POP & POLITICS

Major changes in the fourth branch of government?

Major changes are on the way for the Department of Homeland Security.  The administration isn't stopping there; these new proposals, which would run the government more like a private business, are being considered for the entire federal bureaucracy. 

Per the Washington Post:

The new system will replace the half-century-old General Schedule, with its familiar 15 pay grades and raises based on time in a job, and install a system that more directly bases pay on occupation and annual performance evaluations, officials said. The new system has taken two years to develop and will require at least four more to implement, they said.

Under the new plan, employees will be grouped into eight to 12 clusters based on occupation. Salary ranges will be based, in part, on geographic location and annual market surveys by a new compensation committee of what similar employees earn in the private sector and other government entities. Within each occupational cluster, workers will be assigned to one of four salary ranges, or "pay bands," based on their skill level and experience.

"We really have created a system that rewards performance, not longevity," OPM Director Kay Coles James said in a briefing for reporters. "It can truly serve as a model for the rest of the federal government."

No employees will lose their jobs or see a reduction in pay during the transition to the new system, officials said. About 10,000 employees, including those at DHS headquarters and at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, will switch over to the new evaluation system this fall, but will not see their first raises -- or lack of them -- until January 2006.

An additional 12,000 DHS workers, including non-uniformed members of the Secret Service and civilian employees of the Coast Guard, will switch to the system in January 2007, receiving their first pay adjustments in January 2008. The rest of the affected DHS workers will make the switch in 2008 and begin receiving raises in January 2009.

A politician who stands for something

The Governor of New Jersey is in hot water over something he said to a local shock jock. 

Codey said he was upset about remarks in Carton's Monday afternoon "Jersey Guys" show.

According to a partial transcript the governor's office told the newspaper it got from a "trusted source," Carton said: "What Gov. Codey ought to do is approve the use of medical marijuana so women can have a joint and relax instead of putting their babies in a microwave. Then all they want to do is cook Doritos. Women who claim they suffer from this postpartum depression ... they must be crazy in the first place."

Citing station policy, program director Eric Johnson declined to release a tape of Carton's show and said he saw nothing wrong with his comments.

Turns out that Governor Codey knows a thing or two about postpartum depression; his wife suffered from it.  So what does Codey do about it?

According to an account in The Star-Ledger of Newark, Codey confronted radio host Craig Carton on Tuesday in a hallway at the Ewing Township studios of NJ 101.5.

"I wish I weren't governor, I'd take you out," Codey said off-air, according to a Star-Ledger reporter who witnessed the confrontation.

Carton responded: "That's real professional. You want to fight?"

From the anonymity of radio, Carton attacks women who are suffering from a horrible disease.  When a real man calls him on it, he hides behind "professionalism."  Carton, you make cheap jokes about sick women on a show called "Jersey Guys."  Just what level of "professionalism" are you entitled to? 

Why are people upset with the governor?  Isn't it great to have a politician that stands for something?  I for one am glad.  Good for Governor Codey. 

NOTE:  What would Jim McGreevey have done? 

Meet the anti-Hillary

The Democratic Primary in 2008 will likely come down to two people; Hillary Clinton, and the anti-Hillary.  I've been speculating that the anti-Hillary will be a moderate Democrat from a Red State, someone like Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, or Senator (and former governor) Evan Bayh of Indiana.  With her recent speechs on God, and on values, I've been wondering if Hillary Clinton can be the anti-Hillary in 2008.  Now comes her speech about abortion on the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  Can she really neutralize the most polarzing issue in American politics?

Per the New York Times:

In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.

"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate - we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.

There will always be people that she can not win over. 

"I think she's trying to adopt a values-oriented language, but it lacks substance, at least if you compare it to her record," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington. "If you look at Senator Clinton's voting record on this issue, it's like Planned Parenthood's condoms - it's defective."

This made me laugh

When people offer free advice, it's usually worth every penny.  When people offer advice they're not qualified to give, it's annoying.  When people offer advice that they're obviously not qualified to give, it actually becomes funny. 

Good news for Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor to the President of the United States and Secretary of State designate!  Paul C. Light, Professor at NYU and a fellow at the Brookings Institution is going to get you through this nettlesome Senate confirmation process.  Per the Sun-Times: 

The delay probably says something about Rice's sometimes indignant responses to tough questions during two days of confirmation hearings last week, and something about the hair-trigger atmosphere in the highly polarized Congress, said Paul C. Light, a New York University professor and fellow at the Brookings Institution.

''My advice to her is, 'Chill out, and don't take it personally,''' Light said. ''She needs to get used to the prying eyes of Congress.''

Got that Condi?  Chill out.  Now I know why you left academia.  And don't take it personally.  You've got to get used to being in the spotlight, says the guy who had to beg for a quote in the article. 

It's been four years....time for an 'I told you so?'

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that a 1977 panel predicted a September 11th style attack.  The Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism met only once. 

Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.

Global warming hits the red states

And the news makes headlines around the world.  From the Mail & Guardian (U.K.). 

The north-eastern United States was emerging on Monday from a snowstorm, ranked among the five worst in the past century, that was linked to at least 18 deaths across eight states.

