employees, between pro-choice and anti-choice, between heterosexuality and homosexuality (as it related to marriage-equality laws), among others. (Btw, if you are ever confused as to what party affiliation you belong to, whether you are a closet Republican or Democrat, I urge you to find an endorsement questionnaire from both parties and to review your answers for both - you will quickly find out which color codes you must now specify in your campaign materials!).
Second, third, fourth - research, research, research. Immediately after I filed the first part of my nomination papers, which is basically something that says you're interested and that you will follow through with the rest of the required submissions within the next deadline, I got a call from a political consultant, supposedly hired by more than one of "newcomers," although in reality it was just one candidate, and he made a compelling case for me as to why I should not run. It compelled me to run, because I was ticked off that someone would tell me why I shouldn't do something, when it was so obvious that he was employed by someone who had to gain from me dropping out. Regardless, it was a polite conversation and it was interesting as there was a lot of research that he quoted about newcomers diluting the vote and about how we must get the incumbents out.
I was unprepared for the next phase - the candidate forums that various groups host, in order to give the voting public an insight on the candidates that will appear on ballots. Some of these were televised live, some paraphrased in local newspapers and others were resident forums. It was fascinating to see how different groups rallied together to get information from potential elected representatives, how they each brought up their relevant priorities and how they were all interested in the common good of the city. However, after this whole process, I really wonder how much of the electorate was influenced by these various events. It seemed to me that these reached a few key segments of society, which was great for overall word of mouth, but perhaps did not translate into a direct share of the vote. For that, I think I needed to have done a lot more research, gotten lists of voting democrats, done precinct walks, and prepared much harder on issues of particular interest to Folsom voters. So, this should have been acted on much before the deadlines for nomination and all that fun stuff that actually happens between the official names of candidates on the ballot and the election.
Fifth, the little amount of money (relative to the other candidates) that I set aside for funds could have been used better, elaborating on the statement I made a couple of paras above. I spent way too much money on street signs, (about 50%) only to find out that due to City ordinances that were enforced strictly and due to sweetheart deals between developers and those they were very familiar with, pretty much the only options I had for signs were people's front lawns, often inside neighborhoods or enclaves that weren't very visible. Furthermore, I ended up having more than a third of my signs in my garage, even on election day as I had no place to put them, and I had only ordered 150 in all. So that was a huge fiasco. I think that money would have been better spent in mailers or post cards. Oh well!
All in all, I think majority of the voters voted on their familiarity with the names on the ballot. There is definitely a concerned percentage of voters and I think I'm right in saying that this percentage is growing, that makes informed decisions about candidates. Prior to this election, I would not have counted myself as such a voter, but I know going forward, with all the opportunities that we have to learn more about those on our ballots, never again will I be an uninformed voter. There is just too much at stake to let that happen. We need to hold our leaders accountable and this is the only way to do so.
Let me be the first to say that I knew I didn't have much of a chance going in (yes, that's what all of us losers say) - the incumbents are strongly established in Folsom - they've been running the city for a long time now, and Folsom residents are happy with their work. (I'm not going to slam anyone, so if that's what your waiting for, too bad!) Also, my platform, was to bring diversity to Folsom's all white City Council. With a stated minority percentage of the entire population at approx. 15-17%, and if you average a minority voting population of about 50% or half, so about 7-9% and voter turnout about 60% of the vote, the actual (approx.) minority population voting was about 4-6%. So, under the circumstances, I did fairly well with my campaign platform and my core audience.
However, I did not reach out to the majority as well as I did the minority population. So what did I do wrong there? I did not do any door to door campaigning, or "precinct walking" using the correct buzz words. I didn't do any mailings or phone calls either. So what did I do, you may ask? I attended every candidate forum I was invited to, I spent more than half my campaign budget on signs (more than half of which sat in my garage due to an unschooled, first-timer error), and I chickened out at the enormity of the task that I signed up for myself.
Regardless, I thought that this was a phenomenal process, and to be quite unoriginal and cliched, it was a real "eye-opener." I urge every activistic, concerned resident to consider running for local office, to get some of these experiences first-hand.
