Layla's Dark and Foreboding Weblog

Why is it that when I do a salary analysis of my field in Dallas, I'm told that the midrange for my experience and skills is about $43,000 per year, yet when I speak to a potential employer, they tell me that is way beyond what they were willing to pay. And then they say things like "I'm really having trouble finding someone with ten years experience, advanced computer skills, the willingness and ability to work over 40 hours a week, amazing client service skills, an uncanny ability to read my mind and to know every move I make before I decide to make it who will take the generous $9.75 an hour I'm willing to pay. I just don't get it."

Hello? Admins and Executive assistants, while you may think they're peons, are actually highly skilled employees. That's why they're not receptionists, gal fridays, secretaries, and office assistants. They (I) have years and years of experience doing this, and doing this well. I can do your job better than you. Really, I can. I just don't want to. We make a great living at this and don't have to deal with the pesky crap that comes along with it, like the travel, the angry spouses, the $80K of student loans, and the whole not seeing your kids grow up thing.

If you want to pay someone $9.75 an hour, your ad should read something like this:

Overbearing, micro-managing employer wishes to engage someone to just sit there and answer phones from 8am until 5pm. You may need to fax or photocopy something at some point. You can turn on a computer, but only to play solitaire. No need to type, or actually transfer one of those calls you took. Smile when people come in to the office. That will be all.

Rather than the ads I'm reading now:

Looking for Superwoman! Someone who can read my mind, open my mail, figure out what I need to do every second of the day! I need to keep my bills in order, figure out what to eat for dinner, and find out why my monthly costs are so high. Can you do a complete cost analysis and reduce my monthly outflow? Of course you can! Can you make me realize what a shit I've been to my wife/husband/lover and make suggestions as to how to keep her/him/them happy? Can you find the best school for my kids, the best housekeeper for my home, the best islands to vacation on? Can you not let any calls get through to me that I don't want to take without me actually telling you who I don't want to speak to? Can I just barely grunt your name, and you can completely decipher from the grunt tone exactly what I need done that day? Can I give you 14 feet of filing and you'll have it sorted, with the needless crap taken out, my taxes for the past three quarters filed and my passport renewed without a word from me? Well, if you can do all of this, you're either my wife, or my assistant. My wife gets a Mercedes, a 6,000 sq. ft. home, and my Amex. You get $9.75 an hour. I'll have sex with neither of you. That's fair, right?

Stupid employers. Here's my current ad on Craigslist. Someone today emailed me to see if I wanted a job hanging lights in his office. Feh.

A few reasons why you should hire me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: anon-49537838@craigslist.org
Date: 2004-11-19, 10:18AM CST

I'm good. Really good. I can type letters, file letters, and write letters that sound like they came straight from your head onto the paper. I run errands, walk dogs, cook food, and drive carefully. I have a proven sales track record (generated 1/3 of the annual revenue for the company I worked for in 2000, before the dot-com bomb).

I know my way around everywhere. Put me in Budapest for a day, and I'll know how to get anywhere. Dallas, no sweat. I love food, and can tell you/your clients where to get the best Indian/Thai/Steaks in the whole DFW Metroplex. I'm eager to help, and can learn almost anything from how to draft an Irrevocable Trust to performing minor surgery at-home (almost).

I'm smart. I know that a lot is two words. I'm funny, witty and clever without being patronizing or condescending. I know the difference between sarcasm and sardonic. I do not, however, hold a degree. I have 3 years of account management experience on top of seven years of administrative experience. I'm well traveled, well read and can hold my own in conversation about most things.

Why, then, if I possess all of these great qualifications do I need to run an ad like this on Craigslist? Well, I just moved here to Dallas this summer. I don't know too many people, so I don't have a lot of contacts yet.