The storm, which started in the Midwest on Friday, dumped 30cm of snow in Detroit, 35cm in New York City, and close to a metre in some parts of the state of Massachusetts.

Signatures

I'm starting a new category on email/message board signatures.  Please send any funny ones that you have used or have seen.  Here is one that I saw today that inspired this category. 

Right now, somebody is probably making the mistake of his life. 

If he were still alive, would he still be bitter?

Is it possible to have the best luck and the worst luck at the same time?  In 1990, the Arizona Court of Appeals decided Lynch v. Lynch 791 P.2d 653.  Arizona is a community property state, meaning that all property acquired by either spouse during marriage is divided evenly in a divorce, subject to a few exceptions. 

Michael and Bonnie Lynch were married in 1968.  They seperated in 1985, and he began living with another woman.  She filed for divorce in 1987, and her petition was uncontested.  Bonnie arrived at court for a hearing to finalize her divorce (these usually take 30 seconds or less) on February 10th.  Her divorce was not granted; even though there was nothing to dispute, her lawyer made a mistake in serving notice on Michael (In light of what happened next, I have to believe that she did not pursue any malpractice claims against him).  The original notice said that the hearing was on Feb. 9th.  Realizing his mistake, the lawyer sent a new notice, accurately listing the hearing date as Feb. 10th.  The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure require three days advance notice for a default hearing, excluding the date of service, weekends, and holidays.  Michael was served on Feb. 4th.  It just so happened that Feb. 9th was a holiday.  It is not clear that the husband challenged the notice, although it would make this story infinitely more ironic and amusing if he had.  Had the lawyer done it right the first time, realized his mistake earlier, or if that Monday had not been a holiday, this would have been just another divorce.  The court could not reschedule a hearing until Feb. 24th. 

On Feb. 21st, Michael won 2.2 million dollars in the Arizona lottery.  The law defines community property as all that received during the marriage.  The trial court awarded Bonnie half of the lottery winnings.  Here is what the Court of Appeals said:

This case displays the hand of chance. Fortune favored husband with a jackpot, but, because his marriage had not ended, fortune dealt his wife a share. Though the lottery was a windfall, spouses marry for better or for worse and share no less in windfalls than in labor's wages. Husband claims that his marriage ended equitably, though not formally, before the winning ticket was acquired. We have given our reasons for rejecting his arguments. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Michael died while the case was on appeal, probably still a very bitter man. 

The real Confrontation Clause

I'm watching Court TV, a murder trial in Massachusettes, away from the  Boston metro area.  The most interesting thing to watch is the courtroom procedure, which still borrows heavily from Great Britain.  Instead of a witness box, the person testifying stands at something like a podium (yes, throughout their entire examination...the cops in the Peterson case were so lazy, the guy would have walked).  What you can see on television is the attorneys standing face to face with the witness, squaring off, stand feet apart from each other.  Now I know why we have a Confontation Clause, and not a Cross Examination Clause. 

Note: The defendant is accused of murdering a college student after a party.  The judge excluded a prior conviction for child rape 18 years ago.  Frighteningly, 92% of Court TV watchers thought it should have come in. 

***

I got my hair cut today...far be it from me to make fun of others' math skills (if I could do even long division, I might not have gone to law school).  The woman cutting my hair asked me how long I went to school to become a lawyer.  I told her that after 4 years of college, I went to law school for 2 and 1/2 years.  She said, "Wow, that's almost 8 years!"

Two people with no math skills; one chose law, the other cosmetology. 

Problems with the Iraq vote?

We've all heard about the problems with the upcoming vote in Iraq.  Widespread violence and threats of violence have led the government to take extreme measures, close off borders, and impose extended curfews. 

The Sun-Times reported today that 100 Iraqis living in America were voting in Chicago.  I couldn't help but wonder, where will there be more fraud, more election problems, more irregularities?  Falluja, or the Windy City? 

With all the negative coverage on all things Iraq, this article gives good reasons to be optimistic. 

They started arriving at 9 a.m. Monday after overnight drives from Nebraska and South Dakota.

"Never in my dreams would we get a vote," said Abdullah Al-Maleki, 32, of Lincoln, Neb. He and nearly 100 other Iraqi refugees made the long drive overnight to be in Chicago on Monday morning to register to vote in the first Iraqi elections of their lifetimes.

For those who always opposed the war, and for those who are second guessing themselves for supporting the war, here are some things to consider:

Every voter interviewed Monday -- from Shiite Muslims from Basra in southern Iraq who will vote for the Shiite parties, to Assyrian Christians from Mosul in northern Iraq who said they will be voting for the Assyrian parties -- said they supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam. All who are now U.S. citizens said they voted for President Bush.

"This was the best thing the United States did in the Middle East," said Ali Al-Saeedi, 43, of Nebraska. "Everything bad in Iraq was Saddam Hussein. If the people in the United States lived in Iraq for just one day, they would see."

"We know the Bushes," Al-Maleki said. "He delivered for the Iraqis. He helped us."

Al-Maleki said when he was drafted, he saw Saddam's soldiers kill a newborn baby boy whose Shiite father they were punishing for resisting the draft.

"The baby had just been born and they said, 'You look like your daddy.' They threw him against the wall. They killed the baby," Al-Maleki said.