First, even though this office (City Council) is supposedly non-partisan, which means that no where in the election filing paperwork are you required to list your party affiliation, it is super important to everyone else to find out what your party affiliation is. That was really ironic! It started out with the endorsement process. Somehow, I got all the emails related to endorsements from the Democratic party and that started the ball rolling. The endorsement process was fascinating! It forced me to prepare for future candidate forums and gave me an idea of the Big Divide in our partisan country, where to draw the lines between the reds and the blues, between capitalism and labor unions, between employers and employees, between pro-choice and anti-choice, between heterosexuality and homosexuality (as it related to marriage-equality laws), among others. (Btw, if you are ever confused as to what party affiliation you belong to, whether you are a closet Republican or Democrat, I urge you to find an endorsement questionnaire from both parties and to review your answers for both - you will quickly find out which color codes you must now specify in your campaign materials!).
Second, third, fourth - research, research, research. Immediately after I filed the first part of my nomination papers, which is basically something that says you're interested and that you will follow through with the rest of the required submissions within the next deadline, I got a call from a political consultant, supposedly hired by more than one of "newcomers," although in reality it was just one candidate, and he made a compelling case for me as to why I should not run. It compelled me to run, because I was ticked off that someone would tell me why I shouldn't do something, when it was so obvious that he was employed by someone who had to gain from me dropping out. Regardless, it was a polite conversation and it was interesting as there was a lot of research that he quoted about newcomers diluting the vote and about how we must get the incumbents out.
I was unprepared for the next phase - the candidate forums that various groups host, in order to give the voting public an insight on the candidates that will appear on ballots. Some of these were televised live, some paraphrased in local newspapers and others were resident forums. It was fascinating to see how different groups rallied together to get information from potential elected representatives, how they each brought up their relevant priorities and how they were all interested in the common good of the city. However, after this whole process, I really wonder how much of the electorate was influenced by these various events. It seemed to me that these reached a few key segments of society, which was great for overall word of mouth, but perhaps did not translate into a direct share of the vote. For that, I think I needed to have done a lot more research, gotten lists of voting democrats, done precinct walks, and prepared much harder on issues of particular interest to Folsom voters. So, this should have been acted on much before the deadlines for nomination and all that fun stuff that actually happens between the official names of candidates on the ballot and the election.
Fifth, the little amount of money (relative to the other candidates) that I set aside for funds could have been used better, elaborating on the statement I made a couple of paras above. I spent way too much money on street signs, (about 50%) only to find out that due to City ordinances that were enforced strictly and due to sweetheart deals between developers and those they were very familiar with, pretty much the only options I had for signs were people's front lawns, often inside neighborhoods or enclaves that weren't very visible. Furthermore, I ended up having more than a third of my signs in my garage, even on election day as I had no place to put them, and I had only ordered 150 in all. So that was a huge fiasco. I think that money would have been better spent in mailers or post cards. Oh well!
All in all, I think majority of the voters voted on their familiarity with the names on the ballot. There is definitely a concerned percentage of voters and I think I'm right in saying that this percentage is growing, that makes informed decisions about candidates. Prior to this election, I would not have counted myself as such a voter, but I know going forward, with all the opportunities that we have to learn more about those on our ballots, never again will I be an uninformed voter. There is just too much at stake to let that happen. We need to hold our leaders accountable and this is the only way to do so.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Culture Clash or Indecent Exposure?
I heard this story from a friend, who heard it from a friend, so you know by now that what I’m about to say is as distorted as can be. I used to love playingb the game “telephone” as a child, where 10 or more kids sat in a circle and one whispered a seemingly innocuous message in another’s ear and in the end when the message was said aloud by the last person, it had no resemblance to the original message. That aside, I hope I don’t do serious injustice to this story.
What supposedly happened is this: an older man, the father of a first generation Indian couple was walking in the neighborhood in a lungi. “What is a lungi?,” you may wonder. Imagine a long, rectangular unstitched piece of cloth that you can wrap yourself in from your waist through your ankles. That’s a lungi. Here’s a link for a more believable explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungi. As you can see, there is no mechanism as such to tie it into place apart from deftness of the hand and, it functions very much like a wrap-skirt that blows open on a windy day.
