We are our own enemy in NJ

I have met the enemy and he is us. The governor successfully has the population fighting with state workers and teachers, who don’t make much more than the average resident and whose benefits are only slightly better, in lieu of us questioning how much money is being spent on all the duplicate administrative expenses in all levels of government across the state. And that doesn’t even include the additional funds the governor has added to his staff’s payroll. In the governor's world, it is ok for us to hate on the teacher who makes $45,000 for wanting a raise of 4%, which I agree that in this economy where many equally educated persons received a much smaller raise, if any, seems high, but it is ok for a position on his staff, already making twice as much as the teacher, to get a 10-20% raise over last year.

I hate hypocrites but we the People are the ones with the messed up priorities. We care more about lowering investments in our future by reducing education spending then care about extra money wasted on administrative expenses (and for those who say talent to work in the government’s office requires money, well, good news — it is a buyer’s market; there are plenty of very highly educated people under or unemployed right now).

Why not rally against all those wasteful politically connected positions? In this connected world, where we are all wired and, more importantly, dependent on state funding, home rule is less important. I’d rather pay for teachers or police then pay for the friend of a friend’s daughter to have a $60,000 administrative job at the municipal building where she spends the majority of her time talking to co-workers in other offices because she doesn’t have enough work to fill her days.

However, since tearing each other apart seems to be what gets attention, I guess I'll follow the rest of the sheeple. Our great-grandparents made sacrifices for our grandparents and our grandparents made sacrifices for our parents. However when it was our parents generation's turn (roughly the baby boomers) they demanded tax cuts that have destroyed investments in our country's future, leaving roads, schools and our general infrastructure in dire shape as we attempt to compete in the global 21st century knowledge based economy with a 1950s mentality all so they could enjoy a leisurely retirement when they are done raping the economy. In the meantime, I am waiting for the funding for my town's senior citizen center to come up for a vote. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

How was that? Did I sound angry enough? Did I correctly unfairly blame an entire population for the view who drank our Machiavellian governor's kool aide by blaming teachers and not the official corruption we allow? Oh, darn, there I go again -- calling the governor names in lieu of laying out the facts as to why I believe we have erred in taking out our anger over excessive spending on those who actually do the work while those who make the decisions get ever richer on our tax payer money. But I must admit, it is much easier, and more fun, to just throw statements out there.

The "right" activist judge

The computer ink on Supreme Court Justice Steven's retirement letter is barely dry and already Senate Republicans are lecturing President Obama that activist judges are not qualified to serve. To them I reply, my dear Senators -- Why don't you say what you really mean: "an activist judge, who would substitute their own views for what the law requires, unless it is consistent with the conservative view, is not qualified to serve on the federal bench."

Of course then you would have to eliminate the last two Republican appointees, as they overturned decades of law to fit their opinion in Citizens United (the elections and corporate spending case) when the issue at hand could have been decided much more narrowly. Instead the newest justices showed that they are the very definition of activist judges. If the Senators had truly believed that activist judges were wrong they would have blasted the Citizens United decision and complained how they were duped by the two recent judges who misled Congress during their confirmation hearings. Yet, a search of your views on the matter found nothing from you condemning the decision, aside from calling the President rude (which I don't disagree with) for calling out the Supremes during the State of the Union regarding this bit of activist judicial decision making.

I hate hypocrites and you Senators are not doing anything to show me otherwise. Nominating a Supreme Court justice is not just another political fight, it is something that will have unknown repercussions long after most of today's "leaders" are out of power. Fortunately for you and your allies, the mainstream media won't call you on this and, aside from what I am sure will be some responses below in the comments, no one else will either. As to President Obama, I hope he goes out and finds the biggest, qualified, activist liberal to place in Justice Stevens place to battle the conservative activists you have favored in the past.

New Jersey's Machiavellian Governor

He has spent all his time attacking teachers and lower level state workers, many of whom are not that well paid and are our friends, neighbors, family or ourselves. In the meantime he has not done a thing, at least publicly, to tackle the real corruption and waste brought about by patronage jobs nor spoke of eliminating high level, six figure positions in state government. Even the majority of the 1,300 out of 63,500 executive branch level jobs he is cutting appear to be lower level employees directly involved in providing services to citizens. And people wonder why NJ Governor Chris Christie has declining popularity poll numbers? Ha.

This reminds me of upper management in a friend's company. When they announced wage freezes last year for all employees, somebody asked if that included bonuses, which only higher level management received. After some hemming and hawing they admitted the freeze did not include bonuses. As soon as they showed that we were not really all in this financial mess together, people started leaving the meeting (higher ups were in a separate location anyway).

While I agree that state spending needs to be cut, and generally support the cuts, the Governor has not shown we are all in this together. When the Governor stops picking on people who actually work for a living, providing services that citizens actually use, and starts emptying cubes and offices in state and county offices across the state of patronage jobs, he will have my full support. Until then I just see another Machiavellian who is having us, the mice, fight over the crumbs, because some of us have bigger crumbs, while the high level politically appointed fat cats keep their tax payer funded cheese.

The cost of a lawyer

I just read an article in the NY Times concerning revising the pay for associates at law firms. However, it was the comments from the readers that most interested me, particularly one from "Mary" who is suffering severe lawyer envy. First she wondered why a law degree, with just one more year of school then a masters, is worth so more. She ignores that not all graduate programs are equal and I doubt she would have plied the same standards toward a medical degree, for instance. Having both a masters and a JD, both attained while working full time, I can assure you that the JD is not just one more year of education. I practically did my masters in my sleep, maintaining a near perfect average. Law school was a lot more work, requiring many late nights and weekends in the library with a GPA that was nowhere near perfect.

She also whined about lack of intense training or specialization, stating one need to pass a general bar exam. Only pass a general bar exam? Don't even get me started on the Bar exam, which basically required 8 weeks of non-stop study, aside from meals and work (I worked the first several weeks). I dare her to try it.

As to the additional training or specialization, perhaps shecould consider a first year lawyer akin to an intern at a teaching hospital -- learning on the job things you could not learn in class. Specialization usually comes after practicing starts. Some of that is through on the job training as attorneys begin work in their fields, some is done through continuing legal education, which most states, including New York, mandate. Lawyers can get certified in their new, post-law school specialties (which includes taking exams again) though that is not uniform across the country. A simple Google search would have told her that there are specialized bar exams such as the patent one.

I'm not defending the current law school model or the big law model, particularly as one who has never made a fortune in law. I think the law schools do a tremendous disservice by suggesting that students can become rich in law when they should be telling prospective students that if they do not have an interest in law, they should seek their fortune elsewhere.

Fees and salaries are only as high as the market will bear. If you want the best lawyers, you are going to have to pay for them. However, I think most of us would admit we are not the best, at least at the start of our legal careers. And the media could go a long way by not emphasizing what a few people just out of law school will make and concentrate what the majority of newly minted lawyers will make.