I am currently temping, and would like to get into a more stable situation. I would be open to, but not limited to, the following types of employment:

-Personal Assistant
-Account Executive/Manager
-Executive Assistant
-Office Manager
-Event Coordinator
-Assistant to the Stars
-Chief of Staff at Area Hospital (preferably Pediatrics)*
-Psychic Advisor**
-Lackey***

I'll be happy to send my resume and salary history on to you at your request. Let me know if you think this could be a good fit!

*Please note that I don't actually hold *any* degrees, so this may prove to be illegal in this field. Not having a law degree, I don't really know.

**I have never been certified as a psychic, but I have predicted outcomes of various sporting events (Red Sox world series win not included), Reality TV shows and many personal relationships.

***I'll take the blame.

NO recruiters please.

Posted by layla at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Note: This is a research paper I did. I wanted to put it up today, because on my way to work this morning I found out that Texas won! Granted, we won the #1 spot in the most executions, but hey, any port in a storm, right? Anyway, read on...

Oh, and this is being posted without any works sited or bibliography (merely for space), so if you'd like more info on and facts presented here, please feel free to email me with your questions.

*************************************************
Has Mandatory Sentencing Overwritten Constitutional Justice?
by Layla McCabe

Everyone knows the phrase “Three-strikes and you’re out” in the baseball sense. It is also known in the United States Penal System as a method of mandatory sentencing. Though the definitions of the words “three” “strikes” and “out” vary from state to state, the intent remains the same: repeat offenders will be subjected to harsher penalties than in the past. But has mandatory sentencing given way to unfair justice?

In the United States, 24 states have enacted mandatory sentencing laws under the “Three-Strikes” statute. The general idea behind these laws is that perpetrators of serious offenses should be removed from society after committing a certain number of crimes. While most states with this legislation adhere to a “three-strike” rule, a few need only “two-strikes” and some as many as “four-strikes” to fall under this sentencing guideline.

“Strikeable crimes” vary from state to state. For example, Virginia has a textbook classification of “Three-Strikes”: murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, or conspiracy to commit any of the above will result in mandatory life in prison with no parole eligibility. Not all states share the same statutes, however. In South Carolina, embezzlement and bribery are added to the list – and a “Two-Strike” law on top of it.

Supporters of mandatory sentencing point out that by the mid-1990’s crime dropped in all major cities by at least 10% or more , and in California alone crime has dropped 45% statewide in the 10 years since the law went into effect. Many early supporters of mandatory sentencing legislation, however, have changed their views on the subject. Former Governor of Michigan, William G. Milken, signed into law a bill – the “650-lifer law” – that created the harshest mandatory drug sentencing laws in the United States. The law provided that anyone with over 650 grams of cocaine or heroin – whether it is a first offense or not – shall receive a mandatory life sentence. Milken, governor from 1969-1982, has “…since come to realize that the provisions of the law have led to terrible injustices and that signing it was a mistake – an overly punishing and cruel response that gave no discretion to a sentencing judge, even for extenuating circumstances.” Milken went on to point out that people such as Karen Shook, a mother of three, are serving time in prison merely for being “heavily addicted” making her an “easy mark” for a sting operation. Shook was charged with delivery and conspiracy to deliver cocaine when she introduced undercover officers to her dealer. Both charges carried a mandatory ten-year sentence, to be served consecutively. By the time her trial started, she had already completed a rehab program, assisted police and was so remorseful that even the officers who arrested her urged a lesser sentence. The judge tried to depart below the mandatory sentence, but it was reversed on appeal to the 20-year mandatory minimum. Her children will grow up without her, while residents of Michigan will spend more than a half a million dollars to keep her there.

Sexual assault is considered a “strikeable crime” in almost every state with mandatory sentencing regulations. Studies show that sex offenders are four times more likely to be repeat offenders than any other group, and more than half of those offenders are imprisoned on child molestation charges. In California alone, the “Three-Strikes” law has been reported to have spared Californians about 340,000 crimes per year. But contrary to those numbers, almost 60% of those incarcerated under this law are behind bars for non-violent offenses. California has also seen a significant increase in “strike cases” staying in the court system 41% longer than non-strike cases, with a higher likelihood of the case going to trial, leading to 70% of the jail population being held in “pre-trial” status.