So what’s the big deal, you may ask. Well, it is a big deal under the circumstances… In India, whether a man (usually men wear lungis, forgive the stereotype) wears anything underneath or not is subject to conjecture. I still have a somewhat vivid picture from my younger days, of a man on a bicycle wearing a lungi which parted in the middle with every turn of the pedal, exposing his privates. I passed by in a car, observing this spectacle only for a moment, horrified and amused at the same time, as only a teenager is in such situations. Regardless, I don’t think I’ll ever forget that image…
But I digress; in my story the older gentleman was reportedly wearing underwear. He was walking in his neighborhood – well, let’s give him the benefit of doubt, maybe not in his immediate neighborhood, wearing a lungi. He reportedly saw a young boy; maybe 8-10 years or so, presumably, and reportedly watched the antics of this child, while walking toward this child. I’m making this part up to fill in the details, which were vaguely conveyed to me in a state of opprobrium. Perhaps the child fell while on a bicycle or a skateboard or some such activity which gave our onlooker rise to concern. He reportedly approached the boy with alacrity, as a result of which the folds of his lungi gave way, to expose his underwear. Result? The older gentleman was sued in federal court for indecent exposure directed to children or a related law.
The rest of the details are really hazy, apart from the fact that this older gentleman was exposed to the workings of the US legal system and ultimately, the case was dismissed.
I still don’t know what to make of this story, or hypothetical, if you feel similar disbelief. I don’t know enough about what he was charged with to speculate if intent was required, or if it was a statutory crime. I don’t know the actions that resulted in the parents of the boy to file suit against this person and I don’t know why, if it was seemingly innocent, it didn’t clear up as a misunderstanding based on the unique cultural issues that it represented.
Regardless, I would not have imagined such a scenario in a million years, yet, apart from my initial shock, I wonder if it is not inevitable… People’s cultural differences have had little room to play out and show their true colors, in a broader, multi-cultural setting. I wonder if the irony of the whole situation is that this person felt comfortable enough in his neighborhood to be talking while wearing a lungi. What do you think?
What supposedly happened is this: an older man, the father of a first generation Indian couple was walking in the neighborhood in a lungi. “What is a lungi?,” you may wonder. Imagine a long, rectangular unstitched piece of cloth that you can wrap yourself in from your waist through your ankles. That’s a lungi. Here’s a link for a more believable explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungi. As you can see, there is no mechanism as such to tie it into place apart from deftness of the hand and, it functions very much like a wrap-skirt that blows open on a windy day.
So what’s the big deal, you may ask. Well, it is a big deal under the circumstances… In India, whether a man (usually men wear lungis, forgive the stereotype) wears anything underneath or not is subject to conjecture. I still have a somewhat vivid picture from my younger days, of a man on a bicycle wearing a lungi which parted in the middle with every turn of the pedal, exposing his privates. I passed by in a car, observing this spectacle only for a moment, horrified and amused at the same time, as only a teenager is in such situations. Regardless, I don’t think I’ll ever forget that image…
But I digress; in my story the older gentleman was reportedly wearing underwear. He was walking in his neighborhood – well, let’s give him the benefit of doubt, maybe not in his immediate neighborhood, wearing a lungi. He reportedly saw a young boy; maybe 8-10 years or so, presumably, and reportedly watched the antics of this child, while walking toward this child. I’m making this part up to fill in the details, which were vaguely conveyed to me in a state of opprobrium. Perhaps the child fell while on a bicycle or a skateboard or some such activity which gave our onlooker rise to concern. He reportedly approached the boy with alacrity, as a result of which the folds of his lungi gave way, to expose his underwear. Result? The older gentleman was sued in federal court for indecent exposure directed to children or a related law.
The rest of the details are really hazy, apart from the fact that this older gentleman was exposed to the workings of the US legal system and ultimately, the case was dismissed.
I still don’t know what to make of this story, or hypothetical, if you feel similar disbelief. I don’t know enough about what he was charged with to speculate if intent was required, or if it was a statutory crime. I don’t know the actions that resulted in the parents of the boy to file suit against this person and I don’t know why, if it was seemingly innocent, it didn’t clear up as a misunderstanding based on the unique cultural issues that it represented.
Regardless, I would not have imagined such a scenario in a million years, yet, apart from my initial shock, I wonder if it is not inevitable… People’s cultural differences have had little room to play out and show their true colors, in a broader, multi-cultural setting. I wonder if the irony of the whole situation is that this person felt comfortable enough in his neighborhood to be talking while wearing a lungi. What do you think?
(Photo credits - from http://visionsandperceptions.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/lungi1.jpg)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
New Year’s Actions
Finding myself – back to the basics…
I don’t know about you, but the new year bring in a lot of soul-searching, or, as my husband would say, anxiety for him, as he doesn’t know what his crazy wife will want to do in the new year. I hate the word “resolutions” as many call it. I like to think of it as actions. I’ve made many resolutions that die before they leave the shutters of my mind, so I figure, a new word will help me help myself better.
One of my first actions this year was to think about food differently. I’m tired of making the same old rice, roti, curry, meat dishes. Not only is Indian cooking time consuming, but leftover portions, after two meals, tend to weigh me down, with the smell and the tiredness of it all. I decided to expand my repertoire not only with different recipes and cuisines but to get back to the basics. Like trying out more seasonal veggies and not just making Indian style versions of them, updating my pantry with more whole grains – quinoa, wild rice. Although what I will do with them, we’ll see…
This week was a really good start. Monday’s dinner was roasted kale (kudos to my cousin for introducing this delish starter to me) and asparagus to start, with pav bhaji. Yes, Indian, I know, but it was a combination of four or more veggies, easily cooked and consumed, I must say. My two-year old had a blast tearing off the kale leaves from the stem while prepping it for the oven.
Tuesday night was fish and a ready-mix salad – freshly shopped for at the grocery store, but with a dinner prep time of 20 mins of less!!! Added a few spicy ingredients and sizzled the fish in a saucepan. I could have added some version of bread, in hindsight. Next time…
Tonight, I’m planning a whole wheat spaghetti & store bought marinara, with oven roasted thinly sliced eggplants and zucchini (and asparagus still in the fridge from Monday) and a great fresh salad recipe - shredded beets and carrots – from this author/chef I stumbled across on NPR www.cucinanicolina.com. Shredded beets, carrots, some lime juice, olive oil, salt and pepper.
Tomorrow, I’ll probably revert back to some version of chicken curry, before the other members of my household (including me, at some point, I’m sure) revolt in protest at alien combinations being forced down their palates, but in this process, I’m re-discovering how much I used to enjoy cooking and baking. These past few years, despite the obvious relish with which I watched the Food Network, I grew disdainful of cooking day in and day out. I’m not sure how much steam my current interest will run on, but I’m hoping it will last a while, because I cannot see myself doing take-out 2-3 times a week like I used to. Forget about the expense and the growing abdominal fat, (which, it is rumored you can never get rid of!) but the taste these days is just so blah! The oil smells stale most of the time; you wonder what’s in there the rest of the time…
I also came across an interesting article in the Sac Bee a few weeks ago. http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/2426657.html Apparently, a farm just outside Sacramento http://www.delriobotanical.com allows you to purchase a box of fresh veggies and fruits for $20 a week (catch is that you have to pay for the whole quarter in advance) along with recipes or suggestions for how to cook the produce. This sounds fabulous! I read the reporters article with relish, but my enthusiasm started nose-diving about half-way through the article. I didn’t know about more than half the veggies and I don’t think I ate any of them at all… I guess this is going to have to wait to see how my life plan action is taking effect in the next few weeks. Figure, if I sign up closer to the summer, at least I’ll know what to do with the abundant summer produce that I’m mostly familiar with, but I wouldn’t be making any bets if I were you!
I don’t know about you, but the new year bring in a lot of soul-searching, or, as my husband would say, anxiety for him, as he doesn’t know what his crazy wife will want to do in the new year. I hate the word “resolutions” as many call it. I like to think of it as actions. I’ve made many resolutions that die before they leave the shutters of my mind, so I figure, a new word will help me help myself better.