A factor leading many police and other law enforcement officials to denounce the “Three-Strikes” law is the psychological state of the criminal while in the act of committing his or her “last strike”. Criminals are more likely to be incited to act violently while being captured or pursued. Knowing that there is “no way out” makes the criminal lose hope, some even resorting to violence against an officer because he or she has nothing left to lose. Prison officials fear that having no incentive to behave well while in prison leads to higher incidents of prisoner violence against each other and against prison guards. Michael Quinlan, director of the Bureau of Prisons under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush says about mandatory minimums, “The things that matter to other inmates just don’t matter to them. You can’t get them to behave or cooperate because they know they’re not going to get any time off for good behavior, or have to worry about qualifying for parole.”

According to John J. DiIulio, a professor of public affairs and politics at Princeton University, “94% of state prisoners have committed one or more violent crimes or have served a previous sentence in jail or on probation”. At first glance, this statement seems to spell out clearly why we need such mandatory sentencing in the United States. The statement, though, is ambiguous. To say “94% of state prisoners have committed one or more violent crimes” would be reason enough to enact harsher, stronger sentences, however “…or have served a previous sentence in jail or on probation” is an entirely different story all together. Of all California’s “Three-Strikes” convictions as of 1996, 0% were for murder in the first degree, while 18% were for burglaries (the “and you’re out” sentence averaged 33.6 years) and 11.9% were from drug possession (averaging a 27.2 year sentence). Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has said “Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long.” Judge Vincent L. Broderick of the Judicial Conference of the United States has also voiced “the complete and unmitigated opposition of the federal judges of this country to mandatory minimums.”

By the end of 2001, over 5.6 million adults in the United States had served time in either State or Federal prison. At that rate, 6.6% of babies born that year will go to prison at some point in their lifetime. The number of sentenced inmates in 1980 hit 139,000 while in 2002, after almost nationwide enactment of mandatory sentencing laws, the number reached 476,000. In the Federal prison system, nearly 60% of convicts are there for drug offenses. Most of these offenders are what are known as “low-level” offenders, such as mules – literally a drug-carrying vessel - and many have no prior criminal records for violent offenses. These offenders have very little to offer by way of plea bargaining, and receive the maximum sentences, while the “high-level” drug offenders (major traffickers and “kingpins”) generally get a reduction in sentencing, thus beginning the cycle again.

Studies show that under the “Three-Strikes” law, California takes in 1,200 prisoners annually, which means that by the year 2026 there will be about 30,000 inmates serving sentences of 25 years to life. The average age of a “three-striker” is 36 years old, so by 2026, we will also start seeing the effects of having an aging population in prisons, and all of the healthcare costs associated with this.

While drug offenses take up a significant portion of the “Three-Strikes” population, there are other disproportionate punishments that make up the bulk of these cases. For example, Arthur Gibson, a California man, was sentenced to 25 years to life for crack possession in 2000, though his last conviction had been in the 1960’s. In July of 1997, a homeless man from Los Angeles tried to pry open a church kitchen door. He had regularly been fed by a priest there, and went back in hopes of seeing the same priest. He was sentenced to 25 years to life.

The idea of mandatory sentencing became popular in the 1980’s after President Ronald Reagan declared a “War on Drugs”. Many lawmakers jumped on board, only to jump ship a few years later when they were confronted with the facts. In the 1990’s, the fervor started again after an onslaught of violent crime, especially that of the abduction and murder of Polly Klaas. The nation was outraged to find that her murderer had been a repeat offender, let out into society to commit another heinous crime. What the voters didn’t realize was that the “Three-Strikes” law they voted for did not only address violent offenses, but that three of the four qualifying crimes it covered were in fact non-violent. Mark Klaas, the victim’s father, said “In the depth and despair which all Californians shared with my family immediately following Polly’s murder, we blindly supported the initiative in the mistaken belief that it dealt only with violent crimes. Instead, three of the four crimes it addresses are not violent.”