One of my first actions this year was to think about food differently. I’m tired of making the same old rice, roti, curry, meat dishes. Not only is Indian cooking time consuming, but leftover portions, after two meals, tend to weigh me down, with the smell and the tiredness of it all. I decided to expand my repertoire not only with different recipes and cuisines but to get back to the basics. Like trying out more seasonal veggies and not just making Indian style versions of them, updating my pantry with more whole grains – quinoa, wild rice. Although what I will do with them, we’ll see…
This week was a really good start. Monday’s dinner was roasted kale (kudos to my cousin for introducing this delish starter to me) and asparagus to start, with pav bhaji. Yes, Indian, I know, but it was a combination of four or more veggies, easily cooked and consumed, I must say. My two-year old had a blast tearing off the kale leaves from the stem while prepping it for the oven.
Tuesday night was fish and a ready-mix salad – freshly shopped for at the grocery store, but with a dinner prep time of 20 mins of less!!! Added a few spicy ingredients and sizzled the fish in a saucepan. I could have added some version of bread, in hindsight. Next time…
Tonight, I’m planning a whole wheat spaghetti & store bought marinara, with oven roasted thinly sliced eggplants and zucchini (and asparagus still in the fridge from Monday) and a great fresh salad recipe - shredded beets and carrots – from this author/chef I stumbled across on NPR www.cucinanicolina.com. Shredded beets, carrots, some lime juice, olive oil, salt and pepper.
Tomorrow, I’ll probably revert back to some version of chicken curry, before the other members of my household (including me, at some point, I’m sure) revolt in protest at alien combinations being forced down their palates, but in this process, I’m re-discovering how much I used to enjoy cooking and baking. These past few years, despite the obvious relish with which I watched the Food Network, I grew disdainful of cooking day in and day out. I’m not sure how much steam my current interest will run on, but I’m hoping it will last a while, because I cannot see myself doing take-out 2-3 times a week like I used to. Forget about the expense and the growing abdominal fat, (which, it is rumored you can never get rid of!) but the taste these days is just so blah! The oil smells stale most of the time; you wonder what’s in there the rest of the time…
I also came across an interesting article in the Sac Bee a few weeks ago. http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/2426657.html Apparently, a farm just outside Sacramento http://www.delriobotanical.com allows you to purchase a box of fresh veggies and fruits for $20 a week (catch is that you have to pay for the whole quarter in advance) along with recipes or suggestions for how to cook the produce. This sounds fabulous! I read the reporters article with relish, but my enthusiasm started nose-diving about half-way through the article. I didn’t know about more than half the veggies and I don’t think I ate any of them at all… I guess this is going to have to wait to see how my life plan action is taking effect in the next few weeks. Figure, if I sign up closer to the summer, at least I’ll know what to do with the abundant summer produce that I’m mostly familiar with, but I wouldn’t be making any bets if I were you!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Effective Public Notice in Times of Dwindling Newspaper Circulation?
It’s been a while so, here’s a long, overdue post:
Public Notice Requirements & Declining Newspaper Circulation
If you read a sampling of the Government Code (not that you’d do it for fun), you will most certainly stumble across some aspect of Public Notice, where either the statute, or any proposed amendment to a statute or a regulation has to be made public, through a newspaper notice/advertisement. I also came across a similar requirement for companies that are involved in class-action lawsuits, where they may not have a customer list of those who may be affected, etc, or, that their universe of customers/interested parties is so large, that the most efficient way to reach them is to advertise in the major newspaper of that market. (How’s that for a long, sentence in semi-legalese?)
This, coupled with recent reports about declining circulation of major dailies, got me thinking about the efficacy of this medium for the purpose of notice. Back in the day, pre-internet, the newspaper was the only place to be informed about such happenings. Now, however, the number of people that rely solely on newspapers for their information is declining, and rapidly in some age-groups, mostly younger age-groups, in my opinion. (Although, without having the time or resources to dig into a report or analysis saying something similar, I would venture to suggest that this is the current trend.) Not only is the medium through which people get their news fragmented (exploding internet news sites, cable, satellite, broadcast tv, streaming media directed to phones, radio, etc.,), but newspaper circulation is also at its darkest time in its history. (Someone once made an interesting analogy, comparing the obsoleteness of newspapers with the obsoleteness of the law firm billing model, but suggested that neither is going to change drastically in a short period of time.) Check out this link from the Sacramento Business Journal, http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/26/daily7.html, about plummeting circulation numbers. Don’t forget to note the possibility that while overall circulation is down, if you compare declines by age-group, you would probably find a more telling story about older vs. younger generations and their preferences for different media.
Now that we have all this background, here’s the point – is a “public notice” requirement in newspapers obsolete? Further, if it is obsolete, is there any other medium that is more suited for widespread dissemination to enable the public to gain notice about matters affecting its rights?
I’m sure people will argue that newspapers still have a vast majority of readers, particularly those who would go to newspapers specifically for this kind of information. I’m sure most defendants would argue that too, because suddenly, their burden of notifying the public will be more weighty and expensive, perhaps. But still, does reaching out to a fraction of an “interested” population through a newspaper advertisement qualify that you have met the requirements for notifying the public about potential changes to their rights? Are we just paying lip service to this function of “notice” by carrying on old traditions that do not serve their purpose anymore?
Secondly, is the internet a better-suited mechanism for “public notice”? It’s also equally fragmented. It’s much more private (yes, an oxymoron!), but the privacy of opening a web page from your own space (home, office, phone, tv, wherever!) lends to a more uncensored ideological/philosophical leaning, I would think. So, I’m assuming those who lean left, never (or infrequently, perhaps) visit right-wing news sites or blogs, and vice-versa. Maybe a non-profit organization will pop-up soon, if it hasn’t already that will be a “public notice center.org” by State, that will perhaps be the new equivalent. But can you imagine that text in a regulation or statute? I’m assuming here’s how it will read, “Department has to put up a notice on ‘public notice center.org’ or its equivalent, for a period of 45-60 days, with an opportunity for the public to respond. Public hearings will be held within 3 weeks…” and so on and so forth. That would be a first… I wonder if this change will come about in my lifetime.
I did see something close, though, albeit, with the newspaper as the conduit. The Sacramento Bee had an article recently about how the Re-districting Commission was accepting applications from citizens for the Committee and it directed readers to their website. (As an aside, I urge all residents of California to apply and participate in this process, see http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/.) But still, it was the newspaper that directed people to it. How would the average citizen learn about it if the Sac Bee, even with its dwindling circulation didn’t carry it?
Public comments appreciated…
Friday, August 28, 2009
Circus, circus
Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey is in town and I've been debating for a long time if I should take my two year old to it. I finally gave in and bought tickets earlier this week, much to the recrimination of more principled friends. So I am trying desperately to justify going to the Circus... I know my munchkin will be amazed beyond belief to see elephants, horses and I think even a tiger, so why isn't that impending joy enough? I looked at their website and they had a page or a comment somewhere about how humanely they treat their animals... But then my conscience goes, it's like Philip Morris saying they donate money to lung cancer foundations, isn't it. Bah! Voice in my head, you're killing the fun of it.
Then I try to argue with the voice in my head, that the zoo is the same thing. They have animals on display and they have to deal with heckling kids all day - that's much more sad than the circus animals participating in shows for a few minutes/hours a day. But this is not the same, yells out my conscience. No one is deliberately demeaning you by trying to make you defy gravity, by having the horse or the dog walk on two legs or by having a majestic elephant do silly
anthropomorphic tricks. Or, even worse, no one uses corporal punishment in order to train you to do these things...
I get it - I understand the mistreatment, but in a way, I think, I'm going through the same thing. With the current job market (yes, it will always come back to this somehow), I feel like a circus animal myself in my job search - eager to please, displaying my profound and proficient talents, juggling if I have to, to make an impression, walking on one leg, or so it seems, most days... ;0) The one good thing is that I don't have a whip-happy trainer trying to get me to imbibe these seemingly fantastical skills. Yay! I'm a circus animal but I'm not mistreated. Sigh! Point is, I understand how they feel, with this weird, inexplicable analogy that I have created - the need to achieve something, the desire for applause, people flocking to you...
I don't ever want to be in this boat again, re-inventing myself, starting off at the bottom of the food chain and in a way, I don't think I ever will be. What I don't understand though is how an industry expects to get a skilled workforce if they are not invested in training that workforce or providing this workforce with opportunities and resources.