Because so many cities in the United States have seen a trend in crime reduction in the last decade, it would seem natural to thank harsh mandatory sentencing for the decline. The fact is, however, crime was already on a decline in the early 90’s. Mandatory sentencing and the “three-strikes” laws had little, if anything, to do with it. Too many casualties in this war are the innocent, the gullible and the naïve. 74% of strike-enhanced sentences are handed out to minorities and to the poor, showing again how unfairly these punishments are doled out.

With Federal and State judges refusing to hear drug and other non-violent cases in their courts that fall under mandatory sentencing guidelines, it’s no wonder these prisoners and their advocates are calling for sentencing reforms. Leaving the court with no leeway to determine proper punishment in even the most extenuating circumstances makes the judge nothing more than a prop in the courtroom, a presence there to merely lend an air of authority. The mandatory sentence has usurped our constitutional right to mandatory justice.

Posted by layla at 07:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

p.s. i'll find my frog
who took my frog
who found my frog

him name is hopkin green frog

Comments are working again. But, you can still email me instead. New Green Day is great. I have cramps.

Posted by layla at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is for those of you not privy to my early morning e-mail today (most of you didn't get it because my father has this REALLY bad habit of hitting the "reply-all" button, therefore making everyone on the list really uncomfortable with his comments. If you've read any David Sedaris, you'll notice my father and Sedaris' younger brother Paul ("The Rooster") are quite similar in the "uncomfortable comments" arena. If you know my father, you know what I'm talking about).
*******************************************************************************

I'm so angry. Not about Bush winning, because, come on - you knew it was going to happen. You all live in states where you can actually think that the rest of the country wouldn't vote for hate, greed and intolerance. Oh, they do.

Some guy pulled alongside me at a light and said "Yer guy lost! {chuckle chuckle}" and I said "Well, we can't all be ignorant rednecks, now, can we?" And then drove off very, very fast (realizing that M wasn't in the car with me). I should probably take my Kerry sticker off. I can't believe this place. But, on a positive note, Dallas was split 50/50 Kerry/Bush. Amazing.

But Bush winning isn't nearly as bad as the GOP majority that hasn't been in place like this since HOOVER. Anyway, here are some quotes from our illustrious new U.S. Senators:

Jim DeMint, the new senator from South Carolina, said during his campaign that he supported a state G.O.P. platform plank banning gays from teaching in public schools. He explained, "I would have given the same answer when asked if a single woman who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend should be hired to teach my third-grade children."

Tom Coburn, the new senator from Oklahoma, has advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions and warned that "the gay agenda" would undermine the country. He also characterized his race as a choice between "good and evil" and said he had heard there was "rampant lesbianism" in Oklahoma schools.

John Thune, who toppled Tom Daschle, is an anti-abortion Christian conservative - or "servant leader," as he was hailed in a campaign ad - who supports constitutional amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage.

Why is it when I bitch that this country sucks at present time, people say "Well why don't you leave then?" Um, duh! This is MY country, assface! Did you leave during all those years Clinton was pissing you off? No. If you did, then we wouldn't be in this mess, now would we? Come together in unity my eye. Fuck unity, fuck Bush, fuck Ashcroft and fuck all of you fucking imbeciles who thought enough of that fucking schmuck to have us led into insecurity for another four more years. "Oh, I don't like Bush, but I really didn't think much of Kerry..." What? You're joking right? This isn't the lesser of two evils here: it's the support of complete and TOTAL EVIL! Are you all fucking idiots?

Good god. This place fucking SUCKS! And you know what, I do want to leave! But do you know how expensive emigration is? Because I've had to take a lesser paying job because of that FUCKING IDIOT I can't afford to run away. Stupid jackasses.

Posted by layla at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)