I'm sure there are many who say that this is just the market correcting itself to get rid of excesses, and they may be right, but it seems that the industry itself is caught unawares - with big law surreptitiously copying one another, with others waiting in the wings to see how the chips will fall, and with the rest of the bottom feeders now aspiring and getting what they couldn't earlier.
As far as I remember, there have been voices for changing the system - for changing the 6 minute "kaching" counter, for being more realistic with associate salaries, bonuses, etc, for having law schools be more responsive to the needs of the market, instead of burying them with theory and heavy coursebooks.
Why is it, that a system that has devised and designed a doctorate degree in three years of rigorous study, is so uncertain about the product it churns out that people are afraid of those who are below the magic number (what is that - the top third of the class?)? I am surprised by the judgment that your transcript inspires in people - not having seen such a phenomena with my other degrees.
Is it because the practice of law is so scripted and rigid that only the top third of the class can practice well? Or is it that the practice of law is so eclectic that those who did badly on one day, at the end of the semester/year, will be doomed to repent it the rest of their lives (dramatic, I know...)? Or is it just a system that has so badly spiralled out of being, that it is its own entity, where, the study of law in this country is now a law unto itself?
I know - I'm asking for the meaning of life and everything, but I digress... Where was I, yes, about the circus... yep "all the world is" indeed "a stage..."
Then I try to argue with the voice in my head, that the zoo is the same thing. They have animals on display and they have to deal with heckling kids all day - that's much more sad than the circus animals participating in shows for a few minutes/hours a day. But this is not the same, yells out my conscience. No one is deliberately demeaning you by trying to make you defy gravity, by having the horse or the dog walk on two legs or by having a majestic elephant do silly
anthropomorphic tricks. Or, even worse, no one uses corporal punishment in order to train you to do these things...
I get it - I understand the mistreatment, but in a way, I think, I'm going through the same thing. With the current job market (yes, it will always come back to this somehow), I feel like a circus animal myself in my job search - eager to please, displaying my profound and proficient talents, juggling if I have to, to make an impression, walking on one leg, or so it seems, most days... ;0) The one good thing is that I don't have a whip-happy trainer trying to get me to imbibe these seemingly fantastical skills. Yay! I'm a circus animal but I'm not mistreated. Sigh! Point is, I understand how they feel, with this weird, inexplicable analogy that I have created - the need to achieve something, the desire for applause, people flocking to you...
I don't ever want to be in this boat again, re-inventing myself, starting off at the bottom of the food chain and in a way, I don't think I ever will be. What I don't understand though is how an industry expects to get a skilled workforce if they are not invested in training that workforce or providing this workforce with opportunities and resources.
I'm sure there are many who say that this is just the market correcting itself to get rid of excesses, and they may be right, but it seems that the industry itself is caught unawares - with big law surreptitiously copying one another, with others waiting in the wings to see how the chips will fall, and with the rest of the bottom feeders now aspiring and getting what they couldn't earlier.
As far as I remember, there have been voices for changing the system - for changing the 6 minute "kaching" counter, for being more realistic with associate salaries, bonuses, etc, for having law schools be more responsive to the needs of the market, instead of burying them with theory and heavy coursebooks.
Why is it, that a system that has devised and designed a doctorate degree in three years of rigorous study, is so uncertain about the product it churns out that people are afraid of those who are below the magic number (what is that - the top third of the class?)? I am surprised by the judgment that your transcript inspires in people - not having seen such a phenomena with my other degrees.
Is it because the practice of law is so scripted and rigid that only the top third of the class can practice well? Or is it that the practice of law is so eclectic that those who did badly on one day, at the end of the semester/year, will be doomed to repent it the rest of their lives (dramatic, I know...)? Or is it just a system that has so badly spiralled out of being, that it is its own entity, where, the study of law in this country is now a law unto itself?
I know - I'm asking for the meaning of life and everything, but I digress... Where was I, yes, about the circus... yep "all the world is" indeed "a stage..."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why isn't my phone ringing off the hook with job offers?
Ok, so I'm not in the top 25% of my class (maybe from the bottom, hehe! ;0)), and my school is not in the top 25 law schools in the country, (it is in the top 25 in California, for sure! ;0)), but where are all the entry-level attorney jobs gone? The most depressing thing about all this is that I saw a job listing the other day for an experienced attorney, with 10-15 years of experience and, the listing said that the attorney should have graduated in the top 15% of their class, from a top tier law school. So what, the 10-15 years counts for jack? Crazy!!!
I swear it wasn't so bad last fall, while I was entering my final semester of law school, but all of a sudden, that well is dry. Yes, I know, the economy, stupid..., but what's going to happen to all the entry-level attorneys that law schools are churning out? Will the economy improve enough, that if for instance we were to do something totally different just to get a job, but wanted to change that once things opened up, will the improvement in the economy be so significant that we could? So, just for argument's sake, if I were to go into litigation, but had my heart set on corporate law or securities law, will I be able to work in securities law with 1 or 2 years of PI litigation or construction litigation under my belt?
Also, now, the BIG FIRM associates, the ones who secured all those fabulous jobs a year or two ago, and possibly just this past year, are vying with me, for the stable, not so glamorous other jobs. So, a hiring attorney, looking at this demi-God or demi-Goddess from the Big Firm with I don't know, let's say 2 years of experience of having worked with the best of the best and closed, what, 12 deals, with a market cap of 1 billion plus, (can you tell I'm pulling stuff out of the wazoo?), and looking at my resume, impressive as it is with a few internships, a mid-career change, and my stellar "passed the Cal Bar on the first go" record in Feb '09 with only a 33.5% pass rate, is going to choose whom?
Additionally, I was one among the many ignoramus who didn't realize that to qualify for a Federal Justice Dept job, your application deadline would be the fall of your third year or last semester. If you missed that, the only way to get a Federal Justice Dept job would be to have a few years under your belt.
What about the Cal AG's office you may ask? Well, they're hiring, apparently, but then again, they want you to pick up the ball and run with it on day 1, so they want experience also. It's like the old cliche - what came first, the chicken or the egg? How do you get a job or experience if no one wants to spend time mentoring/training you?
Law firms? Sure (ly not!), and don't forget the non-traditional route I took to law school along with my swinging GPA. I think I should use some inventive statistics & fine print items in my resume to state some of the facts - you know, like top 25% of the class (and in fine print - only among students with a GPA of 3.0 or below); best law school in the country for the IP program (and in fine print - well, technically among the top ten in the country or something like that & since I didn't take any IP coursework, so this is only an fyi); school finalist for an external Moot Court competition (and in fine print - we were the only team that volunteered for the competition), etc. So that is sure to get me in the door for a law firm interview, albeit in a better economy.
Another strategy, use so much legalese on my resume that I look like a legal genius on paper - so it would read something like; drafted a legal opinion on the right of illegal aliens with an illegal re-entry status in cases involving aggravated assault or felony-murder or something cool and lawyerly like that. Hmm - there's an idea. (Not!)
So, my options? Volunteer! Yay! And the loans and the car payments and the credit card bills - oh, yeah, those... This reminds me of the song - "Where have all the "good jobs" gone and where are all the ..."- yes, I'm ageing myself, but where are the jobs? The great state of California is hiring, but again, being inundated with those with experience, is probably offering jobs to the top 25% of the top 25% (pure speculation on my part). And, probably to those who are willing to accept an IOU instead of pay check, given the state's budget crisis. But with 10-12 paid holidays, plus benefits & retirement, I will take a 55K+ job anyday, even with the 15%-20% pay cut from the three furloughs a month, right off the bat. But, I've yet to hear from them...
So what next - keep trying, I say, and I hope to get a job before mid-end November, before another horde of lawyers pass the bar exam and are ready for work. I figure, I can make an argument sounding like this in an interview: "I am a well qualified professional with 6 years of work experience prior to law school, a graduate degree holder along with a J.D., and I passed the bar on my first attempt where the overall pass rate was 33.5%. I know how to work in an office environment, given my past work experience, I can manage my time efficiently, having had a baby after my second year of law school, and having taken just one extra semester to catch up and I have great interpersonal skills," although this will probably get me no where - so scratch the last one. So, have I made a convincing argument for you to hire me, or do I need more facts, or more reasoning and analyses, or, a better application of law (in this case achievements, I guess) to facts?
Drop me a line and let me know if you are faring any